Plenary, 27 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Thursday, June 27, 2002

Official Report 734KB pdf

---

Police Reform Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3237, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Police Reform Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I call Richard Simpson to speak to and move the motion.

On 30 January, the Scottish Parliament approved a Sewel motion on the Police Reform Bill. Today's supplementary motion concerns some additional specific provisions to close a loophole in the existing sex offender order system and to do so in a way that is consistent across the United Kingdom. The need for that consistency is why it makes sense in this case to deal with this legislation in the UK Parliament. To do otherwise would mean continuation for a period of the current position under which sex offender orders that are made in one part of the UK are not enforceable in another part of the UK, and a delay in changes to introduce greater flexibility to the application process. I do not believe that either of those results would be in the public interest. We have a duty to do all that we can to protect individuals, families and communities. Not to approve these provisions would be to take an unacceptable risk with people's lives.

Members might remember the publicity surrounding a certain case earlier this year. In that case, an individual who was subject to a sex offender order in England moved to Scotland. That order did not apply in Scotland and the police here had to seek a new order. They did so quickly and effectively and with the minimum of fuss. However, suppose another offender, also subject to an order, were to come across the border unannounced. There would be nothing to stop that individual doing in Scotland what he has been banned from doing south of the border. That is the legal loophole that we want to close.

Given the nature of the proposal, does the minister regard the matter as urgent? If it is urgent, would it not be better to deal with it in Scotland?

I am grateful to the member for raising that highly specious point that is the basis of the SNP's opposition to the motion. If we dealt with this matter with a separate bill, we would go through a consultation process and the committee stages, which would take an equal length of time to the time that is being taken by the UK legislation. More important, if our measure came into effect before the UK legislation and was not wholly consistent with it, there would be an opportunity for sex offenders to move across the border and we would have to amend the act further. On both those grounds, this is, par excellence, a situation in which the Sewel motion should apply.

The bill offers the quickest way to close the legal loophole in a way that covers the whole of the UK. That is the right way forward. I am pleased that agreement has been reached quickly between the Scottish Executive, the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office. I point out to Mr Adam that it is important that consistency is achieved not only with England but with Northern Ireland, because, although there are 170 sexual offenders to whom the order applies in England, there could be a small number in Northern Ireland as well and we would have no idea about it. There is no doubt about the fact that dealing with the matter through a Sewel motion is the right way forward.

As members will be aware, a sex offender is defined as someone who has been convicted of an offence to which part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies, or an equivalent offence abroad. Sex offender orders were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and form an important tool in the management of the most dangerous sex offenders who are living in the community.

If a sex offender has acted in a way that gives reasonable cause to believe that such an order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from him, the police can apply for an order. The trigger behaviour concerned—such as a sex offender talking to children in public playgrounds—may not amount to an offence that could be prosecuted in its own right, but it must give the police cause for concern.

At present, an application for an order in Scotland is made to a sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any place where it is alleged that the offender has acted in a way that gives reasonable cause to believe that an order is necessary. Under the present arrangements, once an order is in effect, a complaint must be made by the police or the offender to the court that originally granted the order for it to be varied or discharged.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created separate provisions for sex offender orders in England and Wales and in Scotland. Orders are also provided for separately in legislation for Northern Ireland. While the existing system works well for the majority of offenders who are subject to a sex offender order, it has become clear that some real problems can arise when the police have to deal with offenders who move from one part of the country to another or between the separate jurisdictions of the UK.

The changes that are now being proposed across the UK will give the police, including the Scottish police service, greater flexibility in how they apply for sex offender orders and how the orders are amended and discharged. The provisions also extend the jurisdiction of sex offender orders to the United Kingdom as a whole. As a result, the revised system could prohibit the doing of anything anywhere in the United Kingdom, instead of being limited to the jurisdiction in which the orders are created. While some of the prohibitions may relate to specific localities, others may be more general and relevant wherever the offender might be. Breach of any such prohibition, wherever that may occur in the United Kingdom, would be an offence that would be prosecutable in the place in which the breach occurs.

We believe that the use of the Sewel system in this instance is entirely appropriate. It is the best way of achieving our common objectives from the point of view of both consistency and reasonable speed.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principle that sex offenders orders made in one jurisdiction within the United Kingdom should be recognised and enforceable throughout the UK with appropriate provisions in place concerning how the orders are applied for, amended and discharged, and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve these ends should be considered by the UK Parliament in the Police Reform Bill.

I cannot welcome the fact that we are debating the 34th Sewel motion in the Parliament, and the ninth Sewel motion on a devolved area that relates to criminal justice matters. However, I am sure that most members recognise the need to close the loophole that was highlighted in the Steven Beech case, which affected Grampian police. I am sure that most members agree that few issues create greater public concern than how we deal with sex offenders and ensure that there is sufficient public safety.

However, the matter—

Get to the constitution.

I ask the member to bear with me.

The matter highlights not only the inefficiencies of the present legislation but the difficulty of dealing with sex offenders. For the price of an £80 flight ticket to Aberdeen, Cambridgeshire police has been able to rid itself of the costly exercise of having to monitor a sex offender.

May I take it from the member's comments that, in an SNP-governed independent Scotland, the movement of UK citizens would be prohibited?

No, that is not the case. The situation highlights the financial implications for local constabularies. I understand that it is costing Grampian police £200,000 a year to deal with that individual, which highlights both the complexity of the matter and its financial implications.

The question arises whether Westminster is using the best mechanism for closing that loophole by using a Sewel motion. The Police Reform Bill is a House of Lords bill; it is not a House of Commons bill. There is considerable uncertainty over the bill's timetable. I repeat that I am sure that all members recognise that that loophole should be closed, but the clerks who are dealing with the bill at Westminster have stated that it will be extremely difficult to ensure that the bill is passed before Westminster gets away for the summer recess. The loophole could be left open until October, when the House of Commons returns from the summer recess, and the Government has no control over the timetable because the House of Lords will deal with the final stage of the bill.

I am sure that the minister recognises that it is important to close the loophole quickly. We have dealt previously with similarly urgent matters by means of emergency legislation. We did so with the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2002. We also had emergency legislation on the Erskine bridge tolls. If legislation for reinstating tolls on the Erskine bridge was considered an emergency matter, closing a loophole in dealing with sex offenders is an even greater priority. The minister should have introduced emergency legislation.

To say that there might be inconsistencies in the drafting of legislation in Scotland shows a lack of confidence in the Executive about being able to draft its legislation. Further, the Home Office has confirmed that drafting instructions, which detail exactly what has to be provided for, have been passed to the Executive. Therefore, the Executive has the information that would allow it to act.

Can the minister give members a guarantee that the loophole will be closed before Westminster rises for its summer recess? If not, is he prepared to come back to Parliament, when we return from the summer recess, to introduce emergency legislation that would allow us to close the loophole, which would ensure public confidence in how we deal with sex offenders in Scotland?

We strongly support the minister on the Sewel motion. I am sure that we were all concerned to read in the Daily Record of 17 June that people who were guilty of sex crimes and the subject of a sex offender order in England and Wales would escape monitoring by the authorities simply by travelling to Scotland. None of us wants Scotland to become some kind of sex offenders' Gretna Green. I am sure that those in Gretna Green would share that reservation.

The problem was highlighted by the case of a rapist with more than 100 convictions who moved up to Scotland. The same loophole exists for offenders travelling south who are subject to orders in Scotland. If someone who is subject to an English order moves to Scotland, the Scottish police must seek a new order, which takes a great deal of time.

It is imperative that that escape route is removed. We believe that a Sewel motion is the most appropriate way of doing that. Sex offender orders can be made against sex offenders whose behaviour gives rise to reasonable belief that an order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. By amending the Police Reform Bill, it is hoped that a flexible regime will be in place for amending discharge orders throughout the United Kingdom. We feel that we must do everything possible to provide greater safety and protection for Scots people. I support the motion.

I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I feel that I must respond to the SNP's contribution. The Liberal Democrats support the Sewel motion because we believe in things being done properly and sensibly. The SNP seems to prefer constitutional obsessions to public safety. There is no logic to Richard Lochhead's argument on the subject. However, it is logical for the loophole to be dealt with consistently throughout the United Kingdom.

Even if the Scottish Parliament passed emergency legislation this afternoon—obviously it cannot do so, because no such legislation is on the table—that would not deal with the inconsistencies throughout the United Kingdom. The matter must be dealt with sensibly. The quickest and most logical way of doing that is by Westminster legislation, supported by the Scottish Parliament through a Sewel motion. We should reject the SNP's narrow-minded constitutional obsession on this important matter.

I, like Iain Smith, realise that the SNP has a fixed position of opposing every Sewel motion as a matter of supposed constitutional principle. The arguments and guarantees that Michael Matheson asked for are a smokescreen for the fact that the SNP's only argument is to oppose the Sewel motion in principle.

It is right that Westminster takes the initiative in changing the law to increase its effectiveness, particularly as it concerns the safety of the public at large. Labour and Lib Dem members care about what happens to citizens in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on this issue. Therefore, it matters to us that we legislate consistently throughout the country. It seems that SNP members are not concerned about that. Mutual recognition is a crucial theme of the Police Reform Bill. The provisions that the minister has outlined are provisions with which the Scottish Parliament cannot argue because they protect public safety.

Richard Simpson's answer to Brian Adam's intervention is the most important point. Even if we could legislate this afternoon, what would be the point? If we have different provisions in Scotland from those in England, that means that the provisions throughout the UK will not be consistent.

That is a point that Brian Adam does not seem to understand. The amendments to the Police Reform Bill are intended to change the law in two ways. First, they will give the police greater flexibility in how they apply for a sex offender order. That is crucial. I do not think that the Parliament would argue with that flexibility. Communities will benefit from the protection whereby a sex offender order that was granted in England for an offender who is resident in Scotland can be enforced in Scotland.

Other things need to be done, and the provisions in the Police Reform Bill—

Will Pauline McNeill give way?

I am not taking any interventions as a point of principle, because the SNP has no arguments.

Under the new provisions, sheriffs will be able to hear an application for an order if the behaviour took place in their jurisdiction or if the order has been breached. That provision is fundamental.

The SNP should tell us what provisions would be different from those in the Police Reform Bill if we were to debate a bill this afternoon. Brian Adam makes the point, which Richard Lochhead made in his press release in May, that the cost of monitoring Steven Beech is a problem to Scotland. In case the SNP did not know, monitoring sex offenders is a costly business. It is also time consuming. That is why the Parliament is spending so much time on the MacLean report to ensure that we get the provisions right.

The SNP is missing the point once again. The point is that, just as we have to pay the bill for an English offender who lives in Scotland, if a Scottish sex offender lives in England, England foots the bill. Even if there were an imbalance and Scotland were paying more money than England, it is not beyond the Executive's wit to discuss with the Westminster Parliament—

It might be beyond Michael Matheson's wit, but it is not beyond the wit of the Scottish Executive ministers to discuss with Westminster how that bill could be better balanced.

I warn the SNP: this is the 34th time that SNP members have stood on their feet and opposed a Sewel motion for the sake of it. Will that be the SNP position for every other Sewel motion that comes before the Parliament? People will be watching. The SNP must be consistent: it must oppose all other Sewel motions. We will be listening to the arguments that it makes. Opposing Sewel motions makes bad law. That is the point that the Parliament should take on board.

On the time that the Police Reform Bill will take, we could not legislate any more quickly. The SNP is arguing that important parliamentary business—some of the business for which the Justice 1 Committee, of which Michael Matheson is a member, wanted parliamentary time—would have to go. What would be the point of that?

I begin by apologising for missing the minister's opening remarks. I was delayed in getting to the chamber today, having returned from Shetland. I will take great delight in responding to some of the comments that the minister's Labour colleagues have made.

I welcome the debate. The issue is sensitive not just for the Parliament but for those in communities throughout Scotland who are concerned about how the Parliament and the Government respond to sex offenders and former sex offenders in our communities.

Let us make no bones about the matter. The bill is before us because of the case of Steven Beech, which is an extreme and high-profile case. Steven Beech has 115 convictions and was front-page headline news throughout England. He was described as England's most notorious sex offender. In spite of that, Cambridgeshire constabulary gave Grampian police 24 hours' notice that it would provide a one-way ticket for that individual, who had chosen to live by the seaside and had chosen Aberdeen on the map. That is not a satisfactory situation and I do not think that any member of any political party would think that it is.

So?

One of the Labour members is shouting "So?" It is an extremely important point. The matter gave Grampian police an enormous headache. They received a phone call telling them—

Will Richard Lochhead give way?

Will the member let me finish the point that I am making? This is an enormous issue for Grampian police, who were given 24 hours' notice of the fact that Steven Beech would be in its patch. Steven Beech is still deemed to pose a risk to the public. Surely that is an important aspect of the debate.

Does the member not agree that the only issue for the SNP is how to get itself out of a hole? The SNP has consistently opposed Sewel motions, even when they have benefited the disabled. Today the SNP is in a hole and is trying to get out of it.

I will return to the point that the member makes about Sewel motions. Today we are here primarily to debate an extremely important and sensitive issue relating to sex offenders and how the Parliament should respond.

The arrival of Steven Beech has created headaches not only for the police. The people of the north-east of Scotland were terrified when they read in the papers that Beech was coming to live in the area. There was a complete outcry—almost every MSP representing the north-east was contacted by members of the public who were concerned about the issue. Huge public concern was expressed, not least by women's organisations in the north-east.

Has the SNP faced those concerns?

I ask the member to let me finish.

We welcome any attempt to close a loophole and protect the public interest, but there are wider issues that the Parliament must address, such as cost. It has been revealed that it may cost the north-east of Scotland £200,000 a year to look after Steven Beech. No one is arguing that a penny of that £200,000 is wasted; it is important that we spend the money. However, is it right that the situation should be allowed to arise without the public authorities in the north-east of Scotland being notified of it? We must take account of the fact that the individual concerned is receiving treatment in the north-east—treatment that he did not receive south of the border. We should discuss with the authorities in England the treatment that is provided to sex offenders.

Michael Matheson argued that the Scottish Parliament should legislate in this area. The Parliament was elected by the people of Scotland and is responsible for justice. Surely we are obliged to legislate on issues such as this, which are important to communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Sewel motions have been abused. They were supposed to be used only rarely. This is an emergency situation, and the Parliament should pass emergency legislation. The man Sewel himself says that he is extremely surprised by how often the Executive uses Sewel motions to get Westminster to legislate on Scotland's behalf.

This is a very sensitive issue on which we should legislate here in Scotland. The people of Scotland elected us to do that, and we should do it today. We owe it to the people in the north-east of Scotland, who continue to be extremely concerned that Steven Beech is living in their community. Despite the fact that his offences were committed south of the border, Scotland is expected to pick up the tab for looking after Steven Beech, who is still deemed to be a risk to the community. We owe it to the people of Scotland to legislate on such matters in the Scottish Parliament.

I welcome the contributions from two thirds of the chamber. The common sense that members have displayed in their interventions and speeches demonstrates that this is an area in which a Sewel motion is entirely appropriate and should be used.

The fact that the bill is in the House of Lords is irrelevant, because that is where it began. The intention is to complete by the end of July, but even if there were slippage—

Will the minister take an intervention?

No, I want to finish my point.

The member should remember that although the Scottish Parliament is going into recess now, it is probable that the Westminster Parliament will not go into recess until the end of July. We return in September and Westminster returns in October.

One point that the SNP has failed to address is that of consistency. I am glad to hear that SNP members would be happy to take drafting instructions from the Home Office, which was the implication. However, drafting instructions do not mean that there will not be amendments at a later stage at Westminster, which means that we could end up with an inconsistency between our law and the law there. If there was such an inconsistency, and if a single sex offender got through it, the SNP would be responsible for it, not us. The SNP has failed to answer that point.

Will the minister guarantee that the loophole will be closed before October? If not, the Executive will allow people in Scotland to be exposed to sex offenders for four months. I believe that the Executive can deal with the matter more quickly. It has failed to address that point.

I cannot give an absolute guarantee. The SNP's assumption that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Government are any less concerned about the situation than we are is an affront to those Assemblies. The SNP has failed to understand and answer the question of consistency and it has failed to address the situation. I challenge the SNP to vote in favour of the Sewel motion. The SNP should understand that if it does not, we will tell every community in Scotland that it is putting constitutional wrangling before the protection of the public, because that is the truth of the matter.

For Michael Matheson to compare the Erskine bridge tolls with the protection of the public and issues relating to sex offenders is an affront that will not go unnoticed or unchallenged. I suggest to the SNP and its leadership that they stop addressing Sewel motions on the same basis every time and consider each Sewel motion individually. We could then have a rational discussion. The SNP should not oppose this Sewel motion and if it does, we will make it pay.