Subordinate Legislation
Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Modification of Agency's Powers and Incidental Provision) Order 2007 (Draft)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fifth meeting of the Justice 2 Committee in 2007. No apologies have been received from committee members—that is obvious, because they are all here. I welcome Bill Aitken, who has joined us. I remind all present—that includes members of the public—to switch off mobile phones, pagers and anything that goes "ping".
We are grateful that the Deputy Minister for Justice has come along with her officials to help us out with item 1. There are two affirmative instruments for consideration. The first is the draft Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Modification of Agency's Powers and Incidental Provision) Order 2007. I ask the minister to make a brief opening statement. If it would be helpful, minister, we can deal with the two instruments separately.
That would be helpful. I will speak first to the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Modification of Agency's Powers and Incidental Provision) Order 2007, which makes three minor correctional and technical drafting changes that amend three incorrect cross-references. Although it would have been preferable to avoid having to make them, there is a risk of confusion to the user if we leave the act as it stands. Therefore, it is sensible to use the modification powers that the act provides for to correct the text in time for the coming into force of the relevant provisions on 1 April 2007.
We have had no comments from the Subordinate Legislation Committee on the order. No members wish to ask questions or seek clarification, so I invite the minister to move the motion to open the formal debate.
Motion moved,
That the Justice 2 Committee recommends that the draft Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Modification of Agency's Powers and Incidental Provision) Order 2007 be approved.
I invite members to speak in the debate.
It seems sensible for the Scottish Executive to tidy up the act and correct the incorrect cross-references. The order is entirely appropriate and we should approve it.
Motion agreed to.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (Draft)
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has advised us that no points arise on the regulations. I invite the minister to make an opening statement.
In the past few years, the Executive has introduced a wide range of practical and legislative measures to improve the public's protection from sex offenders, including commissioning Professor Irving to undertake a review of the operation of the sex offenders notification requirements in Scotland to ensure that they are as robust as they can be.
Professor Irving considered the original requirement that sex offenders who are subject to the notification scheme—"relevant offenders"—must furnish their name, address, date of birth and national insurance number to be basic and inadequate. We agreed with his view. We have already legislated to include some of the additional information that he thought should be provided to the police as part of the notification regime. The Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 amended the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to require relevant offenders to provide the police with their passport details.
A second important measure was the creation of a regulation-making power in the 2003 act, which enables the Scottish ministers to make regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure to require relevant offenders to provide to the police specified information about themselves or their personal affairs. For reasons that I will outline, we have decided to use the regulation-making power to require relevant offenders to notify the police of certain financial information.
The draft regulations contain detailed provisions. Regulation 3 requires all relevant offenders to notify the police as to whether they hold a bank or building society account, a debit card for such an account, or a credit card account and credit cards. A relevant offender must notify the police if he or she holds joint accounts and debit and credit cards and, if so, whether such accounts and cards are held in respect of self-employed unincorporated businesses, such as a partnership or sole-trader business. If a relevant offender holds a bank, building society or credit card account, they must also notify the police of the name and address of the account provider, the bank or building society sort code and the account number for each account. Furthermore, if the relevant offender holds a self-employed business account, they must provide the name of the business for which the account is held. They must also provide the 16-digit numbers and the valid from and expiry dates of their debit and credit cards. If they hold such cards in the name of a self-employed business that they operate, the name of the business as stated on the card must also be provided.
Regulation 4 provides that where a relevant offender or someone on his or her behalf opens an account or obtains a debit or credit card that has not previously been notified to the police, the offender must notify the police of the new circumstances. Relevant offenders are also required to notify the police if they cease to hold an account or debit or credit card about which the police were notified. Regulation 4 also places an obligation on a relevant offender to inform the police of any change to the financial information that has been provided. In accordance with section 84(1) of the 2003 act, relevant offenders must notify the police of changes to their financial information within three days of the date of the change.
If a relevant offender fails to comply with the regulations and has no good reason for doing so, he or she will be guilty of a criminal offence that could carry a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment—as is the case if there is a failure to comply with other notification requirements.
We decided to impose a requirement on relevant offenders to notify the police of such financial information because bank details were an important element in operation ore. Operation ore was a co-ordinated response from the National Criminal Intelligence Service and police forces in the United Kingdom, which targeted individuals who were accessing and downloading images of child pornography on the internet. Such activity carries a cost and transactions were often confirmed by access to bank account details. Credit card details can also provide valuable information to the police in their attempts to track down missing sex offenders, because offenders use their cards to reserve hotel rooms, rent cars and buy train tickets. Card details can also furnish the police with details of internet transactions. Bank account and credit card account details are also regarded as reasonable proof of identity.
We acknowledge that Professor Irving recommended that offenders should notify the police of other personal details, such as their leisure activities, main associates and telephone numbers. However, we concluded that, at this stage, it is difficult to justify requiring sex offenders to notify the police of such information. People who are convicted of sexual offences are among the most difficult and challenging offenders with whom the criminal justice system deals. They are known to be extremely skilled in avoiding detection and in manipulating situations to their advantage.
As always, it helps to set new regulations in context. These regulations form part of a package of measures that we have put in place to strengthen and extend the requirements that are placed on people who are convicted of a wide range of sexual offences to register with the police their name and address and subsequent changes to their name and address. The strengthened regulatory framework that we are putting in place will also have the potential to further our knowledge of the whereabouts of missing sex offenders and increase our ability to protect children and vulnerable adults.
The European convention on human rights issues that arise in respect of the regulations have been considered. The key issues are whether imposing additional requirements on relevant offenders is sufficiently burdensome as to amount to a penalty in terms of article 7 of the ECHR, and whether it interferes with the right to private life in a way that cannot be justified, with reference to article 8. It is considered that the regulations are compatible in both respects.
Although the regulations will result in a greater burden being imposed on relevant offenders, it is not considered that the measures in the regulations are any different in principle from the current requirements in part 2 of the 2003 act or in their severity. The requirement in the regulations to provide financial information is directed at public protection and the prevention of reoffending. The information is also useful in confirming the identity of relevant offenders. The measures are considered to be proportionate, particularly when the slight inconvenience caused to relevant offenders by having to notify the required financial information is balanced against the reasons why relevant offenders are required to notify the information.
The regulations provide a reasonable and measured step to reduce further the scope for offenders to engage in child abuse over the internet and will enable the police more effectively and quickly to track down offenders who disappear off the police radar.
With the consent of the Parliament, the Executive is taking a significant step to improve detection and manage such offenders to minimise the trauma of victims, many of whom are children, and to safeguard the public as far as possible. The regulations form another important part of our efforts in pursuit of those overriding objectives.
Thank you, minister. There is now an opportunity for members to ask questions or seek clarification while the officials are here.
Minister, at what point do you intend to reflect on the other recommendations in Professor Irving's report, "Registering the Risk", and are we likely to see more regulations? I ask that in the context of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's report on child sex offenders.
I understand that the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, is coming before the committee shortly. She will be in a better position to respond in detail to the issues that have been flagged up by the Justice 2 Sub-Committee and the broader issue of taking the agenda forward. I am not sure that there are any immediate proposals for secondary legislation. It is relevant to approve these regulations today, but I suspect that further information will be provided at the committee's meeting with the Minister for Justice and by a future Administration.
For information, the Minister for Justice is coming to the committee on 6 March.
How easy or difficult will it be to police the system? How easy will it be for a sex offender to keep a secret bank account or credit card? How would the police find out about that?
The police were consulted on the detail of the regulations, and they fully support the enhanced provisions contained therein. The committee will know that regulations prescribe a number of police stations in each police area that relevant offenders must attend for the purpose of notification. There is expertise in those stations. The police have supported the new system, and on that basis we can assume that it is not deemed to be overly onerous. Let me say again, however, that in the notification scheme the emphasis is on the sex offender to ensure that they comply.
Following that detailed description of what the police will be able to do, can you give us a hint about how the Executive intends to deal with those who act as a proxy on behalf of relevant offenders but who are not relevant offenders themselves?
That sounds like a question on the broader agenda of managing sex offenders, which the Minister for Justice will be able to report on in her meeting with you or, whatever the colour of the next Administration, will be wrestled with in the future.
Is the Executive currently undertaking any work in that area?
Not as far as we are aware. I will ensure either that there is a full response to the committee or that the Minister for Justice is able to deal with that when she comes here.
That is helpful.
As the minister rightly says, we are talking about devious, manipulative people. As operation ore proved, the distasteful trade in internet pornography is obviously a lucrative one. I am concerned not just that somebody could act as a proxy for an individual, but that they could, in effect, set up an agency. A bank account would be held by a company and a number of like-minded individuals would subscribe. Someone who sought to access a website would type in the number of a bank account that was held by somebody else, who would then charge the so-called subscriber the appropriate fee. I do not know how the Executive plans to get around that, but it seems fairly obvious that some people would try that approach.
I do not want to overstate the importance or significance of the draft regulations, which are part of a far broader programme and approach. Depressingly, we must all be alive to some people's creativity in dealing with the issues. We need to take the problems in the round, to be alive to them and to close down what we can without overstating any individual part of the jigsaw. The draft regulations are one small part. Their implementation might flag up to the police who are monitoring a particular individual that, even though it looks as if the person is settled and conforming, they are engaged in using certain internet sites. In such circumstances, there could be early intervention with people who are perhaps building towards being a greater risk.
However, I do not underestimate the significance of what you say about how people could get around the regulations. They are part of a bigger process. We do not put all our faith in them, but they are an important part of the work that we do.
Are there any further questions or comments?
No.
Motion moved,
That the Justice 2 Committee recommends that the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 be approved.—[Johann Lamont.]
Motion agreed to.
The minister will stay with us for the next item, but I think that she wants to change some of her officials around, in the nicest possible way.