Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are happy to amend the bill to ensure that victims are not asked the same questions about the same incidents. Multiple agencies are included in that part of the bill so that as much data as possible can be captured. However, we obviously want to avoid any duplication of questioning.

I hope that, when a victim goes into a police station to report a crime, that information is passed down through the whole system right to the court, and that the approach changes only if the circumstances or something else change. I hope that our systems speak to one another right through the process. A victim should never have to go through so much questioning.

I will bring in Roz Thomson, but I will start by repeating what Charlie Pound has just said—we were playing with the statistics and figures that we had to hand. Unfortunately, what we got from the Scottish Government and other agencies is all that we had to play with.

The data from the Government was not even clear on how many domestic abuse offenders were on the sex offenders register. I absolutely agree that there might be some underestimates and some overestimates, but I can only work with the information that I have.

Roz Thomson will come in on some of the technical details.

We will have to look at it, because our information came from the Scottish Government. One would assume that the Scottish Government’s information at that time was correct, but we will also have to look at what the committee has said and see who is right, whether the Scottish Government is wrong or—

I highlight the fact that the register that is proposed in my bill represents a very proactive approach. At the moment, we have the disclosure scheme and other elements, which, as I have said, my bill would complement and work with. Everything is about the poor survivor or the person out there who needs to know whether the person who they are with or are dating is a perpetrator or has been convicted. The onus is always on victims and survivors—we have heard that from them.

The register represents a more proactive approach because, if the bill is passed, the police will sit with a lot more information than they have today, including accurate data on the person’s name and address and where they are currently living. Lots of people are talking about possible amendments to add information on where perpetrators work and what relationships they are in. Such information is very important. Right now, the police do not have accurate, up-to-date data, even on serious offenders—I have heard that directly from police officers and people who have worked for the police. They say that it is sometimes hard to find perpetrators when they go out looking for them. The police might go to five or six different addresses because they do not have an accurate address. My bill would make it an offence if an offender did not provide up-to-date data and information about any changed circumstances. It is so important that the police and the agencies have such information to hand. In that way, the bill represents a very proactive approach.

At the moment, we are saying is that it is fine but, obviously, other things are coming out.

I am proposing a brand-new domestic abuse register. As I said, I have backed up my position with enough stats from research that has been done in other places.

The primary purpose of the register would be to keep victims and survivors safe and to ensure that the notification scheme is in place so that we know who the serious offenders are. Right now, we do not even have the data to see who is covered and who is not monitored or covered. The purpose is to do everything possible to ensure that serious offenders and repeat offenders are monitored so that we know what they are doing and so that police authorities can notify victims and survivors if someone is at risk.

Let me finish, please. On where the budget will come from, many things are already happening. For example, equally safe is already happening. Apparently, it is going to be rolled out everywhere. Rehabilitation is going to be rolled out. A lot of that work will be complementary. The register will have costs but it is up to the Government where that money comes from.

I do not have the balance sheet. You ask me what I would do if I were in Government, but I cannot pretend that I would be in Government, because you—

I will pass the technical side of the under-16 partner stuff to Charlie Pound, but I will cover the other area that you have mentioned.

I have looked into this area, and we need to improve services and everything that you have been speaking about. At this moment, we are not collecting data on disability or ethnicity, for example. Coming from an Asian background myself, and having spoken to representatives of Shakti, Amina, Sikh Sanjog and many other organisations, I can say that one size of service does not fit all, as we have heard many times in the Parliament. Dealing with a domestic abuser or a victim from an Asian background will be very different from dealing with one from a western background. It involves dealing not just with the abuser but with the family and the community, and that has a much wider effect for the person concerned.

We need to understand that, if, say, 100 people from ethnic backgrounds are coming through—whatever their backgrounds are—and they are facing issues, we need to have the right services in place. However, it is not just a question of the right services and organisations dealing with such cases. We must ensure that when the police collect that data they are fully aware of how to treat this sensitive issue and that they know what they are dealing with.

In relation to data on disability, in the early days of my work on the bill a victim reached out to me to say that she had called the police on a perpetrator, who was her husband. Because she had slurred speech the police thought that she was drunk and put her in a room while they spoke only to the perpetrator. It is so important that we have the right services and that they deliver for the right people.

I find it shocking that, to this day, we are still not collecting data on protected characteristics when we collect that information for so many other reasons. Organisations and charities—which the committee is more than welcome to write to—are all collecting that data already. They told me that. I have made collecting data voluntary in the bill, so there would be no onus on charities to do too much, but I feel that if they collect it they will also provide it.

As you said, I have made it quite clear that, for charities, it is voluntary. We are not telling charities, which have less funding and fewer resources, to come out with that information. I cannot reiterate strongly enough how much great work the charity organisations are doing out there. They are collecting all that data already—they have to collect it so that they can provide it to the Government and other funding agencies in order to prove to them that there is a problem or an issue that they need more help with. In proving that, they have to take a bottom-up approach to providing information, but there is no mandatory approach.

You are saying that there will be more work for officials—for example, in the police—in collecting that data. I do not know their exact workings, but I would assume that, when the police put such information on their database, it would not be very onerous or costly for them if we asked questions at that point, given that they already have a database. As an ex-trading standards officer who worked with software and systems, I know that tabs can be added on.

That information, when it is collated together, delivered and published, will make a difference, because that is when we will see where funding should go, what should be happening and where the gaps are. We will also be able to look at the difference between what the Government or police are recording and what organisations are recording. A lot of victims do not go to the police and instead go to an organisation. Data collection will help in a number of areas. I do not believe for a minute that collecting that data would be overly bureaucratic or that there would be a great need for resources. I think that we could fit that work into the current systems very easily; indeed, we should be doing that already.