Protecting Scotland's Children
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1432, in the name of Paul Martin, on protecting Scotland's children.
In speaking to the motion on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I will refer to three main themes.
On 15 December 2006, the Justice 2 Sub-Committee published 33 recommendations. They were reached after a comprehensive assessment of the arrangements that were in place for managing sex offenders before that date. Many of us welcomed the input from and commitment of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, who was involved in the sub-committee; our Labour member, Jackie Baillie; and others, including the Presiding Officer, Alex Fergusson.
We are disappointed that some 14 months later, 17 of the 33 recommendations are outstanding. I ask the cabinet secretary to take this as a constructive point: the Government needs to be clear about which issues are outstanding, what resources will be provided and when we can expect to hear about further progress.
There is consensus on many of the issues that surround the management of registered sex offenders. We have had many debates in the chamber on the matter. However, the Government needs to be reminded that the recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee are our priority. They are of paramount importance to the safety of our communities and our children throughout Scotland.
All too often, we react to tragic events and we console and empathise with families who have suffered the loss of loved ones. We on the Labour benches call on the Parliament to ensure that we have at least taken the issue forward and created opportunities to minimise the risk that many of our communities face. I have made the point in the chamber several times that when we refer to registered sex offenders, we refer to a minority of people in our communities. In our communities, adults and children interact in a positive and constructive manner. It is important to recognise that the motion refers to a minority.
A key aspect of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's recommendations is the need to place greater responsibility on the authorities that manage registered sex offenders, be they housing authorities, prison authorities, social services authorities or local government authorities. They all have a responsibility to deliver on the management of registered sex offenders.
The Parliament's role is to show leadership and direction by legislating to improve the current arrangements and by providing policy direction. However, we need to ensure that the authorities play their part. We on the Labour benches—and I think we should all be united—want to inject some sheer doggedness and ensure that the authorities deliver on the recommendations and the other policy objectives on the issue.
Our motion also mentions the importance of retaining DNA samples in both the detection and prevention of crimes of a sexual nature. The cabinet secretary has often acknowledged that, in developing policy, it is important to listen to our police authorities throughout Scotland. I say to him that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and almost every police authority support the retention of DNA samples and the position in England and Wales. I challenge him to acknowledge and accept that and take it forward.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
In a moment.
Our manifesto made it clear that we support the position in England and Wales. We should retain the DNA and fingerprints of all crime suspects to help convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. Whether or not members agree with them, we have made proposals that we believe will make our communities safer. I ask the Scottish National Party to do likewise. We are willing to take tough and controversial decisions rather than simply sit on the sidelines. I am less than clear about the SNP's position. It claims to want a debate on the matter, but it has given the inquiry that it launched a narrow remit. If the SNP wants to have a genuine debate, we are happy to participate in one.
I do not think that anybody here does not agree with the proposal to retain DNA samples of criminals, particularly sex offenders—we are united on that front. However, I think that the retention of DNA samples of innocent people is a step too far.
There have been many well-publicised and tragic cases in England, and I will make the figures clear to Gil Paterson. The DNA database has produced matches that have allowed us to prosecute 452 homicides, 644 rapes, 222 other sex offences and 18 other violent offences. All those prosecutions came about as a result of the law in England and Wales. For me, that is sufficient evidence that we should do likewise in Scotland.
Many members will want to debate the proposal for a compulsory DNA database. The Scottish Labour Party is not entirely persuaded by the argument for a compulsory database. We believe that much more evidence would be required before such a database could be set up. If I were asked whether I saw it as my civic duty to provide a DNA sample—as many others have done in past cases—I would say yes and I would do so. Nevertheless, I recognise that some serious arguments would have to be made in favour of the proposal.
Four community disclosure pilot schemes have been launched in England and Wales. Last week, I asked the First Minister to produce similar proposals and to accept that we should at least consider best practice in England and Wales. There is evidence to suggest that such pilot schemes should be introduced in Scotland.
I have met Margaret Ann Cummings, who tragically lost her son as a result of the actions of a sex offender, Stuart Leggate. I want to look Margaret Ann Cummings in the eye after we implement the sub-committee's 33 recommendations and tell her that I—along with the Scottish Labour Party and, I hope, other parties—did everything possible to minimise the risk to children and adults from registered sex offenders in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of making further progress on the 33 recommendations published by the Justice 2 Sub-committee on 15 December 2006 in connection with the management of registered sex offenders; believes that ensuring public safety is paramount in the management of registered sex offenders; further recognises the crucial role that the retention of DNA samples and fingerprints of all crime suspects has played in England and Wales in detecting sex offenders; acknowledges the value of the pilot schemes in England and Wales that will allow parents to ask police authorities whether a named individual such as a carer or a new partner has previously been placed on the sex offenders register, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring a statement to the Parliament on the implementation of the Justice 2 Sub-committee's report J2SC/S2/06/R1.
I thank Mr Martin for the manner in which he has presented his comments. Clearly, they pertain to matters on which we are unified in the chamber, as the protection of our children is paramount to any civilised society. There are, doubtless, matters on which we disagree; nevertheless, I welcome the fact that more unites us than divides us on the issue. We should focus on that, and I welcome the opportunity to restate the Government's commitment to public protection and tackling those who present a danger to our children.
Last June, Parliament debated the Government's approach to the protection of the public from sex offending, and there was clear consensus in the chamber around the robust approach that we set out at that time. As members know, sex offending is one of the most difficult and sensitive issues that Governments anywhere must tackle. Paul Martin referred to the work of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee, and I can confirm that I will write shortly to the convener of the Justice Committee to report on the substantial progress that has been made. Our current assessment is that a significant number of the 33 recommendations have either been delivered in full or are very near to being implemented. Mr Martin and the rest of the chamber can be assured that we are committed to full delivery.
We are benefiting greatly from the sub-committee's in-depth research and the wide-ranging discussions that it had with all parts of the criminal justice system and beyond—it took evidence from other jurisdictions—which informed its final report. The recommendations are far reaching and can be closely linked to earlier reviews such as the reports by Lady Cosgrove, Lord MacLean and Professor Irving. Taken together, they have enabled us to develop a comprehensive sex offender strategy that is unique to Scotland.
However, we are not complacent. Society changes and the way in which people who are sexual predators operate also varies; therefore, the Scottish Government is determined to build on that strong foundation and to react swiftly if circumstances change. For example, we will further tighten the sex offenders register to require more household and social data to be collected from registered sex offenders, including e-mail addresses—because of the world in which we live—and whether they live in the same household as a child.
We are implementing the sub-committee's recommendation on a public information strategy, which will include information on disclosure and set out the measures that are in place to keep our communities safe from sex offenders. We have made it clear that those who seek to shirk their responsibilities as registered sex offenders will not be allowed to hide themselves with impunity, but will be sought, exposed and detained if need be.
Paul Martin has raised the issue of community disclosure today and previously. Community disclosure was carefully considered by all the expert groups that have helped to build the robust public protection framework that we now have in place. Indeed, Jackie Baillie, who was the convener of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee, will be well aware that the committee welcomed the approach that we and ACPOS are now taking—namely, the development of a robust system of warnings to be used by the police when sex offenders fail to comply with their notification requirements or with the reasonable directions of the police or other supervising authorities in relation to their behaviour or activities. The new warning system has been developed with the police and forms part of a comprehensive standard operating procedures manual that was approved by ACPOS on 20 April 2007. That both strengthens protection for the public and places the onus—correctly—on sex offenders to abide by the law and any police warnings about their activities or face losing their anonymity.
I note Paul Martin's support for the community disclosure pilot schemes that the Home Office will progress in four English police areas. We will follow with interest the results of those pilot schemes and their subsequent evaluations. We are particularly interested in the impact of the pilot schemes on offenders' compliance with their notification requirements and, to be fair, any incidents of vigilantism. It is vital that the arrangements mesh with other elements of the management of sex offenders and
"balance ‘the very real fear of parents and the wider communities for their children' against concerns that have been raised, including the possibility that such a move could drive dangerous offenders underground."
So said Cathy Jamieson, my predecessor, in November 2006.
The implementation of the pilot schemes will be challenging. To ensure that every issue is fully explored, the Home Office has established a steering group, chaired by Vernon Coaker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction, to assist with the setting up, running and evaluation of the pilot schemes. Scottish Government officials are part of the steering group and are keeping me in close touch with developments.
While that work is on-going, it is important that there is no suggestion that the Scottish approach to public protection is in any way less robust. We are committed to implementing the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's recommendations. We also have in place the strengthened multi-agency public protection arrangements, which were introduced in September 2006 and have been operating in all areas of Scotland since April 2007. The First Minister has made it clear that we will monitor closely how the new, strengthened Scottish system beds in and that we will always look to address any gaps that become apparent.
Paul Martin referred to the retention of DNA samples. In the detection and prosecution of child sex offenders, forensic material can provide an important tool. Advances in forensic science, particularly in DNA analysis, are enabling it to make an ever-more powerful contribution. We expect the Scottish Police Services Authority, as the core provider of forensic services for our police forces, to continue to provide quick and accurate analysis of samples that are taken from victims and crime scenes and to identify whether they match the profiles of known individuals who are on the database.
Will the cabinet secretary address the point about the retention of DNA samples? As he is aware, I have supported that measure. I listened to him on the wireless earlier this week, responding to a request from people in the football sector to allow the sale of alcohol at football grounds. He said, rightly, that he would listen to the advice of senior police officers. Why does he not take the advice of senior police officers with regard to DNA sample retention?
I listen to a lot of people, and I will shortly say who I am listening to. I regularly meet senior police officers, and we believe that we have to strike a balance. I am struck by the comment that, in Scotland, we currently have "a sensible balance"—that comment came not from chief police officers, but from Cathy Jamieson, my predecessor and the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party. She believed that in January 2007 and I believe that now. That is the balance that the Government has struck.
We do not believe that it would be right to copy the regime that is now in place in England. As a matter of principle, we do not believe that a person's DNA should be retained indefinitely by the police if they have never been convicted of an offence, unless there is a good reason. That is not just our view; it is also the view of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Having said that, the Scottish Government is keen to see what more can be done. I have met Paul Martin and Margaret Curran, and we have sought a review through Professor Fraser. We will be happy to look at Professor Fraser's recommendations, because we have to get the balance right.
I hope that all I have said is helpful and that it reassures Parliament that the Scottish Government remains committed to protecting our children from sex offenders.
I move amendment S3M-1432.1, to leave out from "the crucial role" to end and insert:
"that appropriate utilisation of DNA samples and fingerprints can play an important role in identifying offenders but that it is vital to strike the right balance between prosecuting criminals and protecting the innocent and notes the review that the Scottish Government has commissioned from Professor James Fraser; recognises the extensive powers already available to the police in monitoring sex offenders and ensuring public safety, and notes the Scottish Government's liaison with the Home Office as disclosure pilots progress in four English police areas and the Scottish Government's proposal to monitor the outcomes of these pilots to determine what lessons there might be for Scotland, and welcomes the Scottish Government's proposal to write to the Convener of the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee to report progress on each of the 33 recommendations made by the Justice 2 Sub-committee report J2SC/S2/06/R1."
I remind back benchers that their speeches will be five minutes long and not six.
As has been said this morning, not a lot separates the parties in such an important debate. To state the obvious, every one of us finds this sort of offence abhorrent and repellent. We have to move on from there to consider the nature of the offender.
Sex offenders, particularly those who prey on children, are devious, cunning and predatory. We know that. We also know that they have the capacity to reoffend. Indeed, the nature of some of the crimes is such that the offenders should not present a problem in our society for the simple reason that they should not and, in many cases, cannot, be released. However, we must recognise that many sex offenders are released into the community, and it is our clear duty to minimise the risks.
I listened carefully to Paul Martin, who has shown great interest in this issue; given the tragic case in his constituency, that is understandable. I pay tribute to his work in the area, and I agree with much of what he said.
First, we must look at the way in which sex offenders are monitored and we must ensure that the various agencies that get involved with such prisoners on their release—housing, social work, the police and so on—take a much more joined-up approach. I have yet to be convinced that we have got that right; more work should be done on that.
Secondly, we must ensure that the existing sex offenders registration legislation works. Last year, there was a case—I cannot name it, because of outstanding matters—in which the legislation clearly did not work. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government, following discussion, moved in the right direction by naming and shaming those who had disappeared from the registration system so that those who might be living near them would be able to identify them by means of a website and report them to the appropriate authorities. That is progress.
However, we should use some of the technology with which we are all familiar to a greater extent than we do. Global positioning system tracking and lie detector equipment should be used when such people have disappeared. If they go off the radar for a while, we want to know where they have been and what they have been doing. I know that the Home Office has carried out some projects and tests in that area; we await the results and hope to see them in early course. If such technology is successful, we should not hesitate to implement it.
Bill Aitken and I are alike in the sense that neither of us is particularly well acquainted with technology, so I will speak carefully. Does he accept that satellite tracking appears to have some limits and that the systems that are in place at the moment would probably not be able to cope to the extent that he might like?
The technophobe in me recognises that there are difficulties, but things move on. We should wait and see the results of improved technology. I accept that there are difficulties, but we ought to wait and see how things pan out in the longer term.
One of Mr Martin's other proposals relates to the use and retention of DNA samples, about which I have serious reservations. One side might argue that any method that will enable people to be caught and dealt with is a good thing. The other side is the privacy issue. Although I am open to listening to the arguments, I cannot be convinced that the loss of privacy and all the dangers that that would entail could result in the greater benefit.
Implementation of the so-called Megan's law and Sarah's law would cause another difficulty. Again, I understand the arguments, but I cannot accept that such legislation would not present a real danger that sex offenders would go underground. That is why I lodged my amendment.
I move amendment S3M-1432.1.2, to insert after "Scotland":
"believes that the monitoring of sex offenders could be made more effective by means of satellite tracking and the use of lie detector tests where an offender has breached the terms of their registration requirement and has effectively been out of contact for a period".
It is not yet a year since we last debated this emotive issue in the chamber. However, as disturbing figures that were released during the past few days detailing widespread rises in sex-related offences in Scotland have shown, we are clearly not making the required progress in tackling the issue. More can be done to protect the public, particularly children and vulnerable others, from sexual exploitation and sexually predatory behaviour. That was acknowledged, at least partially, by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in The Scotsman earlier this week.
As the Labour motion points out, in December 2006 the Justice 2 Sub-Committee made 33 recommendations for the management of convicted sex offenders. Those guidelines are thorough and persuasive, and they represent an excellent starting point for any future bill. The recommendations address the frailties in the supervision process for registered sex offenders by advocating a formal warning system to trigger increased supervision and control of an offender should they behave inappropriately, as well as placing stricter legal conditions on offenders in the community. Another highlight was the recommendation that more resources should be made available for the development and delivery of intervention programmes to reduce the potential risk that sex offenders pose. I would welcome any statement from the Government on the implementation of those recommendations.
Several other measures deserve due consideration. I will examine the circles of accountability scheme in more detail later, but for the moment I will focus on current deficiencies in the law. The police have no power to apply for the extension of a period of registration for a sex offender, so as the law stands, an offender could still be considered a risk but might no longer be monitored by the authorities. That must be addressed. Likewise, if warning and intervention schemes are to be successful, far swifter procedures for the securing of police warrants must be implemented. However, any such reforms must be tempered by due consideration for civil liberties. It would be a great yet terrible irony if, in attempting to protect the people of Scotland by law, the legislature effectively criminalised innocent members of the community. The key, as ever, is balance.
Some in the chamber might want to see the introduction of the so-called Megan's law, to which Bill Aitken referred. The concept of Megan's law is a step too far. The indiscriminate public naming of offenders could drive them underground and open the door to possible vigilante action. That is not to mention the problematic relationship that any such legislation would have in encountering the current law. Important questions would have to be asked about the risks of double jeopardy, because if offenders were named they would, in effect, be punished twice for the same crime.
I urge caution over the issue of DNA retention. Any proposal for the indiscriminate retention of the DNA of all criminal suspects is a step too far. If someone commits a criminal offence, it is right that they should be punished thoroughly and, depending on the nature of the crime, supervised to ensure that they do not reoffend. However, it is ridiculous to propose that the innocent, or someone who has been only accused of or implicated in a crime, should be supervised to the same extent, as would happen under Labour's proposals for DNA retention. The individual's rights against the state form one of the core principles on which Scottish society is built and the Parliament cannot allow them to be compromised.
I have spoken in the Parliament previously about the circles of support programme, which was first developed in Canada and which would address some of Bill Aitken's concerns about sex offenders. A circle of support—sometimes called a circle of friends—is a group of people who meet regularly to help somebody encompass their personal goals in life. Members of the circle, who are usually unpaid, might include family members, friends and other community members. A properly facilitated circle is empowering to all the individuals involved and, unlike many service systems, does not reinforce dependency. Circles of support and accountability work with sex offenders to attempt to help them avoid further offending.
As I have said, the idea began in Canada in 1994. In the United Kingdom, it has been championed by the Quaker community and its crime and community justice committee. Last year it was highlighted by the Justice 2 Sub-Committee, which was set up to investigate and report on the issues surrounding sex offending, including circles of support. The scheme has been on-going in Hampshire and Thames valley for the past four years. In the first three years—2002 to 2005—the Thames valley group worked with 20 high-risk sex offenders. So far, expected rates of recidivism among that group of offenders have been reduced; only three men, none of whom had committed a further sexual offence, were recalled. That figure is similar to those of the Canadian circles, evaluated over a 10-year period. Does the cabinet secretary have any new information on circles of support? Is the Government willing to have a trial of the scheme in Scotland?
This is an important debate. I am glad that the Labour Party has given us a second opportunity to discuss the issue. We will support the SNP amendment, as well as our amendment in the name of Margaret Smith.
I move amendment S3M-1432.1.1, to insert after "Professor James Fraser;":
"rejects the blanket retention of DNA samples and fingerprints;".
I am grateful to have the chance to contribute to this important debate. Sex offences are sickening and horrific crimes. First and foremost, those who are convicted of such serious crimes deserve punishment in prison for a very long time. Over the past few years, there has been much more recognition than ever before of the fact that dangerous sex offenders need supervision beyond the sentences that they serve following their criminal wrongdoing, after they have been found out and convicted of sex offences.
We have done much that is aimed at focusing supervision to reduce the serious potential harm that such individuals can cause later in their lives, as after their conviction they may go on to commit further offences. Under Labour, Scotland had a raft of new police powers, more stringent conditions for offenders and further investment to enable the police to share intelligence on sexual and violent offenders throughout the UK. A formal police warning system for sex offenders was introduced.
I will focus on the use of 21st century technology. I disagree with both Gil Paterson and the amendment in Margaret Smith's name on the issue of DNA retention. The use of forensic DNA to solve crimes is proving to be revolutionary for law enforcement. Forensic DNA work is an extraordinary tool for investigators, because it presents a myriad of possibilities in the investigation of cases. It works in a way that helps to convict the guilty and to exonerate the innocent. It can link the same suspect to multiple crime scenes or rule him out. It can help police to determine whether one or more suspects were involved in a crime. It can be used to solve very old cases and can be stored and consulted in a way that permits the rapid linking of cases and identification of suspects. At national level, random checks can lead to so-called cold hits, linking a person to a crime when he was not even under investigation.
It is no wonder that more and more police forces are using DNA at national level to help them solve crimes. More than 50 countries already maintain national DNA databases. The number will continue to increase, until one day all countries will use DNA as part of their standard operating procedure in the investigation of crimes. However, the Labour Party is sensitive to legitimate policy concerns about what kind of DNA information should be shared internationally, in what context and under what conditions. We are intensely interested in the court case that is currently taking place in Brussels.
Like Bill Aitken, I believe that new technology, especially for information sharing, is helping us. The ability to share information is important. Criminal justice agencies appreciate the significance of compiling and—even more important—sharing information about violent and sex offenders. The Bichard inquiry into the handling of Ian Huntley in the Soham murders case gave added impetus to the need for criminal justice agencies, especially the police, to be able to share information.
The media have helped the public to become aware of the threats to children. "Panorama", Channel 5 and the Daily Mirror have identified many examples that give every family in the land major cause for concern. A crime correspondent discovered an area of "Second Life" called Wonderland, in which child-like characters sold sex for Linden dollars, the currency that is used in the game. The name of the environment is a sick reference to the Wonderland gang, a notorious group of child abusers. There were virtual children of all ages, who were exposed to many sordid sexual acts. We need to keep a close eye on information technology, including the gaming side of it. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that issue when he winds up.
I am interested in the Tory amendment. All MSPs have been lobbied by the charity Barnardo's, which is calling on the Government to use lie detector tests and satellite tracking to monitor sex offenders. We will observe developments in that area with interest.
Speaking in the House of Commons at the end of last year, my colleague Jimmy Hood raised a number of serious and interesting issues. He suggested that, if the controls for sex offenders in Scotland are not the same as those in the rest of the UK, Scotland could become a refuge and hiding place for sex offenders fleeing tougher controls in England and Wales. The last thing that we should do is make Scotland a soft option for paedophiles. I understand that Scotland plans to include violent and dangerous offenders in multi-agency public protection arrangements only in about 18 months' time. I hope that that is not the case and that the cabinet secretary will address the issue with real urgency. If paedophiles think that it is more likely that an eye will be kept on them in England than in Scotland, there may be some temptation for them to move north of the border, for all the wrong reasons.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. My professional background is in social work. Although it has been some time since I was involved in an active case, I retain a strong interest in the area.
I have taken some time to consider the report that is mentioned in the motion and what the SNP Government has done so far. It is only fair that I make clear that the issues of DNA retention and fingerprinting that are referred to in the motion were not addressed in the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's report. The report made some reference to police officers' powers to require DNA samples and to the improved requirement for convicted persons to provide a DNA sample. I am sure that no member opposes the proper and appropriate use of those powers. However, we must be clear about the fact that the report contained no recommendations on the retention of DNA samples and no reference at all to fingerprinting. Nor should it have—such considerations were not within the sub-committee's remit.
I understand that Paul Martin has worked hard with the family of Mark Cummings and that he wants to see a result for his constituent. His concerns have been demonstrated clearly on a number of occasions, and I hope that he will take my comments constructively. In an emotive debate such as the wider one of which this parliamentary debate is part, it is important that the subject matter is observed carefully and that at least some attempt is made to engage with it dispassionately, although I understand that that is difficult.
On 7 June last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice indicated that he intended to build on the good work and recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee. As he pointed out at the time—he has done so again this morning—the problem lies with a small group of offenders. It is those offenders who should be targeted to improve the safety of children in Scotland.
I cannot agree that the maintenance of a database that includes many who are innocent would offer any protection to Scottish children. Four out of every five cases of sexual abuse of children that come to light occur within the family unit, with abuse perpetrated by either family members or family friends. Finding the appropriate means of protecting those children is rather more complicated than maintaining a database. The issue is more likely to fall on the shoulders of social work than on those of the police. Such protection cases slot into the child protection system and should focus on what is best for the children concerned. It is important that the focus should be on child protection.
For all Scotland's children, it is important that we seek to ensure that, so far as is possible, predatory individuals cannot prey upon them. However, as the cabinet secretary said and as Cathy Jamieson rightly pointed out when she was Minister for Justice, there is a balance to be struck. We must ensure child protection, but also maintain its reasonableness in the eyes of the people of Scotland.
In addition, we must take into consideration the fact that events elsewhere may overtake our debate. Yesterday, the civil liberties point that is at stake in this debate was tested in the European Court of Human Rights. Two gentlemen from Sheffield challenged the right of the state to hold their fingerprints and DNA after they had been acquitted, in one case, and their case discontinued, in the other. They contend that, as people without convictions who are no longer suspected criminals, they should be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the population. The judgment in the case of S and Michael Marper v the United Kingdom may make this a moot debate.
Will the member give way?
I am about to finish.
I urge Paul Martin and the rest of the Labour Party to come back on board the cross-party consensus on sex crimes and to work with the Government to deliver a safer Scotland. I appreciate that much has been done since 1999. Much remains to be done, but Scotland will be better served if we take forward the issue on a consensual and cross-party basis. I would like to think that we can find an appropriate and effective way of ensuring the protection of Scotland's children, without losing the support of the people of this country.
Sex offences against children are among the worst crimes in our society. There is agreement in Parliament that we must do all that we can do to prevent such crimes in a reasonable and measured way.
At the same time, we must avoid feeding the fears of parents. We must recognise that, thankfully, sex offences against children are rare, although the new technologies that Helen Eadie mentioned present us with new challenges. Equally, we must remember that 80 per cent of reported sex crimes against children are perpetrated by friends and family members. Stranger danger exists, but by no means is it the source of the majority of such crimes against children. We need to keep in perspective where the risk to children lies and do what we can to reduce that risk. In focusing on sex offenders in the community, we must not forget the violence and abuse that are experienced by some children in the home.
The previous Scottish Executive took many steps forward in child protection. The Justice 2 Sub-Committee report came at an opportune time for reviewing progress and looking to the future. Of the report's 33 recommendations, we know that 16 have been implemented and that the Scottish Government is working to implement the remainder. I share the concerns that Paul Martin mentioned in his opening speech, but I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement—which I believe is prompted by today's debate—that the Government will report to the Justice Committee. I am confident that the cabinet secretary will not only provide information on what recommendations have been implemented, but detail what plans exist for taking forward the remaining recommendations.
Over the past 10 years or so, we have had a series of changes to the legislative framework to protect children from sex offenders. We all recognise that it is impossible to reduce the risk of such offending to zero but, while acknowledging the significant progress that has been made on issues such as information sharing, the sub-committee's report also identified weaknesses in the system. I seek an assurance that we will continue to address those issues, particularly those on which we could provide greater reassurance to parents.
It is crucial that the approaches that are taken to management of sex offenders, including notification arrangements, are co-ordinated across United Kingdom jurisdictions. The ability to move around the UK is exploited by sex offenders, in particular by those who have not been identified and are not on the register but are committing offences. There can be no weak links in the protection systems that we have in the UK. It would be helpful to consider whether we can learn from the decisions that have been taken in England and Wales to improve management of sex offenders.
The media's focus in the debate has been on DNA retention. DNA can help to identify offenders quickly and, crucially, it can help to identify those who are guilty of offences before they go on to reoffend in what might be a more serious manner. We know that many of the sex offenders who have perpetrated some of the most serious crimes in the UK exhibited earlier behaviour that could have been used as a pointer to their future crimes. DNA retention is a huge breakthrough that we must utilise as far as possible. Clearly, we must do that without violating rights to privacy and without discriminating against particular sections of society. On collection of DNA, I know that there are arguments in both directions, but I believe that it is our duty to reflect on whether, in the light of the DNA collection regime in England and Wales, we have the best system in Scotland for meeting the challenges that we face.
Is the member aware that 40 per cent of young black men south of the border are on the DNA register? Given what she has said, does that give her cause for concern?
I am aware of those figures. As I said, we need to be careful. We need to analyse the figures. If particular sections of society are being targeted, we must take that into consideration. However, my argument is that Scotland should also reflect on the positive aspects of the system that is currently in operation in England and Wales. We need to consider whether we are in the right place in the spectrum in comparing where we are with the position in England and Wales.
A key issue for the public and parents—
You have one minute.
I will need to skip that bit, so I will move on.
Management of sex offenders in the community presents the issue of disclosure. The cabinet secretary has stated that he is willing to learn from the pilots in England and Wales, which, in very limited cases, extend third-party disclosure to parents who request information about a partner's or carer's status on the sex offenders register. That may be a way of further managing the risks that some children face in their own homes when new members join the family unit—an issue that I mentioned at the start of my speech. The cabinet secretary seems to be keen to wait until the pilots finish—which I understand may not be for two or three years—before judging whether such a move would be appropriate for Scotland. There is an argument that we should try to learn from the pilots before then.
The recommendation on resources must be addressed. Monitoring of offenders should be intensive and sustained. There are strong arguments for the extension of agency involvement in terms of timescales. Parents and communities must be assured that the system is robust and rigorous and that Parliament will work with and support others to do everything possible to protect children.
Protection of children is a top priority for my party, as is evidenced by our willingness to work with other parties on the issue. However, we must not let that determination lead to policies and actions that are not firmly evidence based. Emotionally upsetting—indeed, revolting—though it may be to all right-thinking people to contemplate sexual advances towards innocent children, we owe it to those children and to children who may be at risk in the future to make the right decisions with a clear head as well as with an angry heart.
Although we like to think of the paedophilic sex offender as a stranger—the proverbial man in the dirty mac who hangs around children's playgrounds—the reality is very different. As Christina McKelvie and Claire Baker said, it is estimated that 80 per cent of known sex offences against children are committed by members of their own families or friends of their families. Indeed, although we tell children not to talk to strangers, the sad fact is that a stranger is far less likely to be a threat than is a father, uncle or brother or the neighbour who baby-sits. Paradoxically, we might be better to advise children to confide in strangers if we acknowledge what the statistics tell us. As Claire Baker said, domestic abuse rightly deserves more attention.
In considering the motion against that background, an imbalance immediately presents itself. If it is true, as it is, that the vast amount of sex abuse of children is perpetrated by people in their immediate circle of relatives and friends, the infringement of civil liberties that is involved in retaining DNA material from a wide range of individuals—most of whom have not the remotest connection with sex offences—would be grossly disproportionate. I point out that at least two members of Parliament have been suspected of a criminal offence in the recent past. Should their data therefore be included on a sex offenders database? That is why I cannot support the motion in the name of Paul Martin.
Is my attitude open to the charge that I am being soft on sex offenders? Definitely not. Of course we must retain the DNA of convicted sex offenders for a long time—perhaps for ever.
On infringement of civil liberties, does the member accept that the law lords ruling, on a four-to-one majority, acknowledged that no such infringement was involved?
I am afraid that I do not agree with every ruling of the law lords. In this country, far too many of our civil liberties have been taken away and we have not done enough to protest about that.
Special attention must be paid to known sex offenders whose behaviour causes concern. For example, if they are seen hanging around schools or swimming pools where children congregate, key organisations in the area could be warned about the nature of the concern. I support the key recommendations in Professor George Irving's report of 2005, such as giving the police powers to enter sex offenders' homes to monitor their activities, and extending the range of information that registered offenders are required to provide about themselves.
I also support the fact that Scotland's eight police forces introduced into their standing procedures last year a new warning system for sex offenders who enter their area. I welcome their new ability to track sex offenders online by publishing photographs of high-risk child sex offenders on the Crimestoppers most-wanted list.
There is even a case for introducing a version of Megan's law—a provision that was signed into US law by President Clinton in 1997—whereby we would require compulsory community notification of sex offenders who move to a new district. However, the evidence for the law's effectiveness is mixed. Further study is needed before such a radical measure is introduced here.
Some will say that any measure is worth while if it saves one child from abuse or even death. However, we could easily save thousands of children from injury and death if we gave up the motor car, but no one seriously suggests such a measure. Every decision in life is subject to proportionality; the motion in the name of Paul Martin would overstep the limit slightly. For that reason, I ask members to support the amendment in the name of Kenny MacAskill.
Nigel Don—two minutes only.
My speech will have to be very short. I hope that what I say is entirely accurate, because I have no desire to mislead Parliament, bearing in mind what was said earlier.
I will consider briefly how DNA is tested and what that tells us, which is the important bit. We all recognise that it is something to do with biochemistry, and one does not have to be a technophobe to want to run away from that. As far as I can see, our DNA sequence is a very, very long number, 90-something per cent of which is exactly the same for us—because we are human—and for the apes, which share the same origins.
As I understand it, the test looks at five areas in that sequence where we know that the changes between us show up. The clever bit—the reason why the test works—is that it looks at those areas of the sequence where little bits of code repeat: in other words, where the same telephone number appears over and over. That is what enables DNA analysis to distinguish between people.
My understanding is that if one has a good sample A and a good sample B and one gets a match, the chance of sample B coming from another member of the population is about one in a thousand million. That is probably enough to distinguish most of us clearly and to provide convincing evidence. However, members will appreciate that if the sample is not complete, that statistic rapidly declines.
The fact that the person who is most likely to have the same DNA match as me is my brother causes a problem, given what we know about who sex offenders are most likely to be. If that person happens to be an identical twin, they should have the same DNA and if there is any incestuous tendency further back in the population, it is apparent that the possibility of identifying someone disappears. In other words, DNA has limited applicability, although it does provide a pointer.
We move to winding-up speeches.
For the most part, the debate has been consensual and interesting. The management of sex offenders is a difficult and complex issue. As parents and as human beings, we have an overwhelming sense of horror at the depravity of paedophiles who prey on children. However, as Bill Aitken and Ian McKee said, as legislators, we must go beyond that and accept that a balance must be struck between the protection of children and the delivery of a system that deals with those offenders in a way that encourages them to address their behaviour, to work with agencies, to remain visible to the authorities and to respond, when possible, to rehabilitation efforts.
We must ensure that the processes that we have in place for registering, monitoring and housing sex offenders are as effective as possible. Many speakers, including Christina McKelvie and Claire Baker, rightly said that the majority of children who are subjected to sexual abuse suffer it at the hands of family members or other people they should be able to trust. We must never lose sight of the fact that it is in their own homes that children are most at risk. Although stranger danger cannot be ignored, it must be set in context. In an enthralling speech, in which even he found some of the subject matter challenging, Nigel Don hinted at some of the difficulties that arise when one relies on DNA evidence in cases involving family relationships.
That is one reason why I think, as many members who spoke do, that we must be wary of the Megan's law approach, which involves the wholesale naming and shaming of sex offenders. Such an approach runs the risk not only of driving offenders underground, where they are surely more, rather than less, likely to reoffend, but of lulling people into a false sense of security. Sadly, it is not the case that just because parents know where a few known paedophiles live, that will provide enough protection for their children.
Many members have rightly acknowledged the work that the present Government, the previous Executive and the Parliament have done in this important area: we have made a great deal of progress in the past few years. The cabinet secretary was right to say that we have built on the Cosgrove, MacLean and Irving reports. We have tightened the granting of bail for sex offenders and abolished automatic early release for sex offenders who are sentenced to between six months and four years in prison. We now allow chief constables to apply to the sheriff for a risk of sexual harm order to restrict the activities of people who are believed to pose a risk of causing sexual harm to children, even if they have not been convicted. We have also created an offence of grooming children.
It is right that we have spent a considerable amount of time supporting efforts to protect our children, and the Liberal Democrats remain ready to consider any further legislative or non-legislative changes that would help to provide greater protection for them. As Mike Pringle said, we suggested that the police should be given the power to extend a sex offender's registration period.
Such matters must be kept under constant review, but important measures such as the national accommodation strategy for sex offenders and the MAPPAs, which came into effect only last year, probably need time to bed in. It is essential that we constantly evaluate what is working and what is not working, and that the necessary resources are in place. We are not talking about a cheap option—protection of our children must be properly resourced.
The motion rightly refers to the 33 recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee's report on sex offenders, all but one of which were unanimous. We welcome the progress that has been made so far. The recommendations covered a large number of issues. I welcome the cabinet secretary's willingness to write to the Justice Committee to detail the progress that has been made but, as a member of that committee, I also hope that he will come before us to discuss the matter.
The motion refers to the pilot schemes in England and Wales that will allow parents to ask the police whether a named individual has previously been placed on the sex offenders register. We welcome liaison between the Scottish Government and Westminster on that issue and will be happy to examine the results of those schemes. Disparity in the approaches that are adopted in different parts of the UK is not necessarily a good thing because, as Claire Baker said, paedophiles will exploit it.
In line with Professor Irving's recommendation, we strengthened the operation of the notification scheme in Scotland. Decisions about disclosure are considered in relation to risk. The police have the power to notify a community if an offender absconds, and they make use of it. That power has an important deterrent effect because offenders knows that if they abscond, they will be named and shamed. It is worth comparing the number of sex offenders in Scotland who we know have gone underground with the equivalent figures for states in the United States in which a Megan's law operates.
My amendment deals with the retention of DNA, the arguments on which have been well rehearsed.
The member must conclude.
The Omagh bombing case shows that DNA does not always provide the answer.
All the speeches in the debate have made it abundantly clear that Parliament recognises that the first duty of any society is to protect its public, most especially its vulnerable groups, which include young children.
Sex offenders present a very real danger to children for the obvious reasons that many members have spelled out. The recent high-profile cases serve only to fuel the fear. When sex offenders are released from prison or from hospital and are, quite rightly, carefully monitored and supervised, that process must be as effective as possible in order to secure public trust in the system, and the safety of the community. If the public is to have that trust, it is crucial that, collectively, Parliament demonstrates the same strength in campaigning that Paul Martin has demonstrated.
As Helen Eadie and Bill Aitken made clear, we must not be afraid to embrace the technology that helps us to protect the most vulnerable groups in our communities, although we must pay heed to some of the constraints that Margaret Smith mentioned. All eight of Scotland's police forces are now able to publish photographs of high-risk child sex offenders on the internationally-recognised Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre's most-wanted website. Co-operation is crucial if we are to make progress. The formal contract, which involves agreement between the Crown Office, ACPOS, the CEOPC and Crimestoppers, makes it clear that, in certain situations, the photographs of certain offenders, including high-risk child sex offenders who have failed to comply with the requirements of the sex offenders register, can be published, once there has been careful consideration of the legal implications and, in particular, of the potential prejudice to any future criminal proceedings.
It is interesting that Labour has inserted into its motion reference to the retention of the DNA samples "of all crime suspects", even when those suspects might not have been charged or found guilty. That is interesting because of the appeal that is going through the European Court of Human Rights, which might mean that the UK Parliament will have to change the Police and Justice Act 2006, which in turn will mean the destruction of tens of thousands of DNA samples. The Conservatives are not comfortable with the idea of innocent people having their DNA held by the state.
We were concerned last year, when the Westminster Government was toying with the idea of introducing much wider powers of disclosure in relation to sex offenders, which would have amounted to the adoption of an American-style Megan's law. We are happier now that the plans seem to be more limited.
This month, the Home Office has announced plans for pilot schemes that will allow parents or guardians to check whether someone with whom they have a personal relationship has any previous convictions for child sex offences. However, we continue to harbour concerns about whether the introduction of the Sarah's law pilot projects might push sex offenders underground, thereby putting children more at risk instead of making them safer.
Whether the member is for or against disclosure, the point at issue is that the judicial process is a public one. When a sex offender is placed on the register, they are identified. The process is public, even prior to any disclosure.
I absolutely accept that, but safeguards have to be put in place to ensure public confidence in the system.
We believe that the names and photographs of sex offenders who have broken their registration requirements should be published when it is believed that doing so is in the best interests of public safety. We want technology to be used, particularly global positioning system tracking so that all those whom the court or Risk Management Authority deems to be a flight risk can be tracked. Once caught, the offender should be required to undergo mandatory polygraph testing and the extended use of GPS tracking should then track and monitor their movements.
The Conservatives welcome the U-turn on the idea of a United States-style Megan's law. We also welcome the Government's commitment to allow Parliament to examine in great detail the new proposals. We need to ensure that answers are given to the serious questions in respect of how to put in place the necessary safeguards. On this issue, public confidence is absolutely paramount. We support the motion.
The debate has been useful. It has shown that there is more that unites than divides us. Obviously, there are clear areas on which there is no agreement. The Government is happy to review points that were raised by members, such as those that were made by Claire Baker and Margaret Smith, including the request for me to go before the Justice Committee. I am happy to do that, if the convener wants me to do so. The subject of the debate is one that we constantly monitor because it is an area that changes both in terms of technology and circumstances, so we have to adapt.
The Government comes to the issue from the perspective of proportionality. Ian McKee mentioned that, as did Claire Baker and Christina McKelvie. In our society, we have to get the balance right. If we go too far one way, we run the risk of imploding the relationship between adults and youngsters in good organisations such as the Boys Brigade and of people fearing that any interaction with children could result in their possible classification as a paedophile. We have to make it clear that that is not where we wish to go as a society.
Equally, we have to recognise that, although—as Margaret Smith pointed out—there is stranger danger, the tragic fact is that a child is still more likely to be molested by their ma's boyfriend than by anyone else. We have to be constant and vigilant, without disturbing the relationships that are good and beneficial to the child and society. The issue is one of proportionality and of keeping matters under review.
The cabinet secretary spoke of the risk that is posed by new family members. Will he at the earliest possibility look at the England and Wales pilot, in which people can ask the question whether someone with whom they are involved is, or has been, on the sex offenders register?
The whole purpose of a pilot is that it is a pilot. There is a pilot scheme in England and Wales—we should wait and see how it works out. Before the UK Government decides whether to roll out the pilot, it will have to see whether it works out. Our position is that we will examine whether the pilot works out and whether the measure would be appropriate and proportionate. I undertake to look at the pilot, but I do not confirm that we will introduce the measure in Scotland. We believe that matters should be dealt with in that way.
I turn to Helen Eadie's contribution. The Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency has expanded its e-crime unit in order to pursue a greater number of web-based paedophile cases. Mike Pringle raised the issue of circles of support. The Scottish Government has commissioned the Scottish centre for crime and justice research to prepare a report on such circles of support. We expect to receive the report in April.
I turn to technology, which Elizabeth Smith and Bill Aitken spoke about. We recognise that there is a role for technology—although, like the Justice Committee convener, I am not noted for my technical abilities—but the Government also recognises the restrictions on technology. Clearly, home detention curfew is a good measure. Using electronic monitoring, it allows us to track people, but there are limits to what the technology allows. Recently, I heard on a radio report that Network Rail has reported a significant increase in disruption on railway lines because greater numbers of people are using GPS. People buy a TomTom or other system for their car, and get the benefits of using it, but they can also end up on railway lines because the system cannot tell the difference between road and rail.
Although GPS can be used to tell us where someone is, it cannot in every instance tell us where they are going or what they are doing. Although we cannot support the Conservative amendment, I give this undertaking: we recognise the benefits of technology and we will consider and analyse them.
I turn to DNA. Our view is that we cannot support blanket retention of DNA, so for that reason we will support the Liberal Democrat amendment. Our policing culture in Scotland rests on consent. People must support the police and consent to what they ask them to do. Anything that we do that would make people afraid or wary of the police, or of state intrusion, would be counterproductive.
Some time ago, a dreadful rape occurred not far from where I stay. The police asked people who lived in the locality to come forward and give their DNA in order to expedite matters and allow them to pursue their investigation. People did so. They came forward not only because it would help the police to catch the perpetrator, but because giving a DNA sample would not impinge on them, as there was no risk of the sample being used again at a future date.
People say that if someone has nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. Of course, if we are talking about criminal convictions, good people have nothing to fear. However, we also need to be clear that, for a variety of reasons, people do not want the state to know what they are doing—often, they do not wish the boss or the wife to know. I am always reminded of the country and western song, "Long Black Veil", by Lefty Frizzell:
"The judge said son, what is your alibi
If you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die
I spoke not a word, though it meant my life
For I'd been in the arms of my best friend's wife."
There are instances of sexual indiscretions, homosexual dalliances—
I am sorry, but I think that I am in my last minute.
There are instances when people are at the pub and not at work and they do not want the boss to know. People may simply want to protect their privacy.
One minute.
We have to ensure that we have the information on people who are dangerous, those who have committed offences, and those who we believe present a risk. That is why we are commissioning Professor Fraser's review. Clearly, if a person has a propensity to commit sexual or violent offences at 14, there is clear reason to believe that that propensity will remain at 34, 64 or 84. The review is therefore appropriate. That said, people who have committed no offence—those who have not been convicted of any offence other than doing something that they do not want others to find out about—should run no risk of the state intruding unnecessarily into their lives.
I return to the point that Claire Baker made and accepted, which is that there should be proportionality. There is clear concern south of the border about the fact that 40 per cent of young black men are on the register. We cannot afford to further divide our society. As I said, someone may have a reason to hang their head in shame, perhaps because they were in the arms of their best friend's wife or in the pub and not at work, but such matters are not criminal offences, nor are they responsibility of the state. People themselves should account for them.
I call Pauline McNeill to wind up the debate. She should sit down at 11.40.
There is no higher duty than to protect children from harm. We need the right systems, practices, laws and attitudes to deal with the sex offenders and dangerous and violent criminals who put our children and communities at risk. Since 1997, at Westminster and at Holyrood, Labour has reformed, renewed and tightened the law to protect children. It has placed a focus on dealing with sex offenders and violent offenders. A key element of that reform was learning from the past.
In good speeches, Christina McKelvie and Claire Baker pointed to the nature and profile of sex offenders. We should not forget that profile.
The multi-agency public protection arrangements are a key weapon in the fight to protect communities. Their remit will be broadened beyond dealing with sex offenders to include dealing with violent offenders and restricted patients, but the essence of MAPPA is having a much more sophisticated risk assessment information-sharing trigger point that determines the information that should be released in a measured way to protect communities from harm.
The statutory duties that are now in place for the police, health workers and social workers enable them to use information to act in a measured way. That changes our approach to dealing with sex offenders, and rightly so. The Tory amendment raises interesting points about the use of lie detectors and electronic monitoring that should not be dismissed.
The former Justice 2 Committee's excellent report was produced by a sub-committee on which Paul Martin and Kenny MacAskill sat. In some ways, it is a definitive report in terms of the work that the Parliament has undertaken. That is why the Labour Party choose the subject for debate today. We are pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said that he will act on all the report's recommendations.
The SNP Government is in the driving seat and it needs to reflect on some of the key issues that we have raised. The tone of the cabinet secretary's comments on the role of the DNA database will not help if he thinks that the comparison of someone being in the arms of their best friend's wife relates to the debate that we want to have. Not once has the cabinet secretary challenged the figures that Paul Martin presented to him on the real point of the debate—the clear-up rate. We have presented real information about the clear-up rate from retaining DNA.
Is the member aware that many of the crimes that have been referred to could have been cleared up by other methods? The suggestion that DNA retention is all-singing, all-dancing is not true; other policing methods could have achieved the results. In some instances, using DNA is beneficial, and that is appropriate, but it is untrue to say that it has had all the results that have been described.
That is interesting. You had seven minutes to challenge the figures—
Order. I ask the member to depersonalise her remarks.
The cabinet secretary had seven minutes to challenge the figures that we presented. The police would disagree with what he said, because the clear-up rates for serious and violent crime are hard statistics that provide compelling evidence to prompt any Government at least to consider the role of retaining DNA.
Will the member give way?
I will return to the subject, if the member wants to intervene later.
The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 is important because it criminalised those who seek to groom children and because it tries to prevent crime. The Parliament did good work in passing that act.
How far we should go on third-party notification of a sex offender's presence in an area is an important question for the Parliament. I would like the cabinet secretary to respond a bit more forcefully to the four pilots in England and Wales, because they will produce seriously important information for whether we should adopt something. I would like the cabinet secretary to show a stronger interest in those pilots.
Every parent rightly wants to know exactly what the dangers are for their child. Parents will demand information about people who live and work in their communities and who could pose a danger to their children. Mike Pringle talked about circles of accountability, but knowing where sex offenders are is an important aspect of the strategy because a missing sex offender is a risk.
If we are the guardians of the information that will be provided about offenders and we restrict to whom and when that information will be provided, we must win the trust of communities that those who are entrusted with that knowledge and information on the state's behalf will act in the place of a concerned parent or individual in a measured way. Balancing public and child safety with the safety of keeping information is the key to determining how far we should go on third-party notification.
The law lords have ruled that retaining DNA to help the fight against violent crime is a proportionate aspect of our system. This week, the Prime Minister highlighted that retaining DNA on our database was critical to producing a result in the Wright case. For the record, 452 homicides, 644 rapes and 1,800 violent crimes have been solved because of the retention of DNA.
I do not make the argument lightly. Claire Baker talked about public concerns about holding an innocent person's DNA information, but we went down that road to a degree and the SNP supported us. We retain the DNA information of people who are arrested as suspects when a violent or sexual crime has been committed. We have gone down that road a bit. The question is whether we should go further.
If the Government dismisses the important role of DNA retention, it must come up with hard evidence to challenge the figures, which are compelling in the argument about what is proportionate. Even Liberty's policy director says that what is fair and proportionate should guide us in the debate.
What we suggest is a proportionate response and the Government would be wrong to dismiss it. I hope that the Government will consider what Labour members have said this morning.