Chamber and committees

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—

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.

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 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.

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.

It was published in 2025.

At that time, because the bill was just shaping up, there was nothing official, but I spoke to him in the corridor, for example.

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.

Absolutely.

I have not put that in the provision. I think that I was very clear in saying that there would have to be consultation.