Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and happy new year. I begin by thanking the committee for the scrutiny that it has undertaken so far on my member’s bill. I have found it very interesting to listen to all the evidence that you have heard, and I think that I can most usefully focus my opening remarks on clarifying what my bill would and would not do.

I have been working on the bill for more than three years, and I have undertaken extensive engagement. That has included three informal consultations with organisations and individuals, and there has been formal feedback through two official consultations. I believe, therefore, that the depth of views on my bill cannot be reflected in just two committee evidence sessions. Figures that were released last week show that 66,000 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded in the space of a year, representing a shocking 10 per cent rise on the previous year. It is, therefore, beyond dispute that domestic abuse is a serious issue and is not going away or getting better.

In her evidence to the committee, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety suggested that much is being done, but we all know that the progress that is so desperately needed is not happening. That has always been the basis for my bill: more must be done, and primary legislation is required to make that change.

My bill would set up, under part 1, a series of notification requirements for those who are convicted of the most serious domestic abuse offences. I focused on the most serious offences, following feedback in my own consultation process, because including lower-level offences could lead to those defending themselves being required to be on what I term “the register”. I think that referring to it as a register may have caused some confusion. It is not a stand-alone process—rather, the data from the notification system will feed into the multi-agency public protection arrangements and, by extension, the multi-agency risk assessment conference. That information can then feed into the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse Scotland—DSDAS.

During her evidence session, the minister made much of the potential for those who commit domestic abuse offences to be assessed as posing a risk that would be sufficient for them to fall under the existing category in MAPPA. I accept that some offenders who would fall under the provisions in my bill would already be covered by MAPPA, but I do not think that it is accurate to suggest that the option of including some individuals based on risk in that category in MAPPA is a substitute for requiring all those who commit serious offences involving domestic abuse to be included in the notification scheme.

Do we consider that everyone who commits serious domestic abuse offences should be monitored in some way? I absolutely do, and I believe that evidence on the impact of the sex offenders register and of MAPPA demonstrates that that would have an impact. I know that it is not cheap, but given the scale of the issue and the cost to wider society, of which the committee is well aware, the huge potential savings in the long term across public services would be far more significant than the initial costs.

It is, of course, challenging to estimate the costs given a notable lack of data on who is already in the system, but the estimated costs are 0.5 per cent of the justice budget. Let me be clear: I make no suggestion that funding would be taken away from existing front-line services relating to domestic abuse in order to fund the implementation of my bill.

With regard to part 2, it has been suggested that the rehabilitation measures would be new and separate from existing work in the area and would therefore represent a duplication of effort. That is not the case. I am seeking to ensure that, when someone is convicted, there is a pathway for them to receive rehabilitation, if it is suitable, at every step of their journey through the justice system, from court to prison to parole.

When I began the process of introducing a member’s bill more than three years ago, I wanted to remove the postcode lottery in relation to whether someone is offered rehabilitation at the point of sentencing. The postcode lottery is still going strong: the roll-out of the Caledonian system and other rehab programmes has been painfully slow, while reoffending rates continue to increase. If the Government’s intention is to have rehab available across all local authorities, why does it not support a bill that would drive the change?

Similarly, on the rehab measures in prison, there are already statutory provisions being implemented on throughcare. I am seeking not to duplicate those, but to ensure that, within those measures, there is tailored throughcare specifically for domestic abuse offenders, so it would be a complementary measure.

On part 3, I note that there has been strong support from stakeholders, as the committee heard in oral evidence from organisations including Scottish Women’s Aid and Social Work Scotland, for the collection of data and that there is an agreement about the clear need for data on protected characteristics. Again, the Government suggests that that work is under way, but why does it not commit to data collection in primary legislation in order to drive the process on? The Government’s memorandum suggests that that would place a burden on charities. However, I have met many charities that already seek to collect that data. I deliberately included in the bill provision to ensure that charities do not have to collect the data, as it would be done on a voluntary basis. The bottom line is: how can we possibly provide the correct support to survivors if we do not understand which victims are engaging with the process? There has been a suggestion that new staff would need to be trained in the criminal justice system if it becomes mandatory to collect such data. Surely, it is already a prerequisite for roles that involve traumatised victims that staff must be trained in how to best handle such delicate situations?

Part 4 covers school education. The Government has repeated the argument that elements of the curriculum are not contained in statute. Why are they not? There is precedent for that as, in December, we added a new example when the Parliament passed my colleague Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. The provisions in my bill are supported by the Scottish Women’s Convention and Shakti Women’s Aid. They have been deliberately drafted in a way that is not overly prescriptive about what form the education should take. Of course, the considerations for special schools and mainstream high schools will be different, which my bill allows for. I do not understand the suggestion that we should leave out the requirement for education and that it should be up to local authorities to decide which schools should include it in their curriculum. Again, it is a postcode lottery that is based on burdens that are already placed on schools, not on the need for children to have the ability to access domestic abuse education.

I also do not accept the concerns related to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. My bill would be implemented by rolling out the terms of the current equally safe programme across Scotland, which is a programme that the Government endorses. In that case, how can there be an issue with UNCRC compliance?

Before I conclude, I make it clear to committee members that a number of issues that were raised during the evidence sessions were not fundamental issues of principle, but slight issues with the definitions and the current wording of the bill, which can be addressed at stage 2 and stage 3. I am happy to work with the committee to address some of those through amendments to the bill.

In conclusion, I cannot put into words how passionate I am about the bill and the serious issue that it addresses. I have worked on it for years and have put a great deal of time and effort into it. I have met victims, charities and many others, which has made me even more determined to make changes to how we deal with this horrendous crime. I am happy to take any questions from the committee.

If any amendments need to be lodged in relation to that aspect, I am quite happy to do that. However, I do not believe that victims will be retraumatised, because the information will be asked for at the point of contact with the police. I am sure that the police ask for a lot of information when a victim comes in. Therefore, there would be no difference between asking for that information and asking for this information.

Good morning, and happy new year. I begin by thanking the committee for the scrutiny that it has undertaken so far on my member’s bill. I have found it very interesting to listen to all the evidence that you have heard, and I think that I can most usefully focus my opening remarks on clarifying what my bill would and would not do.

I have been working on the bill for more than three years, and I have undertaken extensive engagement. That has included three informal consultations with organisations and individuals, and there has been formal feedback through two official consultations. I believe, therefore, that the depth of views on my bill cannot be reflected in just two committee evidence sessions. Figures that were released last week show that 66,000 incidents of domestic abuse were recorded in the space of a year, representing a shocking 10 per cent rise on the previous year. It is, therefore, beyond dispute that domestic abuse is a serious issue and is not going away or getting better.

In her evidence to the committee, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety suggested that much is being done, but we all know that the progress that is so desperately needed is not happening. That has always been the basis for my bill: more must be done, and primary legislation is required to make that change.

My bill would set up, under part 1, a series of notification requirements for those who are convicted of the most serious domestic abuse offences. I focused on the most serious offences, following feedback in my own consultation process, because including lower-level offences could lead to those defending themselves being required to be on what I term “the register”. I think that referring to it as a register may have caused some confusion. It is not a stand-alone process—rather, the data from the notification system will feed into the multi-agency public protection arrangements and, by extension, the multi-agency risk assessment conference. That information can then feed into the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse Scotland—DSDAS.

During her evidence session, the minister made much of the potential for those who commit domestic abuse offences to be assessed as posing a risk that would be sufficient for them to fall under the existing category in MAPPA. I accept that some offenders who would fall under the provisions in my bill would already be covered by MAPPA, but I do not think that it is accurate to suggest that the option of including some individuals based on risk in that category in MAPPA is a substitute for requiring all those who commit serious offences involving domestic abuse to be included in the notification scheme.

Do we consider that everyone who commits serious domestic abuse offences should be monitored in some way? I absolutely do, and I believe that evidence on the impact of the sex offenders register and of MAPPA demonstrates that that would have an impact. I know that it is not cheap, but given the scale of the issue and the cost to wider society, of which the committee is well aware, the huge potential savings in the long term across public services would be far more significant than the initial costs.

It is, of course, challenging to estimate the costs given a notable lack of data on who is already in the system, but the estimated costs are 0.5 per cent of the justice budget. Let me be clear: I make no suggestion that funding would be taken away from existing front-line services relating to domestic abuse in order to fund the implementation of my bill.

With regard to part 2, it has been suggested that the rehabilitation measures would be new and separate from existing work in the area and would therefore represent a duplication of effort. That is not the case. I am seeking to ensure that, when someone is convicted, there is a pathway for them to receive rehabilitation, if it is suitable, at every step of their journey through the justice system, from court to prison to parole.

When I began the process of introducing a member’s bill more than three years ago, I wanted to remove the postcode lottery in relation to whether someone is offered rehabilitation at the point of sentencing. The postcode lottery is still going strong: the roll-out of the Caledonian system and other rehab programmes has been painfully slow, while reoffending rates continue to increase. If the Government’s intention is to have rehab available across all local authorities, why does it not support a bill that would drive the change?

Similarly, on the rehab measures in prison, there are already statutory provisions being implemented on throughcare. I am seeking not to duplicate those, but to ensure that, within those measures, there is tailored throughcare specifically for domestic abuse offenders, so it would be a complementary measure.

On part 3, I note that there has been strong support from stakeholders, as the committee heard in oral evidence from organisations including Scottish Women’s Aid and Social Work Scotland, for the collection of data and that there is an agreement about the clear need for data on protected characteristics. Again, the Government suggests that that work is under way, but why does it not commit to data collection in primary legislation in order to drive the process on? The Government’s memorandum suggests that that would place a burden on charities. However, I have met many charities that already seek to collect that data. I deliberately included in the bill provision to ensure that charities do not have to collect the data, as it would be done on a voluntary basis. The bottom line is: how can we possibly provide the correct support to survivors if we do not understand which victims are engaging with the process? There has been a suggestion that new staff would need to be trained in the criminal justice system if it becomes mandatory to collect such data. Surely, it is already a prerequisite for roles that involve traumatised victims that staff must be trained in how to best handle such delicate situations?

Part 4 covers school education. The Government has repeated the argument that elements of the curriculum are not contained in statute. Why are they not? There is precedent for that as, in December, we added a new example when the Parliament passed my colleague Liz Smith’s Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. The provisions in my bill are supported by the Scottish Women’s Convention and Shakti Women’s Aid. They have been deliberately drafted in a way that is not overly prescriptive about what form the education should take. Of course, the considerations for special schools and mainstream high schools will be different, which my bill allows for. I do not understand the suggestion that we should leave out the requirement for education and that it should be up to local authorities to decide which schools should include it in their curriculum. Again, it is a postcode lottery that is based on burdens that are already placed on schools, not on the need for children to have the ability to access domestic abuse education.

I also do not accept the concerns related to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. My bill would be implemented by rolling out the terms of the current equally safe programme across Scotland, which is a programme that the Government endorses. In that case, how can there be an issue with UNCRC compliance?

Before I conclude, I make it clear to committee members that a number of issues that were raised during the evidence sessions were not fundamental issues of principle, but slight issues with the definitions and the current wording of the bill, which can be addressed at stage 2 and stage 3. I am happy to work with the committee to address some of those through amendments to the bill.

In conclusion, I cannot put into words how passionate I am about the bill and the serious issue that it addresses. I have worked on it for years and have put a great deal of time and effort into it. I have met victims, charities and many others, which has made me even more determined to make changes to how we deal with this horrendous crime. I am happy to take any questions from the committee.

Good morning. I would like to ask a question about the existing systems that are in place. Do you believe that the sex offenders register and the notification requirements that are imposed by it help to keep the public safe?

If you agree that there is nothing wrong with the equally safe at school programme and that it complies with the UNCRC, why would there be a problem with guaranteeing in law that it should apply to domestic abuse education?

It is good to hear that 23 out of 32 local authorities have rolled out rehabilitation work, and that that could increase to 25. However, Glyn Lloyd from Social Work Scotland said last week that there is

“no consistency across the 32 local authorities.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 10 December 2025; c 15.]

He also said that the Caledonian system is the only accredited programme in Scotland. An election could change that. A new Government that comes in in May could decide that it is not worth rolling out the Caledonian system across the country. If you agree that we could guarantee access to rehabilitation programmes, would it not be better to enshrine that in law so that it does not become a postcode lottery?

My question was about the sex offenders register and the notification requirements that are imposed by it. Does that register help to keep the public safe?

If you believe that sex offenders should be required to comply with notification requirements, do you not believe that the same should apply to those who are guilty of crimes of domestic abuse?

In your letter, you said that you agreed that claims that notification requirements act as a deterrent for potential offenders were “unevidenced”. If so, why is that system still in place for sex offenders?

I have a couple questions about some other areas. Could you tell us which public bodies collect data on protected characteristics?