Our next agenda item is an evidence session on the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 with the member in charge of the bill, Pam Gosal. Pam is accompanied by Roz Thomson, who is a principal clerk and the head of the Scottish Parliament’s non-Government bills unit; Agata Maslowska, who is a senior clerk in the non-Government bills unit; Ailidh Callander, who is a senior solicitor in the Scottish Parliament’s legal services department; and Charlie Pound, who is a researcher for the Conservative MSP group. I welcome you all to the meeting.
The purpose of the session is to inform the committee’s understanding of what the bill proposes. The committee is used to dealing with the subject of domestic abuse and the wider agenda around violence against women, and we take those issues very seriously. I remind everyone that this is an initial evidence session. The committee will take a decision at a meeting in September on its approach to future evidence taking from other witnesses.
I refer members to paper 1 on the bill. I also refer members to the letter from the Scottish Government giving its views on the bill, which was circulated on Monday and is published online. I intend to allow about an hour for the evidence session. I invite Pam Gosal to make some opening remarks, for up to five minutes.
Good morning. I introduced the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill in May 2025, following the usual members’ bill process and with the support of the non-Government bills unit.
Growing up, I remember going into my mum’s shop in Argyle Street in Glasgow and seeing women crying, bleeding, bruised and very upset. At the time, I did not know what was happening. Later on in life, I realised that they were survivors of domestic abuse. Coming from black and minority ethnic communities, those women would rarely engage with authorities, so the extent of domestic abuse among them was not fully recorded or understood. To this day, I know many survivors who will not come forward because they think that the system is too weak, while the ones who do come forward often do not get the support that they need.
I am passionate about tackling domestic abuse, encouraging victims to come forward, making sure that survivors can trust the system that is in place to protect and support them and, ultimately, preventing further abuse.
Throughout my journey with the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, I have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders and survivors of domestic abuse. Initial engagement meetings began in 2022. Later that year, the formal consultation took place, and 95 per cent of individual respondents were supportive of the proposed bill. Since 2024, I have held several extremely positive, one-to-one meetings with domestic abuse organisations to discuss the provisions in the bill.
Domestic abuse is a horrific crime. Last year, around 64,000 such incidents were reported to Police Scotland, and an estimated 65 per cent of suspected perpetrators had previously been involved in related incidents. Just yesterday, we found out that there has been a 26 per cent increase in crimes recorded under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, compared with 2023-2024. Those are shocking figures, and they increase year after year. However, they are not just statistics—they represent real people going through this horrendous crime.
The aim of my bill is to reduce the incidence of domestic abuse and tackle reoffending through a series of measures. Those include preventative measures, rehabilitation measures, increased data collection, long-term monitoring of those who are convicted of domestic abuse and early intervention through education measures.
Part 1 of the bill introduces notification requirements for domestic abuse offenders. They would work similarly to notification requirements for sex offenders, to ensure that domestic abuse offenders can be effectively monitored and subject to monitoring and management through existing multi-agency public protection arrangements, known as MAPPA. Better tracking, monitoring and management of the risk that is posed by serious domestic abuse offenders will not only tackle reoffending but act as a deterrent, sending the message that domestic abuse will not be tolerated in Scotland.
Liz Shanks, a survivor of domestic abuse who appeared on the BBC programme “Disclosure”, said:
“Pam is putting through a Bill for a domestic abuse register. Those who commit certain domestic abuse offences would be placed on a register, managed by Police Scotland, and would be forced to update the police whenever their circumstances change, meaning the police will be better equipped to keep victims safe. The Bill she’s working on is really key to what we, as survivors, want to see for many reasons.”
Part 2 of the bill requires consideration of whether a person who has been convicted of domestic abuse offences is a suitable candidate to take part in rehabilitation programmes to prevent reoffending. Provisions would ensure that every key phase of an offender’s passage through the criminal justice system includes an assessment of their suitability for the appropriate rehabilitation services.
Part 3 of the bill places a requirement on Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and charities to ask for vital information about victims of domestic abuse, including their age, sex, disability, ethnicity and much more. The domestic abuse statistics that the Scottish Government currently publishes do not include information on victims’ disability or ethnicity, nor is that data collected, but we know that individuals with certain protected characteristics might be more at risk of domestic abuse. My bill seeks to address that gap. Knowing which groups suffer from domestic abuse and engage with services is an important step in preventing domestic abuse. Those provisions received full backing from Scottish Women’s Aid at the consultation stage.
Finally, part 4 of the bill is intended to ensure the provision of domestic abuse education across Scotland as standard. That would ensure that young people grow up mindful of the harm that domestic abuse causes, and it would equip them with the knowledge to identify concerning behaviour throughout their lives.
In response to the consultation on my bill, Victim Support Scotland quoted one young victim, who summed up the impact of domestic abuse education by saying:
“I want to spread the message to others about awareness of domestic abuse, to get more folk to open up about it ... We need to educate children, go into schools, and tell them what domestic abuse is.”
Although I realise that the estimated cost of the bill is substantial, the financial cost to the Scottish public sector of domestic abuse is estimated to be £7 billion over a three-year average period of abuse.
More importantly, victims are being failed. Right now, Police Scotland receives a call about domestic abuse roughly every eight minutes—that rate is far too high. We must do more to tackle this appalling crime, and my bill provides us with a historic opportunity to do so. By adopting the measures that it sets out, Scotland can be a world leader in preventing domestic abuse and take a substantial step towards eradicating violence against women and girls once and for all.
I thank members for listening.
Thank you for your opening remarks. I start with a pretty general opening question. As I am sure that you will be aware, our committee business is quite bill heavy, and we are minded to take the scrutiny of costs very seriously. I begin, therefore, with a question on funding. As you acknowledged, the bill, should it be passed, will require a significant level of funding to ensure its implementation, and thereafter to embed it. Specifically, the funding implications around part 1 are significant.
Why do you feel that this bill is the best use of resources—which we know are constrained—for preventing and addressing domestic abuse in Scotland?
I will start by saying a bit about the financial side. We are talking about a maximum cost of £23 million, which is only 0.5 per cent of the justice budget. In my opening statement, I mentioned that domestic abuse costs the public sector £7 billion over a three-year average period of abuse. We should also not forget, when we talk about domestic abuse in monetary terms, that we are talking about real people. Even one person going through domestic abuse is one too many, and we know that many have lost their lives. The money will be very well spent.
We talk about a figure of £23 million, but that is the highest amount. As we go through the bill, members will see that there are certain things for which we can look at mitigating costs as we go along. You mentioned the costs around part 1 of the bill, but part 1 is essential and important. I have spoken to many survivors—I have spoken to the organisations, too—and not one survivor said to me, “Pam, we don’t need this so-called notification” or register, as one might call it.
Notification is important because right now, to be honest, if I were not a politician, I certainly would not know anything about any disclosure scheme or anything in that respect. I know about that only because I am a politician and I am doing the work. I will describe a scenario that might play out. If I was a survivor and I was experiencing domestic abuse, I would not know to pick up the phone and to look for a disclosure scheme. I would be domestically abused, and the abuse would carry on. Coming from a BAME background, and having friends from other backgrounds, I know that the abuse continues on and on.
Having a lifeline, and knowing that somebody out there—the authorities, whether it is MAPPA or the police—has a little bit more information than I do, might save my life. The notification provisions in part 1 would require that the information has to be provided by the offender. That has never been done before, as far as I know, in any legislation to do with domestic abuse. The offender would have to go into a police station or to a member of police staff to give the information that their circumstances have changed. That could save somebody’s life. I believe, therefore, not only that the bill is a lifeline, but that the notification scheme would give victims a feeling that there is extra safeguarding, and that there is somebody else out there looking out for them so that they will be notified.
Last but not least, the bill could be a deterrent. Who wants to be on a so-called notification database or register? We know that it could act as a deterrent, in a similar way to the sex offenders register.
I have got all that information from my consultations. I went out to do personal, informal consultations: one in 2024, and then the main consultation; the committee has that information in front of them.
I did not take the decision to introduce the bill at all lightly, convener. I hope that I have answered your questions.
09:45
I think that I am right in saying that your bill began its journey back in 2022. To what extent have you made sure that the figures that you are looking at on the cost implications are up to date? Secondly, I am interested in hearing what discussions you have had with justice partners with regard to the cost implications that they might face.
I have spoken to the police—as you know, the police have to stay neutral in the informal consultation. Although people might be positive about the bill, the biggest question is resources and money—I would not sit here and say anything less than that. That is why I introduced the bill and why I am seeking to show the committee why it is much needed.
I will be honest—the figures that came out just yesterday, showing a 26 per cent rise in the use of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, were shocking. I also mentioned the figure of 64,000 incidents of domestic abuse. The figures are rising every year. The 64,000 figure represents a 3 per cent rise from the previous year. We need to do more, as something is not working and people out there are really suffering. From the figures that were published yesterday, we can see that the majority of them are women.
I will pass over to Agata Maslowska from the NGBU team to say a bit more about the financial side.
Under part 1 of the bill, the main cost is in expanding the existing multi-agency public protection arrangements to include the most serious domestic abuse offenders. To estimate those costs, we used the approach that was adopted in an academic study by researchers from the University of Essex who looked at a range of staff costs to expand MAPPA to meet offender needs.
It is not possible to estimate fully the cohort of domestic abuse offenders, as the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 is not yet in force. Our estimate is that just over 3,000 domestic abuse offenders would be added to MAPPA. The financial memorandum provides a range of costs.
On the notification scheme, we provided the estimated cost of criminal proceedings in a case associated with a breach of notification requirements and the estimated total cost of the review of indefinite notification requirements.
I have a final question before I bring in Liam Kerr. You said that you anticipate that an additional 3,000 domestic abuse offenders would be included in the MAPPA process. Have you taken account of the possibility that some of the individuals might, bearing in mind the existing MAPPA criteria, already be in the process by virtue of their other offending?
Yes—we added that caveat in the financial memorandum.
Before I bring in Liam Kerr, I think that Rona Mackay has a supplementary question.
Yes—it is just a small question on what Agata Maslowska said about the most serious sex offenders.
What criteria are you using for that? What constitutes a serious offender? Is it somebody who has been convicted and sentenced to a certain length of time?
With regard to domestic abuse offenders specifically, it would be those who were sentenced to 12 months or more for what is specified as a domestic abuse offence. That means any offence that is aggravated under the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016; section 1 offences under the 2018 act; and offences under the 2021 act, if it is ever implemented—it has not been, as yet. There is also provision for specific types of community payback orders under section 227G of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Basically, it is for sentences of 12 months or more.
Yes.
I will now bring in Liam Kerr.
Pam Gosal, on your point that the provisions in your bill would act as a deterrent, I note that you based the notification requirements on those in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Some organisations, in their responses to the consultation, have said that there is no evidence that those requirements have had an impact on the behaviour of offenders, and thus your proposals would not reduce or prevent domestic abuse offending. How do you respond to that? Do you have evidence to show that your proposals would have such an impact?
I have had a good look to see what evidence is out there. Sex offenders are already subject to notification requirements, as you know, and there is significant evidence that they are less likely to reoffend. The latest statistics show that around 8.8 per cent of sex offenders went on to commit another offence, in comparison with 20.5 per cent for those convicted of domestic abuse.
I also highlight another area with regard to recent research on the effectiveness of multi-agency public protection arrangements that was carried out at Anglia Ruskin University. It found that people who receive management under MAPPA are less likely to reoffend than those who do not.
I also had a look at what is happening elsewhere in the world. In 2007, Spain introduced a comprehensive monitoring system in cases of gender violence, and, in 2015, it produced an online questionnaire to which more than 1,000 people responded, which found that 80 per cent of women were satisfied with the functioning of the system.
Although I have mentioned those areas, I note that we in the Scottish Parliament—I do not think that the committee needs reminding of this—are very good at passing world-leading legislation. I am asking for these provisions not because I am copying others but because I believe that we should be the first to introduce them. We were first when we passed legislation on things such as period poverty, among many other issues. This is a chance for the committee, the Scottish Government and MSPs to back the proposals and ensure that we will have world-leading legislation. People will look to us if we have in place notifications for domestic abuse.
Just for clarification, the statistics on recidivism that Pam Gosal cited are from the Scottish Government’s official reoffending statistics. They relate specifically to the 2020-21 cohort in respect of reoffending. The figure of 8.8 per cent for sexual offences is for reoffending within one year, and the same applies for the figure for other offences. The fact that the rate for sexual offences is half the rate—less than half the rate, in fact—of domestic abuse offences is where we derive some of the evidence from.
Thank you for that—perhaps you could send that data to the committee. As I said, in the consultation, expert organisations have told us that that evidence is not there, so that would be helpful.
The current situation is that the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse in Scotland gives people the right to ask about the background of their partner and find out whether someone has a history of domestic abuse. It also gives Police Scotland the power to tell people that they may be at risk; they do not even need to ask.
That raises a question. What would the introduction of the notification and monitoring requirements in your bill add to the current landscape?
That is a good question. I mentioned in my opening statement and in my answer to the convener what happens with the disclosure scheme. It is a good scheme, and my bill would be working closely with it and with MAPPA. However, I have spoken to survivors, and I am aware that people who have been domestically abused but do not know about the scheme will not know that they can contact the police in that regard.
Although the police have some—I stress “some”—names of certain sex offenders and more serious offenders, my bill will bring out more extensive knowledge on people who will have to give that information, which the police will hold. That will better protect victims, because, at the moment, they do not know that they can contact anybody. We are making sure that the police contact them, based on the limited information and knowledge that they have. I mentioned earlier that 3,000 offenders would be added to MAPPA. That information will enable the police to act fast. We can save lives out there.
I have been speaking to survivors, and the disclosure scheme has been letting them down. Although, as I said, I respect it and believe that it works, we need that extra layer of protection. Knowledge is key to saving somebody’s life. That is why part 1 of the bill, on notifications, is important. We just cannot let people think that they can rely on saying, “Somebody is going save my life if I have been domestically abused.” We need more information and more knowledge out there, because the statistics are very high right now.
Charlie Pound might want to add to that.
Before he does, I note that your answer suggests that any issue with the existing scheme is due to a lack of knowledge and awareness of what is already there. If that is right, surely what is needed is not more legislation that arguably does a similar thing but better knowledge and awareness among people about what to do and where to go if they find themselves in a certain situation.
Perhaps I did not put that right. When I talk about knowledge, I am not talking about what they should know about the scheme, I am talking about knowledge of the fact that more information is provided to the police about the offender and the fact that that will cover any change of circumstances, whether it is to do with address, name or many other things, which would allow the police to act faster.
For example, if I have been domestically abused, I am going to pick up the phone and call the police to come to me. We know how busy the police are, and they might arrive quickly or they might not. However, if something is flagged up because of the provisions in the bill, and they have more information and knowledge about the offender, they might act faster, and that might just save somebody’s life.
That information is key. It is not just about people not knowing that there is a disclosure scheme; it is about having that layer of protection. We have the disclosure scheme now, so why are the statistics not going down? We need to ask those questions. As parliamentarians, we have to look at why we are in a position in which all that we see are increases. That is why my bill is important.
I will bring in Charlie Pound on that point.
I will just throw some statistics at you. A previous freedom of information request that I made showed that, in 2021-22, there were 1,959 disclosures under the power to tell scheme, so the roughly 3,000 offenders who would be included on the domestic abuse offenders register would represent a significant increase. There would be more offenders providing more information, and the police could then act on that intelligence to protect victims. That is how we envisage the register working with the existing disclosure scheme.
I understand. Thank you.
I will bring in Pauline McNeill, who I think wanted to come in earlier.
I have a question about which offenders would be caught by the scheme.
Charlie Pound, you explained to Rona Mackay that offenders who had been given a 12-month sentence would be covered. However, is it the case that all those offenders who go through solemn proceedings on indictment would also be covered?
Yes.
So, is it both?
Both what, sorry?
The offenders who would be on the register would be those who were convicted on indictment and those who served—
Yes.
So, there is an “and”. I just wanted to be clear on that; that was all.
Katy Clark has a question.
I want to understand why you have chosen that particular cohort and focused the scope narrowly on the offenders who would require to be subject to notification provisions. Many other perpetrators will have contact with the criminal justice system, be convicted and appear in summary proceedings. Why should those individuals not be covered by the scheme?
10:00
I will start on that, then pass over to Charlie Pound, who can cover the technical points.
I saw a lot of domestic abuse around me when I was growing up—not in my family, but among other friends and relatives. I have spoken to organisations and survivors, and Dr Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid—I think it was her; I will correct the record if I am wrong—asked me what happens with the women who have to retaliate to protect themselves and end up being subject to the notification or inclusion on the so-called register. That was also mentioned to me by somebody else.
When I was drafting the bill, I had to consider that and ensure that serious offenders and re-offenders were covered. The bill must take into account the issue of women—I use the word “women” but also put it on the record that the bill covers men and women, male and female—who are in the situation that was described to me. I listened to organisations and made sure that the bill was changed. It started off quite wide, because it was important that everything was in it, but I made sure that I listened to the experts, which is why the focus was narrowed.
The threshold was chosen after consultation with stakeholders but we are not close-minded about the cohort that is included. We are willing to listen to the committee’s views and those of the various stakeholders who will appear before the committee, because we want to get it right. We are starting with this cohort, based on feedback, but we are willing to listen to any other suggestions.
Thank you.
First, I reiterate what the convener said about how we all want to tackle domestic abuse in the communities that we represent and in our country as a whole. I commend you for undertaking work to try to improve the situation.
Of course, as a committee, our job is to scrutinise the proposed legislation and its potential impact. I am aware that you said in your opening remarks that your consideration of the bill began in 2022, soon after the 2021 election, and the bill was introduced in late 2024. Is that correct?
It was published in 2025.
Yes; early this year. Thank you for correcting me.
There is quite a long time between 2022 and 2025, and that surprises me, if I am honest. I appreciate that a consultation has been done, but how much engagement did you have with the Scottish Government on the issues?
I know that you are very passionate about this issue, Mr Macpherson. There is also one organisation in the BAME community that we have spoken about, and I know that you know the subject well.
You have said that 2022 to 2025 is a long time, but we are talking about the parliamentary process around bills. I have to thank the non-Government bills unit, which did a lot of work very quickly on this. It was important to me that, at every point between 2022 and 2025, I gave organisations and survivors opportunities to contribute.
Around twice a week, I get a phone call in my office from somebody asking me for help, and I pass them to the correct authorities or charities. People think that I am going to be a lifeline for them, and I hope that I am.
You are absolutely right that the committee is here to scrutinise legislation, and I am here so that you can do so. I am quite open minded today and I will take away all the feedback from committee members. I will also look at what else we can add to the bill when we get to the later stages.
You asked about the kind of engagement that I have carried out. I have done quite a lot, and I had a chance to meet—
Have you engaged with the Scottish Government?
That is what I was going to say—I had a meeting with Angela Constance, and the cabinet secretary—
When was that?
I think that it was last year—I would have to check.
That was in 2024. Did you meet the previous justice secretary, Keith Brown?
At that time, because the bill was just shaping up, there was nothing official, but I spoke to him in the corridor, for example.
There was no formal meeting.
No.
It was a while ago, so I would have to check, but I think that there might have been something formal with Keith Brown.
The reason I ask is that the bill was talked about in that period from 2022 until its publication in 2025. However, during that time, for example, the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was published and is now at stage 3. It surprises me that your bill was significantly discussed in the public domain and in the media before the proposals had been established. In your discussion of the bill in the parliamentary arena, the media and other public ways, there were many references to a domestic abuse register, but that is not referred to in the bill. If you want effective practical change in the legal system, I am surprised that you have not engaged with the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and that you have not looked at the Education (Scotland) Bill with regard to the part in the bill that is about education as a possible vehicle for change. That would seem like a more practicable way to change the law, rather than spending four years talking about a member’s bill before its publication. It perplexes me that you did not do that.
Mr Macpherson, I have not done nothing. Those three years were crucial for those survivors and organisations.
You did not let me finish speaking about my engagement with the Government, so I will go on with that. I will come back to the committee to give exact details of my meetings—I am sorry that I cannot completely remember what happened during all three years. I am sure that many women—especially those of my age—cannot remember exactly what they did three years ago, but I can tell you that I have been very vocal. I have not just hit newspapers. I have listened to survivors and organisations. In my engagement with the Scottish Government, I lodged written questions, asked questions in the chamber and spoke in debates. I also debated other subject areas, not just directly to do with domestic abuse, where I could bring in the issue of domestic abuse. For example, I looked at lodging an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill on domestic abuse.
There were many other things that I cannot remember at this moment, but I am happy to give a full account of them to the committee and to you in writing. I have fully engaged all along. Indeed, today, at 11 o’clock, I will meet the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown. I have fully engaged and I respect the Scottish Government and our procedure in the Parliament. I hope that the point has been answered.
Just for clarity, I note the amount of engagement that you have had with relevant organisations and individuals. I appreciate that that has been thorough and appropriate engagement. It was engagement with Scottish Government ministers on the proposals in the bill that I was interested in. If you want to follow up on that with the committee, that would be useful.
The Minister for Victims and Community Safety has recently written to the committee to give the Government’s views on the bill. In her letter, she states that the proposal requires
“further discussion and engagement with justice partners”.
Other comments suggest that the Government might not be supportive of the bill. What is your response to that correspondence?
Thank you for the question, Ms Dowey. I have the letter from the minister right here. I have read it; please give me a couple of minutes to give my response to it.
The Scottish Government’s response to the introduction of my bill was disappointing but not surprising. I strongly contest the minister’s claims about the affordability of my proposals. The Scottish Government has already passed, in this parliamentary session, a bill that sets out throughcare standards for prisoners, and part 2 of my bill would strengthen those provisions for domestic abuse offenders throughout the justice system. Indeed, in her letter to the committee, the minister refers to the fact that consideration of rehabilitation programmes can already be passed on to the Parole Board for Scotland when a prisoner is being considered for release. Therefore, my bill does not propose an unprecedented expansion of rehabilitation assessment.
Similarly, part 1 of my bill, on the register, largely replicates an existing system, but it would expand it to domestic abuse offenders. It cannot be the case that a bill that is modelled on legislation that is already operating in Scotland is unaffordable if the Scottish Government already funds that policy. If the Government is questioning the effectiveness of my proposed register, as it appears to be doing in the letter, why has it not sought to repeal the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which has been in effect for the entire 18 years that the Scottish National Party has been in government?
My bill is fully intended to work with existing schemes such as MAPPA and the disclosure scheme, as I said earlier. In fact, my bill would strengthen those schemes, because it would increase the amount of intelligence that would be available to police officers, thereby allowing them to act to keep victims safe.
On part 3 of the bill, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government acknowledges that “more work is required” in that area. Although I note that its preference would be to use non-legislative measures to address the problem of a lack of data on domestic abuse in Scotland, the fact remains that the issue has been neglected for far too long. By legislating to guarantee data collection on domestic abuse, we would ensure that the Government took action on the problem.
On part 4, my approach to ensuring that domestic abuse education is provided across Scotland would give schools plenty of opportunity to help to develop standards for such education. Under my bill, local authorities would be required to be consulted, so they would be key partners in delivering on the policy ambition.
Despite the Scottish Government’s scepticism about my proposals, I will make it an offer: last weekend, it was reported that the Government is having to indefinitely postpone the implementation of its flagship Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 because of drafting errors. That legislation was supposed to protect women but, four years after it was passed, it is protecting no one, because it was so poorly drafted that it cannot legally be implemented. Therefore, I offer the Government the opportunity to use my bill to make the necessary amendments to the 2021 act so that it can be fully implemented, to help to protect victims of domestic abuse. I hope that the Government will consider my offer. As I said, I will be speaking to the minister later this morning.
I hope that that answers your question. I have gone through the whole letter; I recognise everything that the minister said, and I hope that I have responded to it.
I will not ask too many questions, but I have one further comment, which is similar to what Liam Kerr said earlier. The minister said:
“there are again opportunities to progress this area through non-legislative measures”.
However, you think that your bill is required. You mentioned the 2021 act, which has not been implemented.
Yes, I did. I have also mentioned—I am happy to do this again in writing, as well—why each part of the bill requires to be in legislation.
I want to ask you more about part 2 of the bill on rehabilitation, and about education and training. On the notifications side, the bill contains what would be a new offence of failing to comply with the notification provisions “without reasonable excuse”. What would a reasonable excuse be?
I will bring in Charlie Pound on that technical issue.
10:15
That is modelled on existing legislation—if I am not mistaken, it is modelled on the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The proposed new offence does not exactly correspond to the existing offence, but, in answer to a freedom of information request, Police Scotland said that there were 647 recorded crimes of failing to notify the police or of providing false information. I stress that the police said in their FOI response that those crimes did not necessarily relate only to the 2003 act. However, the point is that that is an existing provision in law.
Are you not able to define that for the Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill?
There is a definition, which is that an offence will not be committed if the person has a reasonable excuse. That is in connection with particular notification requirements, such as failing to produce a passport or to notify the police on time. There is already such an offence in law. As the information from Police Scotland confirms, the proposed new offence is modelled on existing legislation.
I will move on to ask about the rehabilitation programme. Pam Gosal, do you think that there is currently adequate provision of domestic abuse programmes—either in prison or in the community—to meet the demand that could arise if your bill were to be passed? I ask that question because it says in one of our papers:
“the requirement for assessment applies to anyone convicted of a domestic abuse offence, regardless of whether this took place before the enforcement of this section of the Bill.”
That would open it up to an awful lot of people. Are you confident that there is adequate provision for the extra people that that would bring into a rehabilitation pathway?
In relation to rehabilitation, as many members already know, the Scottish Government was meant to roll out the Caledonian system to 32 local authorities. It is 2025, but that has been rolled out to only 21 local authorities, which is not pleasing. On top of that, different systems are being used out there, so not all local authorities will be using the Caledonian system.
However, on the resource side, the Government has pledged that it will roll out that system, so I do not think that there will be what I would call additional need, because that system is already being rolled out. My bill would put in statute a provision that would ensure that that happens.
My bill covers three areas. It deals with what happens when someone is convicted. Mandatory assessment is important in determining whether rehabilitation would be suitable for someone who has been convicted of domestic abuse, which is not the case at the moment. That requirement would apply when someone is convicted, when they are in prison and when they leave prison, when the Parole Board would have to obtain an assessment. At each point that rehabilitation could be provided, my bill would help people by making sure that we have that programme in place.
I have been in this Parliament for four years, and I know how much members talk about helping people rather than punishing them. I think that my bill goes the extra mile to help people by providing not only for education, but for the collection of data, rehabilitation and a notification system that would protect victims from serious offenders.
I will hand over to my colleague Charlie Pound to answer your technical question.
We are confident that there will be capacity in the system if the obligations that are set out in the financial memorandum are fulfilled by the Scottish Government.
I am finding this a bit confusing. The Caledonian system already exists, but how would your bill fit into that? Are you saying that your bill would introduce additional rehabilitation or are you going to make that part of the Caledonian system?
It is a mandatory assessment. The Caledonian system could be offered by a court, if the court considered that that was necessary, but the bill is not intended to conflict with the Caledonian system or with any other rehabilitation programme.
Does that not confuse the picture a bit?
No, because part 2 of the bill is about offering assessments—rehabilitation assessments in the court process, in prison and through the Parole Board. It would not change any of the current rehabilitation schemes, such as the Caledonian system. There would be no conflict—the bill is about ensuring that an assessment is carried out and that a person can then be referred to a programme such as the Caledonian system.
Is primary legislation needed for that? Could such a requirement not simply be brought in?
If we want to mandate assessments for domestic abuse offenders, I believe that legislation is required.
Okay. I want to move on to training in schools. I think that what you are suggesting is very vague. I am all for early education on the subject in schools, but we need to know who would design the schemes. Would teachers do that, or would you bring in specialists? Also, if such training were to be done properly, it seems to me that the cost would be substantial. Can you say more about who would design it and who would carry it out?
I will start, and then I will hand over to Agata Maslowska to answer on the cost side.
Education is key. Last week or the week before, I went to a conference at Beira’s Place, which was attended by people from Women’s Aid and many other organisations and professional bodies. I was shocked by what I learned about what is happening in schools. I was too busy worrying about domestic abuse among older women. That is because I grew up watching ladies who were a little bit older than me, who were experiencing domestic abuse. We all know what is going on in schools today. Coercive control of teens is happening. That horrific crime has spread into our schools, so when I—
I am sorry to interrupt. Do you know that ASSIST—the advocacy, support, safety, information and services together project—and other organisations go into schools?
Yes, and I will come on to that.
What we are looking to do with the bill is to put that provision into legislation. It would not affect the equally safe strategy at all; if anything, it would work with that.
As I have said, I have spoken to many local authorities—a few years ago, I spoke to 31 out of the 32 local authorities in relation to local government issues, and I still speak to many of them. Not everybody is delivering the equally safe strategy, and there are gaps in what people are getting. In addition, it is not tailored to domestic abuse.
I am sure that members know that, when we provide education on such issues, we do not do so only to those whom I would describe as younger people, such as secondary school pupils. As is the case with equally safe, which I know that you have asked about, we want to help people to identify that domestic abuse is a crime and that it will not be tolerated in Scotland. We want to get across to people the message that if they engage in coercive behaviour or any sort of domestic abuse, they will be committing a serious crime, and to set out what will happen to them. We want to educate them about that.
On the other hand—on the softer side—we want to educate young people to recognise when abuse is happening to somebody else and to understand that it is wrong. That is why education is key. I have heard that time after time from many academics; I recently heard an academic in Dundee talk about how education is key.
You asked about who would deliver that education. My bill clearly states that it must not be delivered by the Scottish Government in this building. It must be delivered on the ground, while listening to the partners.
This part of the bill is very important. We want to put domestic abuse education into statute to make sure that it is available and that there is not a postcode lottery, whereby some people get it while others do not, depending on whether the Government has money. If we put it in legislation, it will be there.
It is important that we talk in particular to those organisations that deal with domestic abuse every day. That could include some education establishments—I have made the provision quite wide. There would have to be consultation, collaboration and partnership with other organisations. The Government could not simply create an education programme.
Are you expecting teachers to provide the education that you are talking about? Have you engaged with any of the teaching agencies?
No, I am saying that the work should be done in consultation with them. My bill does not say who should provide that education; it sets out that the provision should be in place. I have put it in the bill that there must be consultation. Governments cannot make such decisions in isolation, just as teachers cannot make them alone. We need to get people to work together and to engage in consultation so that no one person makes a decision on how to tailor the programme.
I am not going to say what the programme should be called; I am simply calling it education. I have included that provision in the bill to ensure that it is available for all schools.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that education is key, but I am still not clear whether teachers would be carrying it out.
I have not put that in the provision. I think that I was very clear in saying that there would have to be consultation.
How can we pass legislation if we do not know such details?
The provisions in the bill say that the Scottish ministers must produce guidance on and standards for domestic abuse education, but that there must be consultation with charities or other bodies that provide domestic abuse education. For the standards, ministers must consult with education authorities, charities and anyone else that they consider appropriate. The guidance on and standards for domestic abuse education would be produced by the Scottish ministers in consultation, and the bill states that education authorities would have to support and facilitate domestic abuse education.
Once again, it is important to note that I am simply introducing the bill today. People will have opportunities for input. If you feel that what I am proposing should be delivered in a different way or that the bill should be amended, I am quite open to using the expertise of the committee, and I am open to listening to what everybody says.
I will pass over to Agata Maslowska to deal with the cost issue.
On the school—
We have only four or five minutes left, and a couple of other members want to ask questions, so perhaps you could follow up on that in writing.
Absolutely.
Good morning. I will start with some technical questions, the answers to which should be short.
I just want to be clear. Charlie, you have already said that the provisions relate to those who are convicted on indictment in solemn proceedings and those who receive a 12-month sentence. Am I right that the 12-month period relates to the sentence?
Yes.
So that might not necessarily be jail time.
No.
The crimes that we are talking about would be charged under the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016 or the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. Is that correct?
Yes, and they could also be charged under the 2021 act, if it comes in.
So we are talking about three acts of Parliament.
Yes.
You mentioned a separate cohort that would be covered by MAPPA. They would be the most serious offenders. How would you define them?
Anyone who was subject to the notification requirements.
Anyone?
Yes. That is set out in the bill.
So they would all be subject to the MAPPA requirements.
Pam, I think that you said that the provision is modelled on the sex offenders register. If you are not able to answer any of these questions, that is fine, but these are the ones that interest me. Have you done any assessment of how effective the sex offenders register has been in improving safety or reducing reoffending?
To go back to your question about whether my provision was modelled on the sex offenders register, I should say that it was not fully modelled on that. I listened to what survivors out there said that they wanted. The fact is that the onus is on them to contact authorities, when people should know whether someone is a dangerous domestic abuse offender. My bill started from that. I did not look at the 2003 act first; I listened to real-life experience. I also knew that the United Kingdom Government at the time was considering doing something on the issue, too. That is when I started looking into it a little bit more.
In relation to the sex offenders register or, should I say, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, I will pass over to Charlie on the technicalities.
We point to the early recidivism statistics and the consistently lower numbers of sexual offenders who go on to reoffend. There is also the fact that the 2003 act has been in force for roughly 22 years, and it seems to operate well. No one is calling for it to be removed. That would suggest that the current system is working well in relation to sex offenders, which is why we believe that it should be extended to domestic abuse offenders.
You said that you think that the sex offenders register has resulted in a reduction in repeat offences—recidivism.
10:30
The evidence is there that the rate is lower. Obviously, we are not academics, and we cannot draw out a causal effect, but that is what we can see from the evidence.
Pam Gosal submitted written questions to the Scottish Government on a range of topics relating to the bill, for evidence gathering. We are not in Government, however, so we have to rely on those sorts of statistics from the publicly available data that we have.
That is fine. I am trying to understand why the bill has been introduced. If it has been modelled on something, we must presume that you think that the model has been effective.
I do not need to put to you the utterly shocking figures on sexual crime in Scotland. They are going up the way, so something is not right. To that extent, we are all on the same page. The question is, what will stop that figure rising? The rise in sexual crime is why the committee is wrestling with issues such as reform of the High Court, tackling delays and so on.
That leads me to the question of how we tackle sexual crime, and the other parts of the bill that Rona Mackay asked you about. How can you be sure that the provisions in the bill on education are the right way to do that? From the discussions that we have had in the Scottish Parliament, it is clear that the broader narrative is about men’s violence against women and girls. Something is not right, and I agree that that has to be tackled in schools.
However, I am interested in why you have gone down the path of educating boys about domestic abuse. Let us take the Gareth Southgate lecture as an example. I thought that it was a very good attempt to explain why we have a problem with boys in society with regard to their role models and so on.
First, would you agree that how we tackle the issue of boys and young men is a complex question?
I do not pretend to be an expert, but I can certainly say that there is a big problem out there. Coming from a BAME background, I am quite open to saying these things. When sons are born, they are put on a pedestal, and when females are born, people are not so happy. That does not happen in every household, but it starts in the house, and education comes into it. I will be honest—what I am trying to do is only part of the solution, but it is a big part.
The issue is to do with what happens as children are growing up. I can write to the committee with what an academic said to me in Dundee; I asked her about this. That academic has done a lot of work on behaviours and how people offend, and she said that education is key. If we tell someone from a young age that something is wrong and explain it to them, that will go in, but that cannot be done just one time—it must be repeated over time.
My proposal is part of the solution, but I am not going to say that I can wave a magic wand. I want parents to be responsible when they bring up their boys. I certainly know about that—I have two boys. When they go out at night, I tell them, “Be careful—don’t you harm anybody and don’t you say anything that hurts anybody.” If more mothers said that to their sons, instead of mothers saying to their daughters, “Take care” and “Be careful”, the world would be a better place.
The education provisions in my bill are only a part, but they are a big part—
Can I stop you there? I agree with what you are saying; everyone has a responsibility in this regard. However, I am asking you a specific question. A lot of us have done some work on what we think needs to be done in school, but it is a complex question. If the Government is to support a programme of domestic abuse education in school, it must know what the right programme will be. Do you agree that that is complex?
I agree that I am at committee and that this is just the start of my bill process, so I am open to any suggestions. If you have suggestions in relation to the education part, I am open to those.
Well, I am going to make a suggestion. I hope that you would agree that we need to have a wider discussion. With regard to your bill, you have said that you think that the solution is telling boys that domestic abuse is wrong—
And also girls. I know that, on some occasions, there can be a minority of cases that involve the other sex.
But I am suggesting that—
I will have to ask you to wind up, because Liam Kerr wants to come in with a final question, and we are running over time a little bit.
I will finish on this. Ms Gosal, I hope that you would agree—feel free to disagree—that, rather than being prescriptive and specific about what is required in schools, as you have done in the bill, we perhaps need to have a wider discussion about what would be the right type of educational programme to provide to boys to tackle the issue as they grow up.
My bill sets out a provision for education. With regard to what that education would look like, I have said that it would be about domestic abuse. On how it would be delivered and what it would look like, it will be important, again, that the right sort of consultation is undertaken with the right authorities—the right people and the experts—to ensure that the provision is implemented. The onus is on the Scottish Government to ensure that the provision is taken forward—that is why my bill is there. As I said, I am sure that the Scottish Government will be open to consultation in order to shape what that education will look like.
We have a final question from Liam Kerr.
On that exact issue, Pauline McNeill has talked about implementation of good, well-meaning schemes. However, I think that we can all agree that the failure to implement the Caledonian scheme—which Rona Mackay asked about—is deeply regrettable. Pam Gosal mentioned earlier that the 2021 act cannot be implemented because it was poorly drafted.
Is there a risk, therefore, that bringing in further legislation in that context that layers on further safeguards and provisions—which are very important—would simply mean that we would have more schemes that, ultimately, would not be brought in fully? That could be more negative than not bringing the bill forward at all.
I have to disagree with you there. When bringing forward legislation, whether it is a member’s bill or a Scottish Government bill, if we were to pack up and say, “Hold on—this legislation is not right,” we would never bring forward any legislation at all. Right now, there is a big, deep increase in domestic abuse, and we need to do more to tackle that.
I listened to survivors and to organisations before introducing my bill. I take the issue of domestic abuse very seriously, which is why I brought the bill to Parliament—I believe that it is needed. We should not think, “Hold on—there was poor legislation in 2021.” If anything, that should make us see that we should pass good legislation, such as my bill, that will actually make a difference in protecting people.
I do not think for one minute that we should step back in our role as parliamentarians and think, “Hold on—we’re not going to be putting anything through.” It is up to the Scottish Government to answer the question as to why the 2021 act has not been implemented. I am sure that when I see Siobhian Brown, not long from now, I will ask her that question.
We have been elected, and we are in the Scottish Parliament, to make good legislation—I agree with that. However, we should not be scared to make any legislation that will help, because in Scotland we are absolutely amazing in respect of the historic legislation that we have passed in Parliament. We need to say that we have made good legislation as well. I hope that that helps.
I will have to bring the session to a close. I thank Pam Gosal and colleagues for coming along today. We will have a short suspension to change over witnesses.
10:38 Meeting suspended.
10:44 On resuming—