Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks for that. I was not suggesting that. I totally accept that we need our front line.

Moira Price, to follow on, does coercive behaviour tend to go along with physical abuse? Are there any patterns, or is it a stand-alone crime? I am trying to visualise that behaviour in the context of what Sam Faulds said. Obviously, it can be a stand-alone crime. That is the point of the act. Coercive behaviour can be a course of conduct over a long period. It is not physical abuse but mental abuse.

It is just my perception, but I would not have thought that someone would lift the phone and say, “I think that there’s been a crime of coercive control against me.” I am trying to visualise how coercive behaviour would be captured. Does it tend to coincide with physical abuse? If you could help me on that, that would be helpful.

Do they simply report it like any other crime?

Yes—I thought that that was what you had said. I am trying to work it out. Where there is no violence, how can you possibly pick up cases of coercive control? You have mentioned that there have been a couple of cases already, and that the judgment has endorsed the Crown’s approach, which is good. How would those be picked up, if there is no physical abuse? I am really struggling to see how they would get into the system.

Good afternoon. I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far—I have found it helpful, in particular Moira Price’s responses to Katy Clark‘s question on coercive behaviour. I want to get Sam Fauld’s view on it as well, so I put my question, which follows on from that, to her.

We heard in evidence from the previous panel that it tends to be tier 1 officers rather than more specialist officers who are trained to identify abuse who respond to domestic violence abuse cases, because the tier 1 officers are on the front line.

I am particularly interested in the coercive behaviour side of things. By the very nature of that crime, I imagine that it is always going to be difficult to identify it or to provide evidence on such a course of conduct. Do you have anything to offer the committee on how coercive behaviour can be better identified on the front line?

To be honest, from what you have illustrated, I do not see how things will change. Is there no one else to call when a person is identified as being in acute mental health distress? In circumstances in which the powers under section 297 would be used, who else would be contacted?

What service should people be referred to?

Good morning, Professor McKay. You have been involved in excellent work, so thank you very much for that. My questions follow on from the questions that the convener and Jamie Greene asked, because I am having difficulty visualising what the system might look like—forgive me for returning to a subject that we have covered.

As Jamie Greene said, we have heard from those in the police service that they work 24/7 and have a responsibility to keep people safe, so they have a duty to come out when they are called. Realistically, how is that going to change? Who would take the place of the police in a different system, and where would people be taken to if they were not taken to A and E?

I have been in forensic units, so I am familiar with those, and I used to represent mental health nurses, so I have a bit of knowledge about that. I am thinking about whether we have the places; we might have shut down too many places when we did the big reforms in the early 1990s. I am trying to visualise what the change will look like.

If mental health nurses took over, would they need to change their working patterns and be given new restraint powers? The circumstances might be difficult, and the police are called because they have those powers. Clearly, we want to avoid taking people to A and E. Anything that you can say to help me to visualise what will happen would be useful.

I welcome the fact that the letter sets out the situation quite clearly. From my reading of it, the implementation issues seem to be to do with the financial context, but it would be good to get clarification on that.

I welcome the fact that firework control zones “will commence”. For me, the test is whether they, and the offence, will be used by local authorities. That is what I am interested in.

I had concerns about the licensing scheme anyway, so I am not at all concerned about that delay. We had also raised concerns about the costs. I would not be happy if those powers were used without our having some indication of the cost of the scheme.

I am actually quite supportive of the letter’s content. It is an interesting lesson for people who are observing the legislative process. We think that we have passed all the laws, but we have not—what matters is when the statutory powers are drawn down in each section of the act. The letter clearly sets that out.

Surely, the only way that the situation can change is if there is an alternative to calling 101 or 999, so that people can call someone else. Otherwise, it will always fall back on the police. I cannot see how that could possibly change.

The only way that that can change is if the police take the initial call and then hand the case over to someone else.