Plenary, 05 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, October 5, 2000

Official Report 715KB pdf

---

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

One of the Executive's key aims is to create a Scotland where people feel safer and are safer. There can be little doubt that sex offences are among the crimes that cause greatest damage and fear, not least among parents and women. The Executive is committed to protecting the public from the risk that is posed by sex offenders and to reducing the fear that such offenders cause people.

The proposals that are covered by my motion are measures to strengthen current legislation on the registration of sex offenders. Members have been provided with a detailed background to the measures through letters that I sent out on 20 September and 28 September and a memorandum that was prepared by the Scottish Executive.

The Executive has been considering how to proceed in Scotland, given the legislative proposals that have been introduced at Westminster. We recommend to the Scottish Parliament that the relevant provisions on the registration of sex offenders that are currently being considered at Westminster should be extended to include Scotland. The motion has been lodged—under the Sewel convention—to invite Parliament to agree to that approach.

The aim of the registration system is to provide the police with up-to-date information on the whereabouts of sex offenders, which will allow better assessment and management of the risk that such offenders pose to the public. It has been widely recognised that there are weaknesses in the registration system and the Home Office and the Scottish Executive have long planned to review the Sex Offenders Act 1997 to address those weaknesses. The start of the joint review was announced in June.

The review will build on research on the operation of the act in England and Wales, which was published in August, and on the work that has been done in Scotland by the expert panel on sex offending that was chaired by Lady Cosgrove. Following extensive consultation on the experience of police in Scotland on the operation of the act, a sub-group of the expert panel—under Chief Constable John Orr—has produced recommendations for changes in the registration system. The group's provisional report has been made available to assist the Home Office joint review group and the report is being considered as part of that work.

The measures that we want to introduce address a number of the weaknesses that were identified by the sub-group under Chief Constable Orr and which were identified in the work done in the joint review by the Home Office. The proposals are: to require initial registration by sex offenders in person within 72 hours; to provide powers for the police to fingerprint and photograph offenders on registration; to increase the maximum penalty for failure to register from six months to five years; to give ministers the powers to make regulations restricting the police stations at which offenders are able to register; to give ministers the power to make regulations requiring sex offenders to notify the police when travelling abroad; and to give ministers the power to make regulations requiring notification to the police of when sex offenders are released from custody.

Those specific measures address many of the shortcomings in the current registration system, which have already been identified, in particular by the police. In addition, there will be regulations to require notification to the police to ensure that they are aware of all registrable offenders who are leaving custody—prison, hospital or youth custody. Currently, that is not always the case, particularly for patients who are discharged from hospital, where complications can arise from the need for patient confidentiality. I should emphasise that, although the motion seeks to make those changes through legislation at Westminster, in Scotland, the powers to which I have referred will be exercisable by Scottish ministers and the regulations will be subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament.

We have identified several other weaknesses that need to be addressed, such as the range of offences that are covered by the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the registration of those who have been convicted abroad of sex offences. Those require further consideration as do other proposals, such as making the requirement to register fully retrospective. As I have said, we will take that forward with the Home Office in the joint review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, with a view to producing proposals next spring.

In the meantime, we believe that the proposals represent a significant improvement in the current regime for registration of sex offenders. They introduce measures to address several weaknesses in the system that have been identified, without waiting for the outcome of the rest of the work.

In addition to supporting the proposals on their merits, we believe that it is vital to maintain a common registration regime on either side of the border, to avoid any potential loopholes in enforcement. We must ensure that there is no incentive for sex offenders to move to a particular jurisdiction, for example, because the penalty there is lighter. There would also be particular difficulties if there were a requirement to notify the police when travelling abroad from England and Wales, but not from Scotland.

Our joint review of the act with the Home Office is intended to maintain commonality. It is clear that the proposed measures concern devolved matters and are therefore within the legislative competence of this Parliament. Normally, the Executive would look to introduce suitable legislation here. However, on this occasion we believe that the best route to follow is to extend the provisions that are being tabled at Westminster to cover Scotland.

We believe that the provisions to strengthen the registration system in Scotland should be introduced as soon as possible and that we should keep a common system of registration throughout the United Kingdom, as exists at present. Given the substantive legislative programme that the First Minister announced last month, it would be difficult to introduce the necessary legislation to Parliament before April. That would result in the provisions being enacted in Scotland nine months or even a year after similar legislation had been enacted for England and Wales. That is an unacceptably long time to have a less effective registration regime in Scotland, and in which to operate with differences that have the potential implications that I mentioned. Therefore, we believe that the best way to proceed is to extend the planned amendments to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill at Westminster to cover Scotland.

I should add that a number of measures are being introduced by the Home Secretary that we do not propose to introduce in Scotland at the moment. They are: a statutory duty on chief constables and probation services to work together on risk assessment and management; a power for ministers to issue guidance on such arrangements and on the publication of information to the public about them; a duty to consult and inform victims of the release arrangements and conditions relating to violent and sexual offenders; and a power for the court to make an order—at the time of sentencing—which would place restrictions on more serious sex offenders and take effect from an offender's release from custody.

We intend to consider the proposals in the context of other work that is on-going in Scotland, particularly Lord MacLean's committee on serious violent and sexual offenders—his report is currently subject to consultation—and the expert panel, to which I have referred. I have mentioned our intention to publish our proposals in light of consultation early next year, with a view to further legislation as soon as is practicable thereafter. Lady Cosgrove's expert panel is considering monitoring and supervision, information issues, accommodation, risk assessment and management and intervention programmes. That panel is due to report next spring and its recommendations are expected to be wide ranging and comprehensive.

Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to record that the Executive is firmly of the view that there should be no general right of access to the sex offenders register. In our view, a general right would not assist in the protection of children or public safety, because such a right would be likely to result in dangerous sex offenders failing to register and the police losing track of their whereabouts. We have already seen the risk of vigilante action. Our view is supported by the MacLean committee, which examined a range of models of community notification in other countries. That committee concluded that the adoption of widespread public notification would not enhance public safety.

As I have said, we believe that the Home Secretary's proposed measures strengthen the registration of sex offenders and that they should be extended to Scotland. We believe that the measures should be enacted in Scotland as soon as possible and that the best way of achieving that is to extend the current provisions at Westminster to Scotland. We believe also that the best way to progress the other measures is to consider them with the outcome of other continuing work.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that changes to the current registrations scheme for the registering of sex offenders under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 are proposed in amendments in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill currently before the UK Parliament; recognises the practical importance of consistency across the United Kingdom, and agrees that provisions to achieve these ends should be considered in the Bill by the UK Parliament.

Presiding Officer, you will have noted that I was putting a line through certain sections of my speech so that I would finish it in on time.

I start by placing on record again my concern at the frequency with which the mechanism of a Sewel motion is being employed in Parliament. At the time of the debates over the then Scotland Bill, one clause stood out as representing a matter of concern—that was the catch-all clause that allowed Westminster to go on legislating for Scotland, even on devolved matters. Of course, we were continually reassured that that power was intended to be used very rarely indeed. The First Minister—then the Secretary of State for Scotland—said on 28 January 1998:

"there is a possibility . . . of the United Kingdom Parliament legislating across those areas, but it is not one which we anticipate or expect."

Since the turn of the year, in the justice remit alone, there have been three such rubber-stamping exercises, which have been dubbed Sewel motions. That figure suggests to me that such motions are becoming—and again I quote the then Secretary of State for Scotland—

"a practical part of the daily passage of politics . . . in this country."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 January 1998, Vol 305, c 402-403.]

That is a suggestion to which the First Minister has strongly objected.

The Executive memorandum on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill stated:

"It would remain open to the Scottish Parliament if it so wished to amend or repeal in the future any Scottish provisions enacted by the passage of the Bill."

That was missing from the memorandum on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and I note that it is absent from the memorandum that we received in advance of today's debate.

No matter how important the topic, or how valid the reasons for opting for a Sewel motion, we are abdicating our responsibility to the Parliament if we fail to assert our present and future legislative competence over the policy area in which we are allowing Westminster to legislate in our stead, purely for reasons of practical expediency.

The new convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee pointed out to me that a drawback of Sewel motions is that they are much less likely to be subject to the kind of committee scrutiny that the Parliament has prided itself upon. In this case, of course, there is some practical expediency to be gained by invoking the procedure—that is why the Scottish National Party is not opposing the motion.

However, the arguments that have been made for a common approach to sex offenders throughout jurisdictions within the UK are strong, although it might be argued that, logically, we should extend the cross-jurisdiction approach further than the remainder of the UK. There is no doubt that it is an issue on which international co-operation is required and that that would receive support. I note in passing however, that neither the Irish, with whom we share a border, nor the French, with whom we have a direct link through the channel tunnel, are allowing Westminster to legislate on their behalf.

Having said that, the SNP fully supports legislation to increase the safety of children and we have argued for the sort of improvements that are before us today. I note in particular that the minister intends to consider further the proposed new restriction order that will be made on conviction. I hope that that process addresses the issue of introducing lifetime supervision of serial sexual offenders. If a repeated pattern of sexual offending exists, it is unlikely that there will ever come a time when that pattern will not need to be controlled. If serial sexual offenders are to live within our communities, we need a mechanism in place that will ensure that they are under supervision for as long as they are at liberty; the SNP has called repeatedly for such a mechanism to be put in place. I hope that the Executive is at least considering that.

Tragic cases such as that of Scott Simpson, who was murdered by a man who was seven months into a nine-month supervision order, show that we cannot simply depend on supervision orders, however long they are in place. Much more must be done to address offenders' behaviour while they are in prison. There is little point in imposing prison sentences and supervision orders if no steps are taken to tackle the offending behaviour in the first place. Until the resources and programmes are put in place to do that, the motion—and any other proposals about registers, supervision orders and so on—will be nothing but sticking-plaster solutions.

I know that the minister will want to see progress made on that in future and I look forward to him responding positively to my suggestions.

I support the measures that are designed to tackle crime. I appreciate that some members might wish that the legislation were handled here in Scotland, but that is for another debate. Today, the Scottish Conservatives lend their support to the Executive. We want to see effective proposals turned into effective legislation as soon as possible and we are happy to do our part to speed up the process.

Events during the late spring and summer concentrated much attention on campaigns for a Sarah's law. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the shortcomings of the sex offenders register hit the headlines for the worst possible reasons. Parents, whose concern is perfectly understandable, must be reassured. We are not in the business of providing havens for paedophiles. We want to keep an eye on them and, hopefully, prevent them re-offending. The key is in keeping track of them. I hope that the minister will look favourably on developments in electronic tagging. Perhaps he will comment on that later.

The Conservatives will support measures that increase penalties for failure to register. We welcome the proposed reduction in time for initial registration and the stiffer regulations regarding the police stations where some offenders are able to report.

Current proposals do not include provisions whereby sex offenders who plan to travel abroad are required to provide their residential addresses while they are abroad and details of their points of entry and re-entry. Many Scots would be happier if those proposals were included. Will the minister comment on that?

The minister can be assured that we wish the measures good speed and that the Conservatives will do what we can to assist.

At the end of Jim Wallace's recent letter to all MSPs, he stated:

"There is no one solution, and certainly no easy solution, to the risks posed by the presence of sex offenders in the community".

There is also no easy solution to people's fear of sex offenders being placed in the community, as I know from my constituency.

When I returned from my holiday, I discovered that a house in Cumnock had been attacked by a group of local people who had the wrong information. They believed that a sex offender was to be relocated in their community, courtesy of misleading third-hand information, which originated in the News of the World. I want to pay tribute to the local newspaper, the Cumnock Chronicle, which reported that story responsibly. Instead of trying to scandalise or to highlight problems, the Cumnock Chronicle took the responsible attitude and tried to calm the situation. The paper reinforced the point that the information was wrong and resolved the problem.

People who have been abused or who have been subjected to sex offences want the legislation to be changed and improved. They are less concerned about who changes that legislation and the technicalities of how it goes through Westminster or the Scottish Parliament. They want action to be taken to make life better for people who have suffered. We must reassure them that children and women will be safe to go about their daily business in our communities.

I recognise that a number of contentious areas remain, but the Executive is well on the way to addressing them. For example, the issue of whether someone who is accused of rape or sexual offences should have their anonymity protected until there is a conviction remains contentious, not least because of the distress that that can cause their family.

However, I refute totally the idea that is circulated by some people, that women and children make false rape allegations regularly. They are more likely to keep quiet because they have no confidence that they will be believed or that the system will offer them justice or support.

I welcome the Executive's commitment, given elsewhere, that it will consider legislating to outlaw the practice of cross-examination of victims in rape cases by the alleged accused. I also welcome the additional support that is being made available to victims and that the Executive is undertaking to give victims information on release dates voluntarily. I know that young people who have been subjected to abuse welcome the knowledge that they will not have to be surprised by meeting their abuser in the street without being given advance warning that that person was about to be released.

There are also tensions about the proposal for a register of people who are not fit to work with young people because of suspicions that they might have abused young people. Every report that has been written on child abuse in care has highlighted that issue. Every investigation into such scandals has highlighted the problem of everybody having suspicions somewhere down the line, but no one having enough information to convict the person who was suspected of abuse. Despite the human rights difficulties that are associated with the matter, we must remember that the rights of children are paramount in such situations. We must grapple with the difficulties of getting the balance right.

I realise that my speech has run over time and I conclude by reminding members of the last sentence in Jim Wallace's letter. He said that

"the steps we are taking across the UK and more particularly in Scotland"

give us the opportunity to review the legislation, to get it right and to safeguard

"our communities, and especially our children".

The debate also gives me an opportunity to give a timely reminder: most young people who are victims of abuse are abused in their homes by people whom they know well. We must continue to address that matter sensitively.

We move to the open part of the debate. So far, I have been notified of three members who wish to speak. They will each have about three minutes.

As someone who was a criminal justice social worker in a previous life, as we say, I am sure that the measures announced today on the tightening of registration requirements and on the increase in the penalty for failure to register will be welcomed by many of those involved in that area of criminal justice work. We must acknowledge the devious nature of many sexual offenders. Their ability to lose themselves is a real concern, as is their ability to find accommodation and employment that give them access to often vulnerable children and families.

I will highlight a couple of areas that illustrate the need for the Scottish Parliament to take a distinctive approach to addressing the problems that exist in Scotland. The first is the importance of accurate risk assessment. There has undoubtedly been great improvement in information sharing between social workers and the police. However, there remains a problem when a social worker is preparing the risk assessment report in terms of that social worker getting access to information held by the procurator fiscal and the police. Will the minister take steps to ensure that criminal justice social workers get access to the complaint or indictment, rather than to the sanitised versions that they currently receive, many of which I accept as having been plea-bargained down?

The second issue concerns the current unsatisfactory situation with regard to the disclosure of sexual offences to employment services. Cathy Jamieson mentioned the problem of human rights but, at present, disclosure can be made only if the offender consents to that disclosure. If we are serious about the protection of children, surely the need to place employment restrictions on potentially dangerous individuals must be paramount. Will the minister consider the situation again and allow criminal justice social workers to pass on that information regardless of permission being given by the offender?

I praise the work being undertaken based on the 1997 document, "A Commitment to Protect". Many local authorities are following those guidelines on behavioural change work with sexual offenders. That requires, among other things, that two social workers, preferably one of each sex, work together with a single offender, and that they employ more intrusive measures of surveillance. They have to do that within their current budget allocation and without additional resources.

I am sure that everyone in this chamber is anxious to address fully all the issues related to sexual offenders. Will the minister therefore ensure that local authorities have sufficient funding to allow criminal justice social workers to carry out their duties and responsibilities to ensure the highest possible level of child and victim protection?

I record my party's support for the motion. The six Scottish measures in the Westminster bill seem to be practical and technical in nature, rather than matters of great principle, but perhaps the minister can say whether the powers for Scottish ministers to make regulations will be by the affirmative order process.

We think that the measures will improve powers to monitor offenders. When one reads the measures, that is self-explanatory. We accept that a common UK approach is thoroughly desirable in this area. Given that a specific Scottish bill would involve a longer lead time of at least nine months, and perhaps longer, there is an overwhelming case for this Sewel motion procedure. That case is well made, because the public would not accept delay in this highly sensitive area.

The key issue in this debate is how we can provide a safe environment for our children and for the most vulnerable people in our society. Consistency across the UK for the sex offenders register is only one issue. The Sewel motion before us today will allow us that coherence and consistency across borders. It is crucial to extend the proposed Westminster legislation to ensure that the six necessary amendments are brought forward in Scotland through the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.

It is vital that we maintain a common register regime on either side of the border to avoid legal complications in enforcement, and to ensure that no incentive is provided for sex offenders to move to another jurisdiction because the penalties are lighter in that area. We have taken a similar view with our drug enforcement strategy, and that is the right way to progress. Where we consider the legislation is a technicality.

As many speakers have said, we must consider the issue in a wider context, and I welcome the Executive's policy developments. I particularly welcome the report by the expert panel on sex offending and serious and violent offenders and the publication of the revised guidance for local authorities. The work with police and social workers in that operation is to be welcomed. That work has been alluded to by various members.

It is equally important that we unpack all the strands in this complex area and find out how our community as a whole is affected. The work that is being undertaken by the cross-party working groups, which are considering related issues, must be welcomed. I am the chair of the cross-party working group that is considering the support for those who have survived serious sexual assault. I take this opportunity to thank all those in the Parliament and the kingdom abuse survivors project for their continuing work on this issue.

Like other members, I have heard of the effect that sexual abuse can have on the family and the whole community. There is no single solution, but this motion takes us a vital part of the way down that road.

I have a question for the minister, relating to the point that Lyndsay McIntosh made. I understand that no provision will be made in the UK legislation on sexual offenders for the registration of residential addresses while those people are abroad or elsewhere in the country. An amendment to the bill may be lodged in the House of Lords, but that may not be agreed to. Can the minister comment on that, and will he assure us that such a provision will be made in the Scottish legislation?

The United Kingdom Government has undertaken to consider a proposed amendment in the House of Lords, on ports of entry in countries of destination. The amendment was lodged this week, at the committee stage of the bill in the House of Lords, and the Government is considering whether the amendment can be made practical. Further work on the amendment will be required, but the Government has undertaken to consider that proposal.

As that speech was so brief, Margo MacDonald can have two minutes in which to speak.

I take up a point that was made by Marilyn Livingstone. I am sorry that she is not in the chamber now, as I would hate it to go unremarked. Although adopting this legislation may, as Roseanna Cunningham has pointed out, be entirely effective, fair and reasonable, that should not set a precedent for this Parliament. Marilyn Livingstone referred to our drug enforcement strategy and said that there should be a commonality of drug enforcement law on either side of the border. Many of us disagree with that for profound reasons, which I cannot go into now. I want it to be noted that the fact that we agree to the effectiveness of what is being proposed should not be taken as an endorsement of that principle.

We move to wind-up speeches. This has been a tight debate, so the wind-up speeches will last two minutes, two minutes, three minutes and four minutes respectively. I call Malcolm Chisholm to close for the Labour party.

I thank the Presiding Officer for informing me that I am closing the debate for the Labour party. I am pleased to do so.

Clearly, there are occasions on which Sewel motions are appropriate, and I am pleased that all parties have accepted that this is such an occasion. It is important that these new laws get on to the statute book as quickly as possible. Given the Parliament's extensive agenda—especially the tight agenda that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee has—this is the correct course of action to take.

The point that I want to make—on which I am sure that all members will agree, although it has not been highlighted in today's debate—is that, while we concentrate on changing the laws to deal with sex offenders, we must keep a wider perspective of who the majority of sex offenders are. We have all encountered that issue over the summer, in the various popular campaigns on the matter. There is clearly a problem with keeping such people in the community; however, we all know that the majority of sexual abuse takes place within families. When we pass the new legislation, we should keep that fact in focus.

Yesterday, at the cross-party group on violence against women, a presentation was given by the very important person project in Dundee, which highlighted that fact and the importance of educating children about sexual abuse. As long as we keep that perspective, we can welcome the new legislative proposals that have been brought forward and hope that they can be passed into law as soon as possible.

I am sorry that I am not going to add anything new to this debate.

I welcome Jim Wallace's response to Gil Paterson on the matters that are before the House of Lords. It was discussing those matters late last night, or early this morning, and I appreciate that it might have been difficult for him to keep up to date.

I reiterate the Conservatives' support for what this Parliament is trying to do. I hope that it comes about soon. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

That took 27 seconds, so let us see if Michael Matheson can manage four minutes.

There might be a need for some filibustering. It is good to see everyone that I have not seen for some time. Jim Wallace might have to speak slowly when he winds up.

There is no major disagreement between the parties on this serious issue about the need to improve provisions for dealing with sexual offenders via legislation here in Scotland. We have a responsibility, as a Parliament, to ensure that in Scotland we provide sufficient safeguards for children and women against those who commit sexual offences.

As Roseanna Cunningham said, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that we must follow suit whenever laws on this matter are changed in England. We have a responsibility to provide suitable safeguards, but we also have a responsibility to legislate in a manner that is appropriate to the needs of Scotland. Roseanna Cunningham talked about cross-border, transnational traffic of such offenders. We must take that issue seriously in relation to sexual offenders coming into Scotland from other countries. This Parliament should be prepared, when necessary, to work on an international basis to address those matters.

In her speech, Kay Ullrich drew on her considerable professional experience in this matter. She highlighted several issues that must be considered, not necessarily through legislation but in relation to how the system now works. One such issue is the transfer of information between social work, the procurator fiscal and the police. There is insufficient time for social workers to complete their social inquiry reports because of pressures on the court. The social worker will often be given only two to three weeks to complete a detailed social inquiry report. The evaluation of work that has been undertaken with offenders should also be improved. Another issue that Kay Ullrich highlighted was that of disclosure of information to employment services. If we tackle those issues through legislation, we must ensure that it is comprehensive and there are no loopholes.

Although legislation is important, it is also essential that we provide the necessary resources for the appropriate services so that the legislation can be responsibly implemented. We must achieve a balance between the need to have statutory provision to deal with those who have committed an offence and the need to address offending behaviour. If we do not break the cycle of those who are repeat offenders, we can legislate for as long as we like but the crimes will continue to happen. Roseanna Cunningham highlighted that point.

When Jim Wallace sums up, I hope that he will address the need to achieve that balance and consider the possibility of introducing a measure such as lifetime supervision for repeat offenders so that we address the possibility of someone committing an offence in the future.

I thank members from all parts of the chamber for their constructive contributions to this debate on an important subject. We all agree that protecting the public is one of the most important duties on any Government. When the crimes involved are as horrendous and traumatic as sex offences that duty is more keenly felt and more onerous.

I welcome the fact that the proposals have received general support. I understand Roseanna Cunningham's reservations about the use of the Sewel motions, and I acknowledge that they have been used more frequently than had been anticipated. However, I am not sure what Alasdair Morgan's reaction would have been—Roseanna Cunningham is off the hook now—if we had announced that we would introduce further legislation for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to scrutinise.

Does the minister accept that legislation at Westminster, no matter how well intended, is not subject to the detailed non-partisan scrutiny to which it is subject in committee here? That may lead to problems if we continue down this route.

I am sure that Alasdair Morgan's experience is similar to mine and that he will know that at Westminster there is often proper, non-partisan scrutiny on issues on which there is common ground, such as dealing with sex offenders, and on which scoring political points—I do not suggest that Alasdair was doing that—is not the order of the day.

Roseanna Cunningham mentioned practical expediency. As I said, the fact that we want this legislation in Scotland and want it quickly—we do not want to open up a gap in provision between Scotland and England—points us strongly in the direction of the Sewel convention. I think that that was recognised.

Roseanna Cunningham, and later Michael Matheson, talked about longer-term or lifetime restrictions. As they will know, the MacLean committee recommended that high-risk offenders should be released from prison only if the degree of risk is sufficiently reduced and that they should then be subject to stricter controls in the community. It is perhaps of interest to Lyndsay McIntosh that those controls may include electronic monitoring, as well as supervision, drug and alcohol testing and conditions as to place of residence. The MacLean consultation period ended last week and we are considering the responses. A white paper is promised in the early part of next year.

I have answered the point that was raised by Lyndsay McIntosh and Gil Paterson about ports of entry.

Cathy Jamieson described an incident in her constituency in which people got it wrong because wrong information had been put into the public domain. That is important and it underlines that it would be wrong, as I said in my opening remarks, for information on the sex offenders register to be generally available, because that might lead to sex offenders disappearing or trying to avoid registration. As Kay Ullrich said in her helpful speech, which was based on her experience, sex offenders are often very devious. We do not want to put further pressure on them that might lead them to avoid the monitoring and risk assessment that result from appearance on the register.

On another point that Kay Ullrich raised, it is the case that guidance on disclosure was issued earlier in the summer. In addition, I assure her that the spending that was announced recently includes a substantial uplift in the money that is available for criminal justice social work. I certainly expect that criminal justice social workers will be able to carry out their functions of looking after and treating sex offenders.

Euan Robson asked whether orders will be subject to negative or affirmative resolution procedure. Two of the orders will require negative resolution. Those are the orders on the additional requirements to give notification and information about transfer or release. The order on the notice of intention to leave or return to the UK—as the bill stands in the House of Lords—will be a draft affirmative resolution.

Kay Ullrich asked about information being given to employers. We are currently consulting on an index of adults who are unsuitable to work with children.

Order. There is too much ambient noise in the chamber.

The consultation finishes at the end of this month. On another point, certificates of conviction will be available to employers from July 2001.

I thank all the members who spoke. Several important points were made, not least about insidiousness and the damage that sexual abuse can do. Cathy Jamieson's point that much sexual abuse takes place in the home is important. No matter how many registers we set up or other steps we take, we must recognise that fact. That gives concern to us all and requires us to be vigilant and to devise the best ways of giving vulnerable people the protection that they undoubtedly deserve.

I commend the motion to the chamber. It ensures that the people of Scotland have the same level of protection as those in the rest of the United Kingdom and that we maintain a common and coherent system of registration across the UK. I urge members to vote for the motion.

That concludes the debate. There are no Parliamentary Bureau motions today.