Managing Sex Offenders
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-2573, in the name of Paul Martin, on reviewing arrangements for managing sex offenders. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises that, following the murder of eight-year-old Mark Cummings by registered sex offender, Stuart Leggate, there is a requirement for a root-and-branch review of how registered sex offenders are monitored and managed in the community; believes that the current sentencing policy for dealing with registered child sex offenders is grossly inadequate and requires review, that it is not acceptable that registered sex offenders are able to legally act under an alias identity and that the current housing allocation policies for dealing with registered child sex offenders present a serious risk to local communities; considers that an inquiry should be held into the events leading up to the murder of Mark Cummings; believes that the Scottish Executive should, as a matter of urgency, bring forward measures that will ensure that the risk to our children posed by registered child sex offenders is radically minimised, and commends the News of the World for its campaign in raising the awareness of the need to introduce legislation to manage registered sex offenders more effectively.
I thank members who have supported my motion and the large number of organisations and individuals outwith Parliament who support the ethos of the motion. I also pay tribute to the courage and determination of Margaret Ann Cummings, who is with us this evening. Tragically, she lost her son, Mark Cummings, who was murdered by Stuart Leggate, a registered child sex offender. I commend her patient and constructive approach to ensuring that lessons are learned from the tragic murder of her son.
I want to highlight several issues. First, I will consider how the housing allocation system deals with registered child sex offenders—I stress "registered". There is a myth that registered sex offenders are carefully managed in the housing allocation process and that housing providers are informed of the history of such offenders. I am sorry to inform members that that is not the case. Stuart Leggate, who had served two years of a four-year sentence for sex acts against children, was able to choose to live in the Royston area of Glasgow. He was not managed through the housing allocation process and he was housed in an area that has a high population of young children, and within 100yd of a nursery and two primary schools.
When someone has been convicted of sex acts against children, they should forgo many of the life choices that are available to law-abiding citizens, including the choice of where to reside. We need to create a rigid and efficient environment to ensure that we manage sex offenders and that they do not manage us during the process.
The minister should ensure that legislation is introduced to establish a structure that will deliver the basic requirement of managing sex offenders through the housing allocation process while dealing with sex offenders' being able to assume aliases. It is unacceptable that both Ian Huntley and Stuart Leggate assumed aliases. Parliament should investigate a possible partnership with Westminster to consider withdrawing the right to an alias.
I will refer to sentencing policy. Stuart Leggate served two years of a four-year sentence for sex acts against young children. It is unacceptable that he should be released only two years into his sentence. Many academics and world-renowned experts on the subject tell us that dealing with registered sex offenders is a difficult and complex issue—I agree with them all. Why, in that case, should we release sex offenders halfway through their sentences?
We should significantly increase the sentencing tariffs that are available to sheriffs in respect of registered child sex offenders. Moreover, a life sentence should mean life for individuals who have shown during the process that they are not capable of being treated. I ask the minister to respond to the specific question of how we can ensure that tariffs are increased.
On neighbourhood notification, much has been said about how we notify communities of the presence of child sex offenders. A lot has also been said about vigilantes. I do not represent a community of vigilantes; I represent hard-working men and women who wish to live in harmony in their communities, and who care deeply for the safety of their young children. There have been no vigilantes in Royston. Although there are examples of vigilante action, we are dealing with people who want to work constructively with the authorities to examine ways in which they can protect their children.
I have always maintained that to take this issue forward, we, as elected members, should not be so arrogant as to dismiss any opportunity that is presented to us on the ways in which we can protect children from registered child sex offenders. The Executive should at least investigate opportunities that are available to it worldwide, and it should examine international examples of cases in which information on registered sex offenders has been shared with communities. The intention would be to use the information in a controlled and responsible environment, in which the safety of the child is paramount.
An issue also arises in respect of how we share information, not only with communities but with authorities such as housing authorities. The fact that this gift is in the possession of only the police authorities is unacceptable. We have to consider the various authorities that deal with sex offenders, sometimes indirectly, and we must ensure that relevant and accurate information is provided to them.
We hear far too much about information-sharing partnerships and the existing partnerships that are in place. We should introduce legislation to ensure that information partnerships are established to deal with how we share information on registered sex offenders.
It is important that we learn from the experience of young Mark's death. Margaret Ann Cummings has made it very clear that she does not want a blame culture to follow Mark's death, but a culture in which all of us accept with humility that we could have got it much more right than we did. Let us show humility and introduce a "Mark's law" that will ensure that everything possible is done to protect our future generations.
I do not normally participate in debates on justice, but I asked to speak in this debate because of a local problem in Inverness that was recently brought to my attention. I say at the outset that I do not wish to discuss any of the matters in the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, given that the Justice 2 Committee has just started taking evidence on it.
Although the rehabilitation of sex offenders will always be sensitive, challenging and difficult, the balance must always be in favour of public safety and minimising the opportunities for reoffending.
Like Paul Martin, I urge the minister to give careful thought to giving guidance to councils, the police and the Prison Service about the physical relocation of a sex offender. I hope that housing allocation policies take into account the proximity of not only a school or nursery, as Paul Martin said, but someone who is a registered child minder.
During the Easter recess, parents in an area of Inverness kept their children indoors because of their fears about the presence in the community of a sex offender. If the Minister for Justice and the Executive do not take the necessary action, parents might resort to vigilante tactics in order to address the problem.
Angela Prosser from Inverness asked me to use her name in the debate. She has lived in the same house—her parents' house—for 27 years. When she was young, her parents allowed her to go out and play at any time of the day with no problems. She is now a registered child minder and found herself worrying about her children's safety, so she kept them inside for the full two weeks of the Easter holidays. She told me that 35 children live in close proximity to her home.
Although the Conservatives support the idea that sex offenders should serve their full term, we want to ensure that appropriate rehabilitation measures are available in prison and that regular risk assessments are carried out. The system needs to be monitored, audited and managed not only in prison but in the community, without the buck being passed between the Prison Service, the police and the social work department.
I noted from Margaret Ann Devlin's petition to the Parliament that she mentions Megan's law in America. That law is used to give house purchasers information about any known sex offenders in the area. I mentioned the law at a recent Communities Committee meeting in connection with purchasers information packs, as those would provide an opportunity to introduce such a measure. I do not have information on how successful or otherwise the scheme in America is, but it is worth examining. I note that the Minister for Justice will resist calls for people to be told if a sex offender is living in their area.
It is a matter of concern that, as stated by the head of child protection in the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the sex offenders register records only one tenth of the likely total of sex offenders. Many have committed offences prior to 1997 when the register came into force; in other cases, prosecutors failed to secure a conviction.
I was very concerned that the Social Work Inspection Agency acknowledges that the Scottish Prison Service did not provide the sex offender James Campbell with access to rehabilitation while he served his sentence. I was also concerned by the lengthy delay before he was interviewed on his arrival at prison and by the six months that it took to appoint a new prison social worker after the original one left. How often have we heard of poor communication between police, other services and social work staff? That certainly was the case with Mr Campbell's assessment. I hope that we can learn from today's debate.
I extend my thanks to Paul Martin for giving us the opportunity to debate a difficult and important subject. I also extend my commiserations and those of my party to the Cummings family on the situation in which they find themselves, and I commend their dignity under that provocation.
We must be careful with some of the things that we think about. We must manage sex offenders such as Leggate better on their release, and Paul Martin has mentioned quite a few things that would be useful, but we must not imagine that that is enough. It is not.
If we look at conviction rates and the experience that comes from a variety of sources, we realise that we have probably convicted only one in 10 of the sex offenders who are out there. Of all crimes, it is a particularly hidden crime, so we must protect our children not just from those whom we already know to be sex offenders because they have been convicted, but from those who are yet to be revealed as sex offenders.
That means that we all have to think about how we can protect our children and educate them to recognise problems, to help their peer group and to bring the necessary information to the attention of those who can take action. I myself was aware of a sex offender when I was a wee bairn, because my father, as a general practitioner, treated a sex offender who had yet to be convicted but who he was utterly convinced was a problem. I shall name him. He was Christopher Milne, the son of A A Milne—Christopher Robin in the books. He was a patient of my father, and his upbringing and the effect of what his father had done in writing about him was said to have been one of the factors in his becoming a paedophile.
There are one or two interesting things about the Leggate case. I understand from my sources that prison staff were pretty clear that Leggate had a high risk of reoffending, but that information does not seem to have permeated down to anyone who might have taken action. I was disappointed to hear that councils and police are not getting such information. I have to say that I believe that information is actually being passed on in Aberdeenshire. That can happen, and in some parts of the country there are mechanisms for making it happen. Indeed, I am consulted, as are other elected representatives, about the matter, and I know how many sex offenders there are in the different communities. I can help the police and the council with the information that comes to my attention. I do not know the names or addresses, but I know what is going on in general terms.
There are a couple of challenging ideas that we might think about. Megan's law is all very well, but given the number of sex offenders who are out there, house surveys would always say, "There are sex offenders in the area." That is a real difficulty. In Canada there are what appear to be successful schemes for befriending sex offenders and ensuring that they are socially related and adhered to someone in the community. I understand that the Quakers in England are running a similar trial. I do not think that that is a magic bullet by any manner of means, but I certainly think that we should consider trying what is being tried elsewhere and see whether it has any application in Scotland.
The real issue, particularly with paedophiles but perhaps less so with rapists, is with sex offenders' mental processes and their whole view of the world. Programmes in prison can help to make them aware of that problem, although they cannot change their behaviour, and can help them to detect when they are going to reoffend. They have distorted thinking and will have it all their lives. Perhaps we should release those people only when we can prove that it is actually safe to do so. Sentences for people with psychological problems and distorted thinking are perhaps not the right way of dealing with them, even though locking them up is.
The murder of Mark Cummings shocked and horrified people throughout Scotland. I commend Paul Martin for demanding a review of the arrangements for managing sex offenders and I congratulate him on securing the debate.
Last year, in my own constituency, the horrific crime perpetrated by James Campbell—that of abducting and attempting to rape a two-year-old child—caused outrage within the local community and confirmed that the management of sex offenders is a nationwide issue that requires the urgent attention of the Scottish Executive. The community protests and demonstrations that took place in Coatbridge last summer showed the strength of feeling about the issue. Although such crimes may be rare, people are nevertheless scared about their children's safety and lack faith in a system that should safeguard their well-being. We have a duty to take action to address those concerns.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Justice of a national audit of sex offender cases, following the Social Work Inspection Agency's report into the incident in Coatbridge. I also recognise the commitment made by Jack McConnell last week during First Minister's questions that the Scottish Executive will move quickly to end automatic early release for sex offenders following the recommendations of the Sentencing Commission for Scotland.
Both those actions move us in the right direction, but more must be done, and it must be done urgently. Appropriate sentencing of those who commit sex offences against children is essential, because they are the perpetrators of despicable crimes and society demands that they are punished accordingly. However, punishment is only part of the equation. The reality is that the majority of child sex offenders will be released into the community again at some point in the future. It is imperative that when they are released, the necessary monitoring and support services are in place, as Paul Martin said, and that prior to their release they receive adequate treatment to address their offending.
Perhaps the most concerning finding of the SWIA's report into the James Campbell case was that that offender, who was only 17 when he committed his first serious sexual offence, was not assessed for, or given, any rehabilitation intervention when he was in prison. The fact that that disturbed young man was released back into the community without any treatment is of huge concern.
I accept that the volume of receptions in prison in this country makes the provision of rehabilitation programmes for every prisoner difficult, but in the case of high-risk sex offenders, such programmes are essential. Rehabilitation and risk assessment should form an integral part of every sex offender's sentence and the Scottish Executive must take action to implement such an approach.
As the SWIA's report states, risk assessment must be a dynamic and on-going process. In the case of James Campbell, supervising officers appeared to have a different level of supervision because the homelessness unit had closed-circuit television and a 24-hour concierge. However, the CCTV took only internal footage and the staff had no knowledge of the offender's record. That was totally inadequate monitoring of the offender's behaviour. I ask the minister what consideration has been given to introducing more comprehensive methods for monitoring high-risk sex offenders following their release. Paul Martin also raised that issue.
Another concern raised by the report relates to the housing of sex offenders. James Campbell was accommodated in a homeless unit that overlooked two primary schools. That was completely inappropriate. Mistakes were made by the various agencies involved and they have been quick to recognise that.
The SWIA's report highlighted the fact that confusion between North Lanarkshire Council's social work and housing departments about their responsibilities in relation to housing sex offenders exacerbated the situation. The report describes the relationship between the two departments as "complex and cumbersome" and suggests that the absence of national guidance hinders agencies in trying to find their own solutions. I hope that the minister will indicate in his speech what stage the Scottish Executive has reached in developing a national strategy for Scotland on housing sex offenders and when we can expect that strategy to be put in place.
There is no doubt that the issue of managing sex offenders is extremely complex and emotive. The Scottish Executive has recognised the concerns that exist throughout Scotland and it has shown a willingness to take action. I hope that the Executive will now take on board the recommendation in the SWIA's report and will work to ensure that every possible precaution is taken in future to try to prevent crimes of the nature that we have spoken about in the debate or, at the very least, to minimise the risk of such crimes.
I endorse the comments that have been made about Paul Martin, who deserves to be commended for bringing an important issue to the Parliament. We should recognise that it takes a certain amount of courage to address what he acknowledges is a highly complex, emotive and difficult subject.
In most cases of abuse, before an abuser becomes a sex offender in the eyes of the law, something difficult and traumatic has to happen: the victim has to feel able to report the abuse. The difficulty and the trauma are made all the more intense because many victims—almost certainly the large majority—have suffered the abuse at the hands of family members or friends of family members. The effective provision of comprehensive and honest sex education, designed appropriately for age and stage of development, has a dramatic and positive impact on young people's and children's feelings of confidence in reporting abuse if it happens. We have to get that education right. If we do, we will be able greatly to reduce the scale of the problem in society.
The sad truth is that there is always likely to be a certain level of sexual abuse in our society and a certain number of children who are victims. We will always have the problem of how to manage and deal with offenders. Involving communities in the management of sex offenders is a laudable goal, but we should think about the kind of involvement that we want.
One of Paul Martin's colleagues—Jane Griffiths MP—brought a debate on the issue to Westminster. She said:
"How does a community respond to the release of a sex offender into its midst? It is understandable that there will be fear and concern for the safety of those in the community. In an extreme"—
and I welcome Paul Martin's comment that his community is not an example of an extreme—
"that can lead to what happened to Arnold Hartley, a convicted sex offender who was murdered in his home in Redcar, Cleveland, last November. Similarly, we all remember the scenes in Paulsgrove, Portsmouth. That is not the kind of community involvement in the treatment of sex offenders that I am seeking through this debate."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 7 July 2004; Vol 423, c 295WH.]
We should all acknowledge the consequences of such actions, which can lead to a greater risk of future offences.
Communities look for protection but—I refer members to the debate that we had earlier this afternoon—communities also look for the punishment of people who commit heinous crimes, such as sex offenders and those who offend against children. In the earlier debate, Patrick Harvie suggested that he did not believe in punishment. Notwithstanding what he said about the role of the community, does he believe that people who commit sex offences against children should be punished?
I am afraid that we do not have time to go into a long debate on the philosophy of punishment, but I am sure that we will have other opportunities. However, in the situations that we are discussing, the absolute and overriding priority must be to reduce the likelihood of future offences. As soon as a sex offender is known, that has to be our priority.
Giving people such as home buyers a head count of known offenders, as Mary Scanlon suggested, is surely dangerous. It would lead to the perception that, if no offenders are known in an area, there is no problem. Most offenders do not fit a stereotype. Most offenders are not known to the state and have not been in contact with the criminal justice system. We have to accept that.
There are more positive ways of working. Stewart Stevenson talked about Canada. There is also a pilot project in the Thames valley, where a different approach has been taken to the involvement of communities. It has been acknowledged that, to prevent reoffending after release, an offender requires not only to be held accountable, but to be given support. The initiative used volunteers from the community—people who had been carefully screened by the police and who had been well trained—to provide circles of support and accountability, as they are known.
I will quote one of the ex-offenders:
"My relapse programme, with the support from volunteers, has real meaning. I feel that I can continue with my main aim of not re-offending."
One of the volunteers said of an offender:
"It makes me happy to feel that he, too, will be able to live a better life now. It has helped me to see that whatever awful things someone might have done, they still have a human heart beating in their chest."
Let us think of the young people who, because of such interventions, have been spared the nightmare of becoming victims. I ask the Executive to explore such options in Scotland.
I will follow the normal course of events and, like other members, congratulate Paul Martin on securing the debate. I also thank him for his thoughtful speech. However, the normal platitudes are inadequate tonight. On this occasion, we have to pay greater tribute to Paul Martin. The subject of the debate is the tragic event that befell the Cummings family. That event is not only significant in Paul Martin's constituency, but has national ramifications. Paul Martin has doggedly and tenaciously pursued the matter. Tonight's debate is simply a culmination of that work, which has resulted—albeit with the support of the Executive—in change taking place.
Members of the Scottish Parliament are often abused and derided. On this occasion, Paul Martin has done us all a favour by showing what an MSP can do by not seeking personal advancement and, indeed, by not being partisan. He has pursued the issue, effected change and publicly raised matters that are of significant concern not only to the people whom he represents, but to the Scottish nation. I put on record the fact that the normal platitudes are simply inadequate in this debate.
The Scottish National Party welcomes the recent changes that were announced by the Executive. These issues are difficult. Notwithstanding the tragedies that occur, which devastate individuals and communities, we must never lose sight of the fact that the number of people who are involved in such crimes is, thankfully, limited. The perpetrators of such crimes are dangerous people—they are not only highly manipulative, but in some instances, I am sad to say, probably incorrigible. That is why we have to look at other ways of dealing with offenders.
Paul Martin made the valid point that the people whom he represents are not vigilantes. People are entitled to know whether a sex offender is living in their area. I have agonised long and hard about whether Megan's law and other such ideas are a good or a bad thing. I remember a conversation with the professor of criminology at the University of Edinburgh, in which he reversed the question by asking, "What would you do if that happened in your area? Do you think that you have a right to know?" The fact is that I would insist on knowing. I would be outraged if the council and the Executive knew that a sex offender was living in my area but my family had not been advised of that.
The difference in response in such situations borders on the issue of class, which is a matter into which I stray only infrequently. If such a crime were to happen in the leafy suburb where I and the Lord Advocate live, members can rest assured that we would have used the contacts and the resources at our disposal to hire the best lawyers in the city to ensure that action was taken.
In other areas, particularly Royston, people do not have those good connections—unless they have a connection to a member such as Mr Martin, who will take action on their behalf. Those people do not have the resources to go to lawyers to take steps to protect their community. It is entirely wrong to denigrate those who protest and call them vigilantes. Those people are pursuing the only course of action that is available to them. They cannot use the connections that are available to the middle class or to the more affluent members of society, in which I include the members in the chamber. I repeat that Paul Martin deserves credit for the actions that he has taken.
As I said, the issue is not only local, but national. It comes down to the representations that the social work department concerned has made to us all. I am referring to issues such as resourcing—this sort of social work care does not come cheap. The problem needs to be addressed not only in prison, but when offenders are outwith the prison environment. Although those people need significant monitoring, we cannot put a price on the lives of our children. Treatment programmes and new initiatives have to be considered. There is no simple solution.
Again, I pay tribute to Paul Martin for raising the issue and securing the debate. The SNP welcomes the steps that the Executive has announced and taken to date; the Executive can rest assured that it has our full support. As Mr Martin has correctly shown, the subject of the debate is not a partisan issue, but a matter that affects all of us in all our communities.
Like other members, I thank Paul Martin for giving the Parliament the opportunity to consider this difficult issue. He has not just enabled the Parliament to reflect on what happened but has enabled his constituents, the Cummings family, to have a voice in the Parliament that was otherwise denied to them.
Surely nothing is more devastating than the loss of a child. Losing a child in such circumstances makes the problem and the grief, the anger and the anguish all the more profound.
It is to the credit of the family that while of course they want answers about what happened in relation to Mark, they want to ensure that other families are protected so that they do not have to go through the trauma and grief that the Cummings family have experienced.
We all recognise that sex offenders are among the most difficult and challenging group of criminals for the justice system to deal with. They understandably instil fear in our communities. They prey on the most vulnerable. They are very skilled in avoiding detection. They are very manipulative, as we see in the way they manipulate people of various age groups. As Kenny MacAskill said, they are small in number, but create disproportionate concern. That concern is understandable: the consequences of their offending can be profound and long lasting. We know that there are victims who suffer for the rest of their lives, even if they manage to stay alive.
It is right that we are all committed to improving public protection, so that we can ensure that people live their lives in safety and without fear. There have been many improvements based on the recommendations of the Cosgrove report in 2001. We strengthened the registration requirements for sex offenders in 2003. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 requires improved reports for sheriffs and judges with better information on risk. The act also gives the Parole Board for Scotland the power to impose electronic tagging as a condition of release on licence. We are encouraging the board to think positively about using that safeguard.
We are rolling out a system throughout Scotland to record sexual and violent offenders properly and to keep track of them across police boundaries. I hope that that will make it easier to share intelligence. The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill seeks to establish joint arrangements between the police, local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service to assess and manage the risk posed by sex offenders, and includes the sharing of information. That will help to ensure that each organisation has a clear understanding of its role and responsibilities in relation to sex offenders.
Can the minister guarantee that sex offenders will get access to rehabilitation programmes when they are in prison, to ensure that some help and support is given?
As Mary Scanlon has identified, there is a need to work with sex offenders in particular. We are concerned that far too many offenders of all natures do not get the proper rehabilitation and support that they need in order to avoid reoffending when they come out. That is even more critical in relation to sex offenders. However, we want to ensure not only that what happens in prison is properly carried out, but that the proper safeguards, support and help are provided in the community.
As Paul Martin graphically illustrated, and as Elaine Smith mentioned, there have been recent cases—not necessarily that of Mark Cummings's death, where someone had completed their sentence—in which all the so-called safeguards have broken down, the agencies have not co-operated and there have been failings. The minister has asked for a report on what happened in those cases, because we need to learn the lessons.
We need to understand that assessing and managing the risk posed by these individuals is critical. That is one of the reasons why we set up the Risk Management Authority, which puts Scotland at the forefront of developments. That authority will be responsible for ensuring the effective assessment and management of risk posed by sexual and violent offenders.
Paul Martin raised the issue of some individuals' lifelong sex offending. That is one reason why we have introduced orders for lifelong restriction, which will give the High Court a way of dealing with serious violent and sexual offenders. We are working hard to establish the Risk Management Authority fully and to bring on stream the lifelong restrictions as soon as we can.
We are also seeking to restrict the activities of individuals who are suspected of being a danger to our children. We want to restrict their activities even if they have not committed an offence. The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill will allow chief constables to apply to the sheriff court for risk of sexual harm orders and extend the use of sexual offences prevention orders.
Mary Scanlon and Paul Martin mentioned housing. Mary Scanlon talked about a case in which an offender was allocated a house in what she described as an inappropriate area of Inverness. I do not underestimate the problem of housing a sexual offender who has completed a sentence. Even if they have been given the proper support in prison, they are still a worry to the community. I cannot comment on the specifics of the case that Mary Scanlon identified, but if she writes to me to identify the areas in Inverness in which she thinks it might be appropriate to house offenders, I will ensure that that information is passed on to the relevant agencies.
Paul Martin is right to ask about the wider issues of housing. It is true that people need stable accommodation when they come out of prison, but the Cosgrove report warned that blanket exclusions of sex offenders in housing allocations would be unhelpful and recommended that they should normally be accommodated in mainstream housing in the local community. Guidance for social landlords on the housing of sex offenders has been in place since April 1999. It is produced by the Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland with our funding. The Cosgrove report welcomed that guidance and advocated the development of a national accommodation strategy to support the practical issues that are highlighted in the guidance. It also recommended the development of an education and training programme for housing providers and their management authorities.
We have acted on all those recommendations, but Paul Martin is right that lessons need to be learned. I assure him that the minister, Cathy Jamieson, has made it very clear to all the agencies that were involved in dealing with the tragic death of Mark Cummings that they should examine their practices and procedures to determine what improvements can be made. We have also asked Professor George Irving to review the operation of the sex offender registration scheme and we will shortly produce for local authorities a revised statutory code of guidance on homelessness. Those matters are all continuing and we need to consider them specifically.
Paul Martin raised a specific issue on change of name. There is a notification requirement in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that provides that a sex offender must—I stress that they must—provide their name, any other names they have used and any changes to their name that have not already been notified. That provides some protections, but we will need to reflect on whether that is strong enough and whether anything else needs to be done on that issue.
Patrick Harvie mentioned circles of support. They might be worthy of consideration at some point but, to be frank, we know that there are weaknesses in the statutory system that need to be addressed first. Before we can even start to think about circles of support, we need to resolve things that in far too many cases have let people down. I want the statutory arrangements to be made robust, so we will wait and see what comes out of the pilot in England. The Home Office is evaluating the pilot and we will determine whether there are any lessons to be learned in Scotland.
I hope that we have given Paul Martin and the Cummings family some assurances.
Will Hugh Henry give way?
Yes.
You are definitely over time, minister, but I will allow one more intervention and then a quick summation.
I will ask the minister about two points. First, will he make representations on the tariffs that are available to sheriffs? Secondly, will he legislate on housing allocation policy to ensure that we have in place not voluntary partnerships, but a specific framework that ensures that, when housing is allocated, information is shared between authorities, such as housing authorities?
I will certainly ensure that the comments about housing are passed to my colleagues who deal with that issue.
Paul Martin knows that we have asked the Sentencing Commission to examine the unconditional early release of sex offenders. Further, we will ask it to examine sentences generally. Work in relation to the sentences that sex offenders serve and what happens when they are released is already under way. The Minister for Justice has written to local authority chief executives, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service and the chief constables to ask them to review their medium and high-risk sex offenders cases in order to ensure that sex offenders in all areas have been subject to a competent and comprehensive risk assessment and that appropriate arrangements are in place.
I hope that I have given some assurances about the work that is being done. I can be in no way complacent and cannot assume that what has been done and is about to be done will be sufficient. I am sure that there is always more that can be done. However, it is incumbent on us to listen to what Paul Martin and others say on behalf of their constituents and, as Cathy Jamieson has done, to listen to the views of the families who have been directly affected. After all, we are here to represent them.
Meeting closed at 17:56.