Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, but I was giving evidence on where things are working and where they are not. I have been sitting here for more than 50 minutes, and I have been grilled on quite a lot of the questions—which is absolutely right; I should be scrutinised. When I say that we should give the bill a chance, I mean that I think that that must considered along with all the information that I have provided.

I do not believe for one minute—I also answered this earlier on—that part 1 of my bill would duplicate anything. It would complement the systems that are already in place. It would also ensure that people would not fall through the gaps and that we would not just sit there, assuming that those people had been monitored in some way or other. My bill would have concrete provisions to ensure that those people would be monitored.

I mentioned earlier that my proposed bill was published more than three years ago. The Scottish Government was fully aware that I was working on the data stuff as part of it. During those three years, things have moved on, but the Government still has not published the type of information that was set out in my original proposal, nor has it done anything about it. Victims and charities want action now. The bill would achieve that rather than us having to wait for the Scottish Government to keep a promise that it made more than three years ago. Such simple information could make a massive difference, so it is important that we put it in statute now and we do not have to wait to see what the Government will or will not do.

The Government’s work would complement the bill. At least, I hope that it would—I have no idea what the Government is doing, because the information is not in the public domain. However, we cannot wait—as we have done for more than three years now—for such important data. People with disabilities and those from ethnic backgrounds want the information, help and services today.

I will come back to that, Ms Clark, but if it would be helpful I can certainly email the committee with information about some of the good programmes that are going on in East Dunbartonshire and those that involve other organisations, which you asked about earlier.

In the definition of domestic offenders, we have used the same offences that are contained in the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023. I do not see how there is any inconsistency there.

For offenders who are convicted of those offences, we decided on thresholds in the bill and, after consulting with various stakeholders, I decided that it would be best to target resources to the most serious and repeat domestic abuse offenders. That approach was suggested by the Law Society of Scotland in response to my initial consultation, but I would be happy to amend any thresholds in response to evidence received by the committee and what the committee feels is right.

I will pass to Ailidh Callander to give you the technical side of things.

I repeat that I do not accept that. I am going to be honest here, Mr Kerr. Let us look at the sex offenders register. Do you think that perpetrators want to be on it? Do you not think that perpetrators are angry about it? We cannot shy away from it because of that. I am not sure who it was—I think that it was Agnes Tolmie—but somebody mentioned in evidence that we cannot shy away from the register because perpetrators feel that they should not be on it and should not be tracked or monitored. This is not about the perpetrators; it is about the victims.

You are right to ask whether there is any evidence that perpetrators will retaliate and I believe that we should look at the sex offenders register. People are already on that register and there are already things happening there. I do not believe for a minute that we on this committee or that I as a member of the Parliament should shy away from our responsibilities to say that those people need to be punished, because women are being subjected to absolutely horrendous crimes.

I will ask Charlie Pound if he has anything to add, but I do not accept your point.

As I have said, Ms McNeill, I am not dismissing what is happening in our schools—it is a big issue. However, it is important that we look at domestic abuse, which is what my bill is identifying. That is not to say that it cannot be amended. A proactive approach is important, because those children can sometimes go on to be domestic abusers, but we also need a reactive approach, because things are happening now and we need to consider what can we do about them.

As I have said, it is not for me to prescribe what the education programme will look like. It is for me to say that this system and statute should be in place, and that education should be provided to every child in every school and should not be dependent on the local authority or on a postcode lottery.

As you know, not all domestic abuse offenders are being monitored under MAPPA. The minister could not provide an answer on how many of them are when I put it to her on 17 December. Indeed, the Scottish Government admitted that 95 per cent of those who are monitored by MAPPA are sex offenders.

With regard to the processes that already exist in Scotland, such as MAPPA, MATAC and MARAC, my bill will simply extend who is monitored to include domestic abuse offenders, so that, in that respect, they are managed in the same way as sex offenders are managed. My bill’s intention is not to override the work that is already being done with the systems that are in place; it is to complement that work.

In Scotland, MAPPA currently manages the risk that is posed by sex offenders and certain violent offenders, as those offenders are considered to be more of a risk to the public than others are. My bill simply adds domestic abuse offenders who are subject to the notification requirements to the list of offenders managed under MAPPA.

I accept that some of the offenders who my bill targets will already be covered by MAPPA, as we have heard. However, I do not think that it is accurate to suggest that the inclusion of some individuals, based on an existing risk category in MAPPA, can be a substitute—as I mentioned in my opening statement—for requiring all those who commit serious offences that involve domestic abuse to be included in the notification scheme.

I believe that you, Ms Dowey, asked the minister a similar question to mine, and she said that she would get back to the committee on it, but I have not received any information on the percentage of those covered by MAPPA who are domestic abuse offenders.

I am not in Government. If I was in Government, I could give you an answer.

I am not in Government, but it is only 0.5 per cent of the budget.