Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful. Referring back to the individualised way in which the matter is dealt with, it all sits on a risk assessment of those individuals that is made for the public. It is quite reassuring to hear that, even without some formal things happening, the risk that the public is being put at by that individual is already assessed, as you say, by Police Scotland and the other lead agencies.

To go back to the bill, one question that keeps returning to us is about someone who presents for election but is in the notification system. A person who proposes themselves for election has an individual responsibility to sign a declaration, and it is already a criminal offence if that is incorrectly done. How challenging would it be for Police Scotland, if it was presented with an individual’s details, to see whether they were in the notification system? I am not talking about making a judgment on whether the person can or cannot stand, but would Police Scotland be able to say to, for example, a returning officer or another relevant person, whether an individual was subject to notification requirements? How challenging would it be for the police to check that, if you were presented with a name and address?

So, in effect, rather than a register, the database and MAPPA allow for the pooling of the information, irrespective of someone’s location and which agency is the lead agency in respect of the individual.

Therefore, appearing on the register is not actually part of the sentence; it is something that flows as a result of the conviction or, indeed, the judge deciding, in limited cases, that the offending has a sexual element and that the individual should be on the register.

That is fine.

You used the acronym MAPPA, which has appeared in chunks of our evidence. Would you like to explain what that is, rather than who it is?

I will explore that in a bit more detail. Some notifications arise from a criminal conviction under schedule 3, as you described, but sexual risk orders are also civil orders. Is that right?

I thank you for that—that is exactly one of the purposes of bringing experts in to give evidence. I thank you, your colleagues and Police Scotland generally.

I now move the meeting into private session.

That is what I was going to ask about. Therefore, there would have to be additional evidence that related to the period after the issuing of the first order, and common sense says that, if there was not that evidence, it is unlikely that that would be pursued, unless there was a very cunning reason for that. However, it would be the subsequent behaviour that would be looked at by the courts and, if it was appropriate, that would come under the new scheme of notification.

If the decision is taken not to discharge those orders, those would continue. In that case, would the individual then have a right—