Sex Offenders
The next item of business is a statement by Kenny MacAskill on sex offenders. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
I make this statement with both pride and sorrow: sorrow for the pain inflicted on the victims and their families by the perpetrators of these vile and sickening crimes—I hope that the successful prosecution brings some closure for them—and pride in the dedicated and professional police investigations by the officers from both Lothian and Borders Police and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency who were responsible for the success of operation algebra.
These truly appalling crimes were uncovered and the perpetrators successfully brought to justice thanks to the outstanding work of the police officers and prosecutors involved. As a society, we are deeply grateful for the work that they do day in, day out. It was a case of global dimensions, and it shows that we have a world-class police service. Operation algebra resulted in an historic case that is a landmark for our criminal justice system, as it involved the first ever convictions in Scotland for conspiracy to commit abuse against children.
When I met members of the algebra investigative team in Craigmillar in my constituency in May and visited the agency's e-crime unit in September, I was given some clear messages: that the viewing of child abuse material on the internet is not a victimless crime, because the demand for such images creates the abuse of children worldwide; that offenders and potential offenders must be told, "The law enforcement agencies are after you and they will get you"; and that anyone in Scotland who views such material on the internet faces the real prospect of being caught, prosecuted and punished severely.
Six members of the ring were jailed for a total of 43 years. Strachan was jailed for 24 years. Rennie was jailed for 21 years. They were both placed under orders for lifelong restriction. Those sentences show how the police and prosecutors can intervene to stop those who are intent on committing child abuse.
Although the case was successful, a heinous offence took place, and it is always important that we look to learn lessons from such cases so as continually to improve operation and public protection. Lothian and Borders Police, the City of Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian undertook a significant case review of their handling of Neil Strachan, who was a registered sex offender. I received a copy of the review this week. Its findings are confidential and are for local agencies to consider. There are no recommendations for the Scottish Government regarding legislation or guidance, but we will work with the responsible authorities to help to disseminate any operational lessons that need to be addressed.
In handling people such as Rennie and Strachan, we need to remember that we are dealing with deeply devious and highly manipulative individuals who will go out of their way to get round the checks that are placed upon them, however stringent the restrictions and monitoring to which they might be made subject.
Law enforcement agencies continue their work to bring perpetrators to justice. Operation alba is one such case, in which the police are currently utilising intelligence and a range of investigative and technological techniques to detect those who are involved in abuse.
I wrote to Paul Martin and Bill Aitken, the convener of the Justice Committee, on 17 June to update them on the significant progress in implementing the 33 recommendations of the Justice 2 Committee's report on child sex offenders from the previous parliamentary session. Our assessment is that 29 have been delivered, and of the remaining recommendations we will deliver those that fall within our legal powers.
We are determined to ensure that a robust legislative framework is in place so that those who manage sex offenders can do so as effectively as possible. For example, through the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill we intend to tighten further the sexual offences prevention order regime to impose new positive obligations, as well as negative ones, on high-risk sex offenders. That could require offenders to provide more household and social data, including e-mail addresses, and to state whether they are living in the same household as a child. We will further strengthen the requirements for homeless sex offenders and ensure that anyone who is subject to a foreign travel order will have to surrender their passport to the police.
We have taken forward the committee's recommendations on a public information strategy. We have produced online and print materials to inform and advise families about child sexual abuse and the measures that are in place to try to keep our communities safe. We all understand the desire of parents, carers and guardians to better protect their children from harm. Nothing matters more to a parent.
The Tayside community disclosure pilot that I launched in September and which has the support of all parties in Parliament is a positive development. I welcome and am grateful for that all-party support. The chamber is united in the need to do everything possible to protect our children from harm. The pilot links well with the strengthened multi-agency public protection arrangements that were introduced under the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005. MAPPA has led to better information sharing among relevant authorities.
We are very aware that any disclosure of information about sex offenders living in the community is a hugely sensitive and complicated process and that we require to weigh up conflicting rights. We take the consideration of disclosure very seriously indeed, so we will not rush the process and we are making sure that every issue is well thought through.
The Scottish Government is funding a full evaluation of the pilot to determine how successful it is. I assure the chamber that, assuming that the pilot is a success, our aim is to roll it out across Scotland in every jurisdiction for every community. Our priority is to ensure that police and local agencies are equipped to protect our communities.
We have achieved a great deal in tackling the menace of sex offenders, and we will build on that good work, much of which I inherited from my predecessor. As I have said today, and as colleagues have said on the radio, this is not a party-political issue.
We have introduced more robust arrangements for managing sex offenders in the community. We are working with the police and their criminal justice partners to ensure that the online protection of children from sex offenders is as robust as possible. We will continue to implement the recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee, we will consider the comments of the Justice Committee if and when it makes them, and we will evaluate the Tayside community disclosure pilot.
I hope that all of that reassures members that the Scottish Government remains committed to protecting our children from sex offenders. I want to continue to work closely with Parliament, stakeholders and communities to ensure that the public receive the best possible protection from these terrible crimes.
I thank members for their support and co-operation to date, and look forward to working with them, as we do with all agencies, to better protect our children.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. Time is limited, so questions should be focused and short.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement, and join him in congratulating the police on their success in operation algebra. It is crucial to learn from such events, and in particular to learn where the monitoring of sex offenders must improve.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has now read the report on the multi-agency review of the case, but I question why that report is to remain confidential. The matter is of the greatest public concern. Neil Strachan should not have been in a position to abuse his victims. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Scottish Government to ensure that the report is published in a suitable format. How can we know what lessons are being learned by local agencies if we do not know what those lessons are?
There was nothing new in the cabinet secretary's statement about the approach to monitoring. What progress are ministers making in implementing the recommendations in the multi-agency report that was published in March? It asked ministers to amend MAPPA guidance quickly to ensure that there is always a full analysis of risk.
I remain concerned about the impact on sex offender treatment of no longer having a national specialist unit for offenders at Peterhead. Is it not glaringly evident that any cuts in the budget for monitoring sex offenders would be entirely irresponsible?
Given the success of the United Kingdom Government's child sex offender disclosure pilot, which resulted in at least 10 children being protected from potential abuse by sex offenders in the first six months of its operation, when can we expect evaluation of the pilot programme in Tayside? The cabinet secretary was right to say that that programme has cross-party support. We should all hope that it can be rolled out nationally as soon as possible as a key measure in protecting our children from abuse.
The member has raised a variety of issues. I will try to cover all of them.
First, the report in question is not my report. Perhaps it would be helpful if Mr Baker understood its background. Lothian and Borders Police, the City of Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian carried out a significant case review as a consequence of Neil Strachan's offending and his being a registered sex offender. We did not instruct them to do that; they did it as good practice. The report of the review is not mine; it is theirs.
I have a lot of sympathy with the idea that many of the issues should be made available in the public domain, but that is a matter for those who produced the report. After all, it contains personal circumstances and details of victims. Some of the issues are highly confidential. The Administration is more than happy for those who produced the report to act as they see fit; it is for them to decide whether to publish it. However, given the personal data involved, they face considerable difficulties. Publication could be difficult for the victims of the heinous offences in question.
I can say that four recommendations were made—that is no state secret. They relate to police procedures in the investigation of domestic violence between lesbian or gay partners; consistency in the use of risk assessment tools by the police and other agencies; operational improvements around sexual offences prevention order applications; and the identification of increased risk when an offender admits to fantasising about children. There are no recommendations for the Scottish Government regarding legislation or guidance, although we will be happy to work with the police, social work and health services through the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to help disseminate any operational lessons.
I stress that this has been an historic case, and each of the recommendations has been actioned locally by Lothian and Borders Police, the City of Edinburgh Council and the national health service. Those organisations should be congratulated on instigating the review, but it remains theirs. The report is confidential, because of the personal data on the individuals involved. The organisations may choose to publicise some information, redacted or otherwise, and I will support their judgment whatever they choose to do—but it will be their decision.
The Scottish Prison Service has a great deal of expertise in dealing with sexual offences, and a great deal of pride is taken over the work that is done at Peterhead prison. The Administration is therefore delighted to ensure that a prison remains in Peterhead, so that the valuable staff there can continue to serve locally. There are consequences as a result of the European convention on human rights, in that we must ensure that we also provide assistance elsewhere. We are seeking to do that, and we are dealing with that as best we can.
Mr Baker should realise that the MAPPA system is relatively new. It became clear from the Strachan review that, sadly, it was only kicking into gear when he was perpetrating his offences. I hope that we have closed some gaps as a result of MAPPA—I congratulate my predecessor on introducing the arrangements. They were not available for the Strachan case, but lessons have since been learned and continue to be learned.
I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the statement, and I add my congratulations to the police, the SCDEA and the Crown on achieving an extremely satisfactory result.
As has been mentioned, the accused, Strachan, had previous convictions and was a registered sex offender. Does the cabinet secretary feel that the present sex offender registration legislation is working as well as it can? Would there be any value in carrying out further research into the desirability and workability of the satellite tracking of people on the sex offenders register, and into a possible requirement for them to undertake lie detector tests when, from time to time, they disappear off the radar and are outwith public sight—especially if an offence has been committed in the area concerned? The Parliament stands as one in trying everything possible to minimise the incidence of such offences. We have to consider every possible way of reducing the risk to an absolute minimum.
Absolutely. I thank Bill Aitken for his questions and for his tenor. I can give an assurance that this Administration, like previous Administrations, is ever vigilant. We recognise that this is a moving feast—that developments come upon us. For example, there have been substantial changes in relation to the internet since much of the sexual offender legislation first came into force. We must be ever vigilant and watchful, and we must change, which is why some matters are now being addressed under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.
Polygraph tests are being trialled south of the border, and we are monitoring that with interest. I assure Bill Aitken that, if it is shown that they work, we will be more than happy to learn from any jurisdiction. The Tayside pilot was predicated on methods that were being trialled in, I think, Warwickshire. We are happy to learn.
Polygraph testing is one thing; satellite tracking is another. The difficulty with satellite tracking is that, although it can show where an individual is, it does not necessarily reveal what that individual is doing. The system can show where they are, but further information, for instance on whether they are walking a child or walking their dog, is not available. Technology has to be considered, and where appropriate we will introduce it, but it has limitations.
Bill Aitken is correct to say that we must ensure that the legislation is robust and fit for purpose. I give an assurance that we are happy to review it. I have heard that the member is anxious for the Justice Committee to address the matter. We will fully support any recommendations that the committee makes. Indeed, I would be happy to contribute.
If issues arise from the Strachan case review that require legislation, we will address them. The review indicates that the steps that are being introduced under MAPPA will add to the measures that are available—albeit those arrangements were not in place in time to address the offences that Mr Strachan carried out.
We recognise that we are dealing with highly devious and manipulative people. We have to be able to change to track the new tricks that they get up to. Equally, we have to recognise that we might not be able to prevent every evil deed and that, therefore, in some instances, the only person to blame is the person who rightly has been convicted. That is why I am grateful for the member's comments about the police and the other agencies that have been involved in dealing with this matter.
I thank the cabinet secretary for agreeing to the request that he make a statement and for issuing advance copies of it. I support colleagues' comments on the success of this particular operation.
The monitoring, control and treatment of sex offenders are tricky. The Government has the support of the whole chamber in putting in place the most stringent and effective measures. Huge and complex challenges are also raised by the existence of paedophile rings such as the one with which Strachan and Rennie were involved. Of course, we should also bear in mind the case of Steven Randall, which was reported yesterday. Although that case is perhaps not in the same category as Strachan and Rennie's case, it is also worrying, because he was also on the sex offenders register.
Happily, the men who were convicted in those horrendous cases are now in jail. However, will the cabinet secretary comment on the likelihood of those men and other convicted sex offenders being on the sex offender treatment programme while they are in prison? Can he comment on the view that was expressed in the report of the former chief inspector of prisons, Andrew McLellan, that the number of spaces on that programme is too small, that it is not available to those who refuse to admit their guilt and that, in any event, there is little statistical evidence on its effectiveness?
What assurance can the cabinet secretary give us that such offenders—some rightly sentenced to lengthy prison sentences—will be less likely to offend on their eventual release? I acknowledge that, in one or two of these cases, that date is, happily, rather a long time away. What is the current status of the evaluation of the sex offender treatment programme?
I am happy to provide further information in due course on the evaluation; I am not able to provide it immediately.
I welcome Mr Brown's comments regarding the importance of seeking to treat these people. At an event last night, I spoke to Dr Mairead Tagg about these matters. A lot of the information is being developed and evaluated, and academics and others are discussing it. We seek to build on what we already have.
Mr Baker acknowledged that we have an excellent service at Peterhead. We seek to provide such a service elsewhere. It is a matter of regret if those who are seeking treatment are not able to access it. The SPS seeks to address that, and this Administration supports its attempts in that regard.
There is a good reason why, sometimes, those who refuse to admit their guilt are not placed on the programme. We are talking about highly manipulative and devious people. Sadly, some people go on the programme to try to delude those who are charged with looking after them and monitoring them in the interests of public safety that they have learned the error of their ways. Without going into detail, I can say that Mr Strachan said a variety of things to the authorities, some of which are now being reviewed.
We have to recognise that there is a judgment call on the part of those who are in a position to make decisions and have been trained accordingly. This Administration is supporting that area of expertise, which is developing under the guidance of academics in Scotland and elsewhere.
We will try to ensure that those who want sex offenders treatment are provided with it. Whether it is worth giving that treatment to someone who refuses to admit their guilt is a matter of judgment for the appropriately qualified people. The old adage that one can take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink still holds true. If someone denies that they have got a problem, there is a danger that they will undermine group therapy work. Further, we have to be ever vigilant and remember that some of these people are deeply manipulative and are downright liars. They make certain statements and say that they have learned and have changed but they have not.
We have to recognise that we are dealing with a changing situation and that we must give full support in that regard. Mr Brown has an assurance that the Administration will welcome suggestions, wherever they come from. I know that Mr Brown is a member of the Justice Committee, which might decide to examine the issues that he raises.
The area is evolving. Medical science has not yet managed to develop the area fully. However, as and when developments are made, we will seek to implement them.
Finally, I remind the member that, in many ways, the Scottish Prison Service is ahead of the game internationally as well as nationally, in terms of its expertise.
We are well aware that police are involved in MAPPA. Will the cabinet secretary confirm who else is routinely involved, and how that involvement is managed?
The MAPPA system places duties on the police, local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service, as the acting responsible authorities. As and when necessary, other agencies can become involved, such as health boards; the principal reporter to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration, if we are dealing with a youngster; housing providers that accommodate MAPPA offenders; and electronic monitoring providers, which I should mention in light of the points that Mr Aitken raised. The arrangement is a multi-agency one, but the basic triumvirate is made up of the police, local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service.
There is no doubt that the details of the operation algebra case have shocked many people throughout Scotland. Communities need reassurance at such a time. I regret, therefore, that the cabinet secretary was not able to reassure my colleague Richard Baker with regard to the budget for the monitoring of sex offenders. Perhaps that was because the Scottish Parliament information centre level 4 data for the criminal justice budget show that the monitoring of sex offenders budget has been cut by £21,000, which is unacceptable. Why has the budget been cut when sex offenders who are on the register are continuing to commit awful crimes?
The Government has made a record investment in the Scottish Prison Service—a public prison service, as opposed to the privatised system with which Mr Kelly wishes to proceed. I regret the tenor of Mr Kelly's question, given the manner in which other members have asked questions and commented on the issues.
The safety of our children is the responsibility of us all, and to turn that issue into narrow partisan politics simply demeans it. We challenge the claim of a £21,000 cut, given our record investment in the SPS. If Mr Kelly wishes to query why our Administration—and the whole country—faces financial problems, he should consider the role of a Westminster Administration that is imposing £500 million of cuts and which presided over a lack of regulation of our banks, the results of which are hitting each and every one of us in our pockets.
Appalling cases such as the ones that we are discussing, which often involve people who have previous convictions, understandably cause the public alarm. Will the cabinet secretary provide some perspective on the reoffending rates of registered sex offenders and how they compare to reoffending rates in general?
The great difficulty is that although I can present statistics that show that sex offenders reoffend less than most other offenders, when they do reoffend it can be catastrophic for individuals, their families and entire communities. The 2007-08 MAPPA report showed that of the 3,765 registered sex offenders, only 44 reoffended, or slightly more than 1 per cent. It is clear that that is 44 more than any of us would wish, but we can compare it with the 45 per cent two-year reconviction rate among all other offenders.
We recognise the difficulties and dangers, and the devious nature of the people with whom we are dealing. We can, thankfully, rest assured that they are few in number, but we acknowledge that when they reoffend, the consequences are severe.
I ask the cabinet secretary to demonstrate a little patience with members who legitimately ask questions about resources and the practice of the Government—it is a perfectly reasonable activity on our part.
Has the cabinet secretary specifically examined the details of yesterday's conviction of Mr Randall, to which Robert Brown alluded? Despite the fact that Mr Randall had been on the sex offenders register and had been monitored by the police, that heinous man went on to molest a very young child. Will there be an investigation? What specific measures will the cabinet secretary take to reassure the public that the Government is taking action now to protect our children and families?
I have tried to make clear to members the action that we are taking and have taken. I have given credit to Margaret Curran's colleague, who was my predecessor as justice secretary.
I do not wish to be flippant on the issue of funding, but if Labour wishes to impose the Glasgow airport rail link on us, the cutbacks to which Mr Kelly refers—which I deny—may in fact be substantially greater, because the money that is spent on GARL must be deducted from somewhere else. Every pound that Labour members want to spend on something has to come out of some other budget. Perhaps they can tell us which budget they want to cut.
I have been advised of yesterday's conviction, and I have no doubt that there will be a review by the agencies that were involved, just as there was a review of the Strachan case. If lessons can be learned, and if matters should be passed to other jurisdictions, we will seek to do so.
On the point that Mr Randall had come off the sex offenders register, I know that Margaret Curran was not the previous Minister for Justice—that was her colleague Cathy Jamieson, to whom I pay tribute—but perhaps she could have taken cognisance of the legislation that she was passing when she was in the Cabinet. Under the legislation, if the court imposes an order for, say, five years, the person comes off the sex offenders register after that time, although an offender can be put on the register for life automatically for a variety of offences, which are set out in statute. In the case that we are discussing, the individual fell off the register because the period that was imposed—five years—expired.
Clearly, lessons will be learned. If we have to change the legislation that was brought in during the member's time in office, we will seek to do so. Actually, I think that we will seek to learn lessons in other ways, because in the main, as I said, the MAPPA system kicks in. The sex offenders register is simply a record of data at the time. The fact that somebody comes off it does not mean that they cannot be put back on it through SOPOs or applications to the court.
That concludes questions on the statement. I am sorry to those members whom I was unable to call, but I have to protect time for the next debate, which is in itself oversubscribed. I ask members to move to their new positions as quickly as possible.