Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I think that I was clear, but, for clarity, in the bill’s definition of domestic abuse offenders we have used the same offences that are contained in the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023. That is what I said to the deputy convener.

I will bring in Charlie Pound for the technical side.

I have spoken to Shakti informally many times and have heard that. My bill is there for serious offenders, not for someone who retaliates. That is why we set such a high threshold.

I will bring in Charlie Pound to talk about the technical stuff.

I have spent almost three and a half years on the bill. There is extensive information out there, including from survivors that I have managed to speak to. I totally understand and respect the committee. I also sit on a committee and I understand that timetables are tight, so I am in no way saying that the committee has done anything wrong. What I am saying is that there is extensive information out there and I do not believe that two evidence sessions can be enough.

I will give you an example regarding the organisations that wrote to the committee. Around 19 organisations have expressed concerns and are against certain parts of the bill, including three women’s aid organisations. There are then some 24 organisations that are in favour of my proposed domestic abuse register, subject to some conditions and amendments that they would like to see, and six women’s aid organisations that support it.

A vast number of people have provided evidence to the committee, but we have had only two evidence sessions, in addition to my three informal consultations and the initial consultation. Some people think the bill is good and some that it is bad, but some have a lot to add to the bill and amendments to suggest. So, yes, I do not believe that two weeks is enough.

I said that there will be some overcosting and undercosting. I make it clear to the member: we can only go on the information that is provided to us. The information was as stated at the time from the Scottish Government, and that is what we clarified. If something else is said somewhere else, we will have to look at that to see whether the Scottish Government was wrong or right.