Chamber and committees

Theoretically, then, it could cover, say, shoplifting.

Thank you. You all think that the law is clear.

Michele Burman made an important point about who goes out to visit when a crime is reported. Amanda Masson, at what stage in the process would you start to gather the relevant information to show that there was coercive behaviour? Is it maybe more practical that the initial report is done by the police, with someone then needing to look at it? I imagine that you need to gather evidence or you will fail in court. At the end of the day, the accused will not be convicted unless the crime can be proved, which requires substantial evidence. Where in the process does it make sense to gather the relevant evidence on, for example, the victim feeling fear and alarm over a long time and not being free to make decisions in the relationship? I presume that that is what you are looking for. All those things need to be proved.

Where in the process would it make sense for someone to gather that information for the court?

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.

Would that be quite a radical change to make? I do not know enough to know whether it would be.

Do you feel optimistic? Given what I have heard, I am not that optimistic that things will change. We have heard evidence that the police are the first responders for everything, including this. For that to change, there has to be a structural change in service. Otherwise, I do not see how things will change.

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.

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?