Justice 2 Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 15, 2001

Official Report 257KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

I refer members to the note by the clerk, which sets out the background and procedure for this item. You will note that a motion—S1M-1910—lodged in my name asked for agreement to limit time for debate to 45 minutes—the limit is usually 90 minutes—and that that motion was agreed to.

I should point out that there is a slight amendment to motion S1M-1905. The words "be approved" should be added on to the end.

I invite the minister to say a few words and move the motion.

The Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 improve our ability to know the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders, and further contribute to our ability to protect children and other potential victims from them.

To set the regulations in context, part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires those convicted of a specified range of sexual offences to register their name and address, and any subsequent changes of those, with the police. The regulations before us today are made under a power included in the amendments to the 1997 act contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. They were approved by this Parliament in a Sewel motion debate on 5 October last year.

The relevant section provides for such offenders to be subject to additional requirements to give notice when they propose to leave and return to the UK. The regulations specify those requirements. The act currently applies to offenders only when they are in the UK, which has limited the ability of the police to monitor sex offenders in two ways. First, some offenders have been able to claim, when they were found to be missing from their registered address, that they were abroad at the time and therefore not in breach of the registration requirements of the act. Secondly, because there is no requirement to inform the police of overseas travel, the police do not have the information to communicate effectively with authorities overseas when they believe that doing so would prevent a crime from being committed by a registered offender. The regulations address both issues.

In proposing the regulations, we have had to strike a balance between making them useful to the police for operational purposes and recognising that the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is an important tool for protecting the public, but not the only one. The act is essentially about relevant offenders notifying the police of certain information. It was not intended, and could not properly be used, to restrict the offenders' movements. Indeed, it is worth saying that, in our view, the regulations are compatible with the ECHR. In any event, if it is deemed necessary to restrict an offender's movements, other measures are available for that, such as conditions and licences to which they are subject.

I want to say a little about the period of absence covered by the regulations. The period of absence of eight days or longer was chosen because of the need of the police to be able to manage the volume of information generated by offenders making a notification under the regulations. We took the view that it would not be practical to require information from offenders who were going abroad for shorter periods. The police are free to take whatever action they judge necessary to prevent crime if they become aware through other means that an offender who poses a high risk of harm to victims abroad is leaving the UK for a shorter period.

I would prefer to leave my statement at that point and answer questions from the committee.

I move,

That the Committee recommends that the draft Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 be approved.

I have no difficulty with the principle behind the regulations. However, I wonder about its practical effects. If someone who was on the register turns up at a small rural police station and informs them, the police there might not be able to transmit that information to wherever it has to go to. It seems as if an awful lot of bureaucracy is being put in place to deal with something that might not be that much of a problem, except in a small number of cases. We would want to alert other countries to or monitor that small number of people. When the consultation was being undertaken, what was the view of the police? Did that view influence the decision to use a period of absence of eight days?

The regulations that are before us today are linked in with the Sex Offenders (Notification Requirements) (Prescribed Police Stations) (Scotland) Regulations 2001, which are subject to negative resolution procedure and provide for police stations to be designated for registration purposes. That means that registration could take place only at those police stations.

That is an interesting line. The eight-day issue is ancillary to other protective remedies that are open to the police and to certain other regulations that we do not have before us.

However, there is a difficulty in that the regulations require the individual to attend in person. Someone from a remote island might have difficulty in trying to get to a designated police station within a certain time period. Do you see any practical problems, minister?

What is more important is whether the police see any practical problems. The Sex Offenders (Notification Requirements) (Prescribed Police Stations) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 have been drafted in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, which is content with the level of flexibility that is allowed.

We have no problem with the principle behind the regulations, which are sensible and will give some measure of comfort to people, but who else did you consult with regard to the practicalities?

The police have been by far the main consultees.

Anyone else at all?

No, not that I am aware of.

How many sex offenders would have to be monitored?

There are 14,813 registered sex offenders in England and Wales and 1,491 in Scotland as of last month.

Is there a stage at which the need for registration in relation to a de minimus sex offence—flashing, for instance—lapses? Is the offender always on the register?

The duration of the obligation to be registered depends on the sentence. The length of time will vary according to the seriousness of the offence.

I understand. Thank you.

I fully support trying to prevent children and other people in other countries from being abused. I am curious about one aspect of the regulations that is mentioned in the explanatory note. It says that if more than one country is to be visited, the notice must contain the name of the first country to be visited. What about the countries that the offender might visit thereafter?

To some extent, that concerns practicalities. If travel plans are changed, the offender will be required to renotify the police, to try to cover the possibility of someone saying they will go to one country then changing their plans.

What if the offender plans to travel from one country to another and make multiple visits?

Offenders are supposed to give information on all the countries they intend to visit. If they change their plans, they will be required to tell the police of those changes.

I am satisfied. I hope that crime can be prevented elsewhere.

Does the minister have any final words to say in summary?

No.

The question is, that motion S1M-1905, in the name of Jim Wallace, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

That the Committee recommends that the draft Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 be approved.

I managed to get the minister away on the dot of 12.30 pm. How about that?