Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have spoken to Shakti informally many times and have heard that. My bill is there for serious offenders, not for someone who retaliates. That is why we set such a high threshold.

I will bring in Charlie Pound to talk about the technical stuff.

I have spent almost three and a half years on the bill. There is extensive information out there, including from survivors that I have managed to speak to. I totally understand and respect the committee. I also sit on a committee and I understand that timetables are tight, so I am in no way saying that the committee has done anything wrong. What I am saying is that there is extensive information out there and I do not believe that two evidence sessions can be enough.

I will give you an example regarding the organisations that wrote to the committee. Around 19 organisations have expressed concerns and are against certain parts of the bill, including three women’s aid organisations. There are then some 24 organisations that are in favour of my proposed domestic abuse register, subject to some conditions and amendments that they would like to see, and six women’s aid organisations that support it.

A vast number of people have provided evidence to the committee, but we have had only two evidence sessions, in addition to my three informal consultations and the initial consultation. Some people think the bill is good and some that it is bad, but some have a lot to add to the bill and amendments to suggest. So, yes, I do not believe that two weeks is enough.

I said that there will be some overcosting and undercosting. I make it clear to the member: we can only go on the information that is provided to us. The information was as stated at the time from the Scottish Government, and that is what we clarified. If something else is said somewhere else, we will have to look at that to see whether the Scottish Government was wrong or right.

Yes—absolutely. I have been speaking to the police through my informal consultations. In my questions at the committee meeting that the police attended—I think that it was on 17 December—I mentioned that I had already spoken to the police. I had a meeting with the officer who was in for the committee meeting as well as another officer—a higher-ranked officer, I think. I have to be honest that, on that call, which was the first time that we held an informal consultation meeting, the police were a bit sceptical. They asked me a lot of questions and they wanted a lot of changes to the bill, which I listened to.

After we had that call in the summer holidays, I was shocked in December to note people coming into Parliament and saying something else. On the call, it was said to me—I have the exact wording—that my bill would be “groundbreaking” in putting something like this in place, because it has never happened in Scotland, in the whole United Kingdom or even outside the UK. It would be an absolute first for Scotland. On the call, they also said that they would be interested in the register including information about things such as relationships and where a perpetrator works. In addition, Dr Marsha Scott of Scottish Women’s Aid said to me that it would be great to find out where perpetrators work so that, when people go to women’s aid organisations, especially victims/survivors, everyone would know that that was covered.

You are absolutely right that the police need a lot more intelligence. The police made that clear to me in an informal meeting, and they said that they would welcome such information because it would help them to be faster in their investigations. Right now, they have to go from address to address because they do not have up-to-date data.

Yes. I think that I have already covered such stats. I found, from speaking to many organisations and especially to individuals, that they felt that the bill would have a deterrent effect and that the person might not reoffend. They felt that, had the proposed legislation been in place, certain things would not have happened.

I hope that Jamie Hepburn heard me when I said that the most recent stats show that 10.6 per cent of sexual offenders go on to reoffend, as opposed to 27.1 per cent of all offenders. The statistics clearly show that people who commit sexual offences are less likely to reoffend, whereas people are more likely to do so when the crimes relate to domestic abuse. With the sex offenders register, things have changed, and the bill mirrors a lot of the sex offenders register. We cannot say that the amount of money that has been spent on the sex offenders register is not working.

I am not saying that they are wrong or that they are right. I make it clear that, with my bill, I am proposing a brand-new system, so there is a lack of data. The sex offenders register, which I am mirroring, is working.

I believe that Police Scotland and the COPFS should give what I am proposing a chance. When we look at what is happening at the moment, we see that many of the measures that have been put in place, including through bills that we have passed, whether they were Government bills or members’ bills, are first-time measures. I think that my proposed system should be given a chance. I have proved through stats how it could work. I mentioned the South Carolina model earlier, and I ask Charlie Pound to provide some information on that.

That is fine; it is your job.

Yes, the monitoring and the register would do that. Earlier, we spoke about the deterrent effect. I think that the register would provide a deterrent. Obviously, I will not go over—

Yes. When you talk about risk, I know that risk has been mentioned a lot, and I absolutely agree that there would have to be a risk assessment in place somewhere. Currently, some risk assessments are already done for sex offenders, so I would not take out that requirement. I do not know the full position.

Absolutely, convener. It is important that, in light of the evidence-taking sessions that the committee has had, it is open to us to consider where the bill can be amended. That is why bills go through stages 1, 2 and 3 in the Parliament.

I know that there are processes in place—we are all aware of the sex offenders register, for example—but I am merely seeking to complement the system that is already in place and to work with MAPPA. Ninety-five per cent of sex offenders might be on that register at the moment but, from the data, it is not very clear how many of those offenders are also domestic abusers.

I think that my system—