Chamber and committees

Absolutely. On those, when I began working on the bill, some of the organisations that also came here to give evidence asked me what I would do in the cases of women who retaliate and what sort of offences the bill would cover. They asked me what would happen if there were blanket offences that covered everybody. That was one area where I really listened to stakeholders and victims to ensure that my bill would make a difference.

Honestly, Ms Mackay, I am open to any amendments and to looking at the thresholds. I know that the committee has discussed whether we should cover only offenders on indictment, only repeat offenders or a lot more people. I am quite open to using the stage 2 and 3 mechanisms.

A lot of this relates to the process of the Parliament. That is not up to me. If it was, I would probably have put the bill in place a long time ago. There are processes that we must abide by and there are stages and certain things that we have to go through. However, at no point did I slack or think that I should do it only by June when I could have done it earlier. I could not have done anything earlier. I gave it enough time to make sure that every voice was heard and that I had gone through the whole process that the Parliament expected me to. I will pass over to Roz Thomson for information on that process.

I think that it would have a deterrent effect, but there are a number of other things to ensure such an effect. The intention is that victims are kept safe, too. That is a big thing in my bill.

Can I come back in on that, please?

We are happy to amend the bill to ensure that victims are not asked the same questions about the same incidents. Multiple agencies are included in that part of the bill so that as much data as possible can be captured. However, we obviously want to avoid any duplication of questioning.

I hope that, when a victim goes into a police station to report a crime, that information is passed down through the whole system right to the court, and that the approach changes only if the circumstances or something else change. I hope that our systems speak to one another right through the process. A victim should never have to go through so much questioning.

I will bring in Roz Thomson, but I will start by repeating what Charlie Pound has just said—we were playing with the statistics and figures that we had to hand. Unfortunately, what we got from the Scottish Government and other agencies is all that we had to play with.

The data from the Government was not even clear on how many domestic abuse offenders were on the sex offenders register. I absolutely agree that there might be some underestimates and some overestimates, but I can only work with the information that I have.

Roz Thomson will come in on some of the technical details.

We will have to look at it, because our information came from the Scottish Government. One would assume that the Scottish Government’s information at that time was correct, but we will also have to look at what the committee has said and see who is right, whether the Scottish Government is wrong or—

I highlight the fact that the register that is proposed in my bill represents a very proactive approach. At the moment, we have the disclosure scheme and other elements, which, as I have said, my bill would complement and work with. Everything is about the poor survivor or the person out there who needs to know whether the person who they are with or are dating is a perpetrator or has been convicted. The onus is always on victims and survivors—we have heard that from them.

The register represents a more proactive approach because, if the bill is passed, the police will sit with a lot more information than they have today, including accurate data on the person’s name and address and where they are currently living. Lots of people are talking about possible amendments to add information on where perpetrators work and what relationships they are in. Such information is very important. Right now, the police do not have accurate, up-to-date data, even on serious offenders—I have heard that directly from police officers and people who have worked for the police. They say that it is sometimes hard to find perpetrators when they go out looking for them. The police might go to five or six different addresses because they do not have an accurate address. My bill would make it an offence if an offender did not provide up-to-date data and information about any changed circumstances. It is so important that the police and the agencies have such information to hand. In that way, the bill represents a very proactive approach.

At the moment, we are saying is that it is fine but, obviously, other things are coming out.

I am proposing a brand-new domestic abuse register. As I said, I have backed up my position with enough stats from research that has been done in other places.