The Parliament is still in session and I ask guests who are leaving the gallery to do so quietly, please.
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-14110, in the name of Paul Martin, on reviewing arrangements for managing sex offenders. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that it has been more than 11 years since the murder of eight-year-old Mark Cummings by the convicted sex offender, Stuart Leggate, in Royston in Glasgow; commends what it sees as the courage and tenacity of Mark’s mother, Margaret-Ann, who has campaigned tirelessly to change the way in which serious sex offenders are managed; recognises that a justice sub-committee, convened by the Parliament in 2006, published 33 recommendations intended to protect children in Scotland’s communities, including a requirement for registered sex offenders to disclose information about previous convictions on housing applications; is concerned that this recommendation has still not been implemented by the Scottish Government; understands that there are community concerns about what are considered the disproportionately high number of sex offenders housed in deprived areas and that many people consider it essential for the risks posed by serious sex offenders in communities across Scotland to be examined, and notes calls for an urgent review of sentencing tariffs and increased public awareness of sex offenders thought to be at risk of reoffending.
12:34
I recognise that the management of sex offenders is a difficult subject that challenges politicians in many countries. As we consider that, let us also consider how Margaret Ann Cummings feels when she discusses how we manage registered sex offenders. Her son was murdered when he was eight years old, by registered sex offender Stuart Leggate.
Margaret Ann Cummings is in the public gallery today and I hope that other members will join me in commending her for her good and tireless work over the years on protecting children, and her determination to ensure that communities are protected and that history does not repeat itself. Also to be commended is the housing association movement, much of which is represented in the gallery today.
Ten years ago, the Justice 2 Sub-Committee published 33 recommendations for managing registered sex offenders in Scotland. Ten years on from that publication, a number of recommendations remain to be taken forward. In particular, recommendation number 20 has still not been acted on. That recommendation is for a legal requirement for sex offenders to disclose information about previous convictions on housing applications.
I have pursued that with various justice ministers for the past 10 years, and a number of challenges remain. I work closely with the housing association movement and key figures from community organisations who have expressed concern about the existing arrangements and the lack of progress on recommendation 20.
We can understand those concerns. As we speak, young families are being housed in close proximity to dangerous sex offenders without being aware of it, and that is unacceptable. It is a particular concern for deprived communities because they find themselves being dumped on disproportionately by the allocation policy. If we do not take action, it is only a matter of time before tragedy strikes again, as it did in the case of Mark Cummings.
I recognise that some progress has been made. We have seen the introduction of Sarah’s law, which allows parents to make inquiries into anyone with whom they are in close contact when they believe they might have a history of sexual offences. I recognise that Clare’s law was a significant step forward when it was introduced earlier this year. It allows people to find out whether their partner has a history of domestic violence. I recognise the progress that has been made in those areas, but I pose the question: if we can use the internet to keep men and women safe from violent partners, why can we not use it to protect our children?
It is time for the Parliament to consider a compulsory community notification, such as we see in other parts of the world, including the USA, Australia and South Korea. Each of the 50 states of the US has implemented a different form of compulsory notification, known as Megan’s law, which means providing information about dangerous child sex offenders on an internet database. It is internationally recognised as being one of the most effective programmes in managing registered sex offenders.
An absolutely crucial element of that programme is to distinguish between low-risk and high-risk offenders, which is something that we in Scotland and other parts of the world fail to do. The programme is also well-managed and properly resourced to ensure its effectiveness.
Many of us recognise that providing such information publicly can cause concern, and I acknowledge many of the points that have been made in that respect. However, if we are to properly empower communities, we have to take the recommendation forward. People might feel that it is a step too far, but we can take reasonable steps to protect the information and ensure that those who are searching it are properly vetted before they carry out such a search.
We should also review the sentencing tariffs that are available to deal with child sex offenders in particular. It is time to take forward the sophisticated technology that we have discussed on many occasions in this chamber during the past 10 years. I do not know how many times we have discussed how GPS tracking could be used. It is unacceptable that, in the run-up to 2016, almost 10 years on, we are still discussing the formation of a working group. I would like the minister to advise us how she would take that forward.
In conclusion, I will quote the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett. He said:
“This government has made a very clear choice ... that ...we will ... err on the side of the child and protecting that child”.
I call on the Government to make a similar statement and ask it to support my motion.
12:40
I congratulate Paul Martin on securing this debate, and I recognise the courageous campaign of Margaret Ann Cummings, which came about after the horrendous murder of her son, as Paul Martin said. I have corresponded with Mrs Cummings and regret that I will be unable to meet her after the debate due to my chairing the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing meeting immediately afterwards. However, I certainly hope that she sees that I understand why she has campaigned in the circumstances.
Like Paul Martin, I recognise the complexity of the area. If only we could sort it all out.
I have looked at the recent joint report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland and the Care Inspectorate on multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPPA. Those arrangements are set in place when sex offenders have finished their sentence and have been released into communities. I note their main findings. They say:
“there is strong evidence that MAPPA is well-established”
and working across communities.
However, I have had issues in my constituency, of which the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Minister for Housing and Welfare are well aware. There have been issues with the operation of the national accommodation strategy for sex offenders, or NASSO. Where those people go is, of course, key. It is not just about how they are monitored; it is also about where they are placed. Sex offenders must be returned to the place where they last resided when the offence took place. There are very special circumstances whereby the offender, with negotiation with other local authorities, can be rehoused elsewhere, but I have been unable to determine how often that has been invoked. I will come to whether or not offenders should be out, but key to the management of those offenders is where they are, the authorities knowing where they are, and tagging their every movement where necessary.
That issue arose for me when the convicted rapist Robert Greens was released after serving six years and eight months of a 10-year sentence for the horrendous attack on and rape of a young student from the Netherlands, who had gone to visit Rosslyn chapel. When he was released, he was rehoused in a rural cottage on the outskirts of Newtongrange and Gorebridge in my constituency, just a few miles from the scene of the attack. Because of the NASSO rules, he had to be rehoused in Midlothian. No other authority in the United Kingdom would rehouse him. Almost predictably and understandably, hundreds turned out to protest outside the cottage. I can understand that. The matter became resolved only when he breached the restrictions under his registered sex offenders order and was seen in Penicuik, where he was not supposed to go. That took him back to prison. However, he is due for release next year, and the community will be back where it started.
The joint report says:
“It should be stressed that while the fundamental purpose of MAPPA is to protect the public, MAPPA and the work of Responsible Authorities cannot entirely eradicate risk.”
I accept that, but I still have issues with resolving the problem of rehousing, which is required when someone is released. I think that the issue that Paul Martin has raised in relation to serious sex offenders repeating offences happens in a very small number of instances, but it happens. Those people are very serious. Although their number is small, we cannot allow those things to happen again.
I have issues with housing and the system by which we rehouse, but I have another issue, which Paul Martin touched on. We should not interfere with judicial independence, but I, too, am concerned about some people being released back into the community when they should never be released at all. That does not happen very often, but once is once too often.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Minister for Housing and Welfare are here. I know that those are difficult issues and that, if they could resolve the housing issues—sentencing is another issue—they would do so. I ask them to look at the matter again, because Paul Martin’s issues, which are worse than mine, are repeated to some extent in my constituency.
12:44
I, too, congratulate my colleague Paul Martin on his long-standing commitment to and campaigning on this issue and, of course, Margaret Ann Cummings, who has courageously spent the 11 years since her personal tragedy trying to ensure that no one has to suffer in the way that she has. Paul Martin is also right to identify the sterling work of our local housing associations.
If this Parliament is about anything, it must be about protecting those who are most vulnerable in society and, in this context, that is clearly our children. The 2006 Justice 2 Sub-Committee report made 33 recommendations and was seen as a major contribution to the debate at that time. The fact that some of those recommendations—in particular, recommendation 20, which concerns housing applications—have not yet been implemented is very regrettable. However, that report is now 10 years old and perhaps it is time to have a fresh look at the entire subject.
I want to look in a wee bit more detail at housing and at a particular aspect of housing that happens to be particularly dear to my heart from my own experience. Most sex offenders, when they are released from prison, will avail themselves of social rented housing by the very nature of the individuals and their circumstances. Housing providers are rarely aware of that aspect of an applicant’s background, so people will be housed where there is available accommodation. In my constituency and in constituencies like mine, that might well be in a high-rise block.
Living in a high-rise block is very different from living in any other kind of accommodation. In effect, there is an entire street with one entrance so, on a daily basis, people cannot cross the road to avoid someone they do not want to talk to. It is likely that they will have to travel for a period of time—perhaps alone—in the confined space of a lift every time they want to go into or leave their home.
There is also the added complication of stairwells and fire exits, which are not often used because people want to take the lift whenever they can. Those are all areas in which people become particularly vulnerable. For parents with children, it is often very hard; they let their child go to school in the morning, for example, and once the child goes out the door, the parents do not know what has happened to that child or where they are.
The particular situation that arises because of the specific circumstances of high-rise flats should be taken into consideration. When parents send their children out to play, they often cannot see where the children are and they have very little oversight. That suggests to me that families should not be accommodated in high-rise blocks, but perhaps that is an argument for another day.
We should certainly be looking seriously at the issue that confronts us when we have sex offenders in the community who may well be accommodated in a high-rise block. Christine Grahame is absolutely right to say that the rehousing and resettlement of particular offenders is a complex issue, but we must surely redouble our efforts to find solutions so that no case can fall through any loophole that we have allowed to continue to exist.
There are international examples of good practice that we can call upon and look at. I am sure that the present Government is doing that and is bringing to bear every resource that it has on the issue, but I think that the time has come for us to review what has happened in the past, to look at those international examples, and to do everything in our power to ensure that children in this country are protected to the very limit of our ability to do so.
12:49
I thank Paul Martin for bringing this important debate to the chamber. It is a motion that I was more than happy to sign, not least because it gives deserved recognition to the courage and tenacity of Margaret Ann Cummings in campaigning to ensure that sex offenders are managed in a way that poses the least possible risk to our communities. There is little doubt that the tragic murder of Mark Cummings served as a wake-up call to the Scottish Parliament that more can and must be done to keep our communities safe from serious sex offenders.
It was with that in mind that the Justice 2 Sub-Committee was established in 2006 to review those dangerous and devious individuals. Following on from the review, 33 recommendations were made, intended to protect children. Nearly all of those have been implemented.
However, I consider it totally unacceptable that, almost 10 years later, the vitally important recommendation calling for sex offenders to disclose information about previous convictions on housing applications has still not been implemented. That is a situation that must be addressed now.
The motion also refers to the need for the risks posed by serious sex offenders in communities across Scotland to be examined. A good starting point would be the Scottish Government’s annual report, published in October this year, on MAPPA in Scotland. The MAPPA guidance states that the primary purpose of sex offender notification requirements is to enable the police to know the location of sex offenders and to manage those sex offenders and minimise the risk of further offending against the public. Yet the report reveals that, in the past year, a staggering 331 registered sex offenders failed to comply with the notification requirements to let the police know of their whereabouts or their current situation. That represents an increase of a third on the number the year before. Clearly, the situation requires urgent analysis.
The member’s comment that there was an increase of a third in the number of breaches is factually incorrect. Year on year, the proportion of breaches is broadly the same. What has happened is that the number of individuals who are on such orders has increased; but the number who have breached the orders has not increased by a third.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that clarification, but it is still not in any way a statistic that we can be proud of.
Urgent analysis needs to be carried out to establish what has gone wrong and to rectify the situation as a priority.
That brings me to the Scottish Conservatives’ proposal to address and reduce the risk, which is for sex offenders to lose their right to anonymity if they breach the notification requirements that are imposed under the terms of their release. Losing the right to anonymity in those circumstances is entirely justified, to protect the public, reduce risk and aid the police in their efforts to locate the individual. It would serve as a powerful deterrent to any sex offender who might consider breaching the terms laid down in the violent and sex offenders register. There is a balance to be struck between allowing someone who has served their sentence the freedom to integrate back into society and protecting the communities in which they are placed.
It is evident from the MAPPA report that, 10 years on from the Justice 2 Sub-Committee report on the management of serious sex offenders, much more requires to be done to ensure that local communities are protected. At the very least, communities have a right to expect that everything that can practically be done is being done to ensure that tragedies such as the murder of Mark Cummings are never repeated in their neighbourhoods.
12:54
First, I thank my colleague Paul Martin for raising a difficult and challenging issue. It is one that we repeatedly struggle with and find difficult to resolve.
Secondly, I thank Margaret Ann Cummings for maintaining a positive role on behalf of all victims and survivors of crimes of sexual abuse and of death at the hands of sex offenders and for reminding those of us in authority in this Parliament and the Government of the need to constantly revisit these issues and to acknowledge that we have still not found a way to get this right. It may well be that, in this world, we will never get it absolutely right, but that does not mean that we should not strive to repair the elements that we identify as having shortcomings.
A lot has been said about the MAPPA environment, and there have been many positive comments about its development over the years. I see today’s debate not as a criticism of the Government or what has gone on in the past, but as a contribution to our consideration of how best we can do things in the future.
I acknowledge that, although MAPPA has been a step change for us, we rely too heavily on the notion that it exists and take comfort from that when, in fact, we should continue to challenge what MAPPA does on our behalf. We should realise that the officers and members of the other services who contribute knowledge to it balance many stresses and anxieties as they try to manage, probably, too many demands with too few resources at their fingertips.
Behind that, too, I would like to see it acknowledged that although we have an intelligence management system in Scotland, it is not as robust and effective as it should be. I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary that he will take a second look at the way in which information technology systems operate across the public services to manage the dangerous circumstances that repeat sex offenders present to all services.
Mention was made of the global positioning system tracking systems that are available. I am told by those who manage the electronic surveillance of those who are on remand and subject to supervision that the system can be switched on at the flick of a switch. We need to face the challenge and ask whether we want to use GPS tracking. If the answer is yes, we need to get on with it sooner rather than later. If the answer is no, we need to work out what it is about the tracking system that is not available to us now.
Mr Martin mentioned the establishment of the working group. The expert advisory group has been in place for a number of months and its report, which is just weeks away, will give ministers advice on the use of GPS. There are some technical challenges around how it can be used properly in that it does not give the level of security that some individuals believe it does, but the expert advisory group has been looking at use of the system internationally in order to identify how it can best be applied in a Scottish context.
You can have the time back for the intervention, Mr Pearson.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s response. I have visited the monitoring centre and was advised that people there are very confident about the ability of the GPS system to monitor dangerous offenders, whether sex offenders or others, more effectively than what we have now does. I ask the cabinet secretary to challenge those who are advising him about the challenges. Let us get to the right answer in that regard.
I have a couple of bullet points that I want to mention in my remaining time. First, offender management should begin before release, in prison; more attention needs to be paid to dealing with offending there. We need to initiate courses that can better redirect offenders to a more useful lifestyle in future to deal with reoffending rates.
Secondly, it is important that housing associations know the background of sex offenders who apply for tenancies. Difficulties arise when there is public knowledge of offenders in communities. I know that Paul Martin is aware of the challenges that lie behind that, which include the threat of vigilante action, offenders going underground and offenders being encouraged to create their own networks. Housing associations should be aware of their responsibilities in managing applications and they cannot accept those responsibilities unless they know the nature of the people to whom they offer houses.
White Flowers Alba provided a briefing for the debate and it fully supports Paul Martin’s motion. It makes the point that if the public inquiry that is going on had a broad remit, it might help us to learn more lessons about how to respond to sex offenders and manage the risk. I hope that the Government will listen to what White Flowers Alba is saying and will encourage the best use of that public inquiry.
13:00
I thank Paul Martin for bringing the debate to the chamber. He made it clear—and we all agree—that the issue is sensitive and difficult to deal with. I know that Margaret Ann Cummings is in the gallery. Like other members, I commend her on the work that she and her supporters have been doing to ensure that no other child suffers the fate of her son. I completely understand why she is taking that action and why she is doing everything possible to ensure that we learn the lessons of Mark’s death. I give some reassurance that the Government and responsible authorities are all working towards that shared goal.
Members have mentioned the joint thematic review of MAPPA, which was published last week by the Care Inspectorate and HMICS. The report shows that there is strong evidence that MAPPA is well established across Scotland and that professionals are working effectively every day to protect communities from harm.
The report also said that sex offenders could expect a monitoring visit once a month. Is that acceptable for the most serious offenders?
We have received the report and we accept every recommendation in it. We all agree that the issue is very difficult, and I understand and share the concerns of members across the chamber. People come to my surgeries with sensitive issues about sex offenders and their monitoring. We have looked carefully at the thematic report and we will take up its 10 recommendations to improve processes and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. We have accepted all the recommendations and will work with the police and other responsible authorities to take them forward. On such a difficult and important subject, we must never be complacent.
I have looked through the recommendations and I return to rehousing sex offenders under the national accommodation strategy for them. I have been chasing the issue with the minister and other members, and I know that it is difficult. However, it is not sufficient to say that the system is working well. There are issues in high-rise flats, small communities and island communities. We need something that works better for the community, whether that is based on the issues raised by Patricia Ferguson or those raised by me. I hope that the minister will look at the issue again, because the inspection report does not refer to it.
I understand Christine Grahame’s concerns about the housing of sex offenders in communities. However, in every case when a sex offender is housed in a community, the safety of the community is the absolute priority. The suitability of accommodation, such as high-rise flats, for housing somebody is assessed.
As Graeme Pearson said, we have to be careful that we do not push people underground. We need to know where the people are and be able to monitor them. I am not saying for a minute that we will not look at any suggestions that members might make about housing; we will always look at suggestions about how communities and other people who live in the same area can best be served. The priority will always be the community’s safety.
Will the minister give way?
I want to push on a bit. If I have time, I will come back to Patricia Ferguson.
A number of members have mentioned the report on sex offending by the Justice 2 Sub-Committee, which recommended that housing applicants should be required to declare that they are registered sex offenders. In 2014, the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice explained in the chamber that implementing that recommendation would not be compatible with the Scottish Parliament’s duty to ensure that all legislation that it passes complies with the European convention on human rights. Even if it were possible to implement the recommendation, there would still be a risk of driving offenders underground, which I know that everyone in the Parliament does not want to happen.
Will the minister give way?
I want to push on for a bit, and then I will come back to the member.
Implementing that recommendation would make it harder to monitor offenders and manage the risks. We need to know where people are in order to monitor them and manage the risks. As I have said to Christine Grahame, the concerns that members have raised in the debate will not be ignored—we will look at them. We are also looking at the thematic report, and we will then have to look at how that will work with some of the other things that are proceeding.
Does the minister recognise the urgency of a situation in which housing associations are saying and communities are feeling that sex offenders are being housed disproportionately in deprived and already vulnerable communities? I see that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is no longer in the chamber, but what representations has he made in his budget discussions with John Swinney on financing a proper monitoring programme? Perhaps people would be less anxious about the monitoring programme if they had any confidence that it was being carried out. What resources are going in to make that real for people and to protect them?
On the budget, I cannot speak for the justice secretary, but I know that across government we are looking carefully at the monitoring of sex offenders. I will talk later about some of the things that we are doing to help with that monitoring, but the justice secretary mentioned what is happening with surveillance and the report of the expert advisory group. Moreover, the Scottish Sentencing Council is looking at sentencing tariffs.
As everyone has recognised, this is a difficult area, but we want to reduce the risks as far as possible. We all have experience in our constituencies of the rehousing of sex offenders who have been released into the community, and the problem is fraught. However, we have to reintegrate such offenders into the community, as we do with other offenders who are released from prison.
In common with other offenders, registered sex offenders generally return to their own communities, unless there are exceptional circumstances that might mean increased risk to the community. That might cover the point that Christine Grahame raised. I make it clear that there are flexibilities in the system to allow local authorities to work with and come to an agreement with other areas, but they still have to take responsibility for knowing where sex offenders are and for following the monitoring and surveillance procedures.
The thematic inspection found that, in the two-year period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014, 86 per cent of sex offenders who were released returned to the same type of housing and 73 per cent returned to the same or a neighbouring community. When a sex offender is placed outside their own local authority area, the aim is to increase the community’s safety, not to protect the offender’s anonymity. At all times, the approach is about protecting the community.
The Scottish Government will continue to take steps to ensure that Scotland has in place a strong legislative framework with robust monitoring arrangements and agencies working together. The justice secretary is certainly looking at that, and we are looking across government at how we can all work together on the many different ways to make our communities safer.
I know that this has been an extremely difficult debate, but it has given members the opportunity to raise genuine concerns that are shared across the chamber by members of every party, including me. We have listened to what has been said about this distressing subject. I hope that we are illustrating that we take the issue seriously. I hope that Margaret Ann Cummings, her supporters and members of the public will recognise what we are doing, the strength of the arrangements for managing the risk that offenders pose and our commitment to ensuring that we work as effectively as we can across the country, in line with some of the other things that we are doing on sentencing, surveillance and other aspects of the justice system, including civil action against sexual harm.
All of that should give some reassurance that we are doing everything that we can. However, we are open to all ideas and suggestions. If we can improve things, we certainly will.
13:10 Meeting suspended.