 Mae Cymdeithasol yn cyllidol am hynnynddol eich bydd agorau argynwys.aultybodaeth nifer 4111-0 yn fwy o'r berthynas. The next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 1-4110. In the name of Paul Martin on reviewing arrangements for managing sex offenders, this debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I would be grateful if those members who wish to speak in the debate i'n ddafodd y debat, yn 7 neu fath oedd. Mae yna'n ddiwedd yn ôl i'r cyfeg部en, dwi weld yn ei ddou arno ei dyfnodau fel ddysgu a'r ysgrel сохранol sy'n ardentau, a i fi'n gwneud i'ch arwag ddarlanion i ddisgu. Rwy'n dechrau i'r ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu i ddysgu many countries, but can I, whilst we consider that, consider how Margaret Ancomings feels when she debates this issue of how we manage register six offenders. Her son was murdered at eight years of age and he was murdered by registered six offender Stuart Leggett. Margaret Ancomings is in the public gallery today and I think I hope others would join with me in commending her good work, a tireless work over the years in protecting children and also her determination to ensure that communities are protected and ensuring that history does not repeat itself when she is to be commended for that good work, along with the housing association movement that many of them are represented here today. Ten years ago, the justice suit to sub-committee published its 33 recommendations to manage registered six offenders in Scotland. Ten years on for the publication of the sub-committee, there remains a number of recommendations that have to be taken forward. The Government will advise us today that there has been progress but there remains a number of them that have to be taken forward. One in particular has not been taken forward and that is number 20 that is still not been implemented. That is a recommendation that there will be a legal requirement for six offenders to disclose information about previous convictions and housing applications. I pursued that with various justice ministers over the ten years and I have to say that there remains a number of challenges. I work closely with the housing association movement and key figures from those community organisations who have expressed great concern about the existing arrangements that are in place and particularly the lack of progress in that particular recommendation. You can understand their concerns. As we speak, young families have been housed in close proximity to dangerous sex offenders without them being aware of that and I find that unacceptable. Of course, there is a particular concern because disproportionately the private communities find themselves being dumped on by the allocation policy and that respect. I believe that it is only a matter of time if we do not take action and the tragedy will strike against such as what happened in the case of Mark Cummings. I recognise that there has been some progress. We have seen the introduction of Sarah's law, which allows parents to make inquiries in respect of anyone whom they can close contact with and who they believe that there may be a history of sexual offences. I recognise that there has been significant moves forward with Clare's law when it was introduced earlier this year, which allows people to find out whether the partner has the history of domestic violence. I recognise the progress that has been made in those areas, but I pose the question, if we use the internet to keep men and women safe from violent partners, why cannot we use it to protect our children? It is time for the Parliament to consider a compulsory community notification, such as the one that we see in other parts of the world, including in the USA, Australia and South Korea. In the US, each of the 50 states has implemented a different form of compulsory notification, known as Meghan's law, by providing information about dangerous child sex offenders on an internet database. In Vermont, it is internationally recognised as being one of the most effective programmes in managing registered sex offenders. An absolutely crucial element to the programme that it has brought forward in that state is the distinction between low-risk and high-risk offenders, or something that we fail to do dramatically in Scotland and other parts of the world. It is also recognised at the same time that it is well managed and plaw properly resource to ensure that it is effective in this. Many of us recognise that such information being provided publicly can be a concern. I recognise many of the points that are made in that respect, but I make the point that, if we have to give communities proper empowerment, it is something that we have to take forward. I recognise that people feel that it is a step too far, but as long as we take reasonable steps to protect information and ensure that those who are searching the information are properly vetted whilst they carry out that particular search. I also think that we should review the sentencing tariffs that are available to us to deal with particularly child sex offenders. I also think that it is time to take forward the sophisticated technology that we have discussed in many occasions in this chamber over the past 10 years, the GPS tracking. I do not know many occasions in this chamber that we have discussed how we can take that forward. I find it unacceptable that, in the run-up to 2016, almost 10 years on, we still discussed the formation of a working group and the working how that can be taken forward. I would like the minister to advise us today how he wishes to take that forward. I see that, in conclusion, I quote Colin Barnett, the Premier of Western Australia, where he said, that this Government has made it very clear that it will err in the side of those who are the victims of children and protecting their child. I call on the Government to make a very similar statement. I ask the Government to support in motion. I thank the convener for the open debate speeches of four minutes or so, please, and I call Christine Grahame to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, congratulate Paul on securing this debate and recognise also the courageous campaign of Margaret Ann Cummings, which came about, as he said, after the horrendous murder of her son. I have corresponded with Mrs Cummings and regret that I will be unable to meet her after this debate due to achieving the policing committee immediately afterwards. However, I certainly hope that she sees that I really feel and understand why she has been in the circumstances campaign. I also recognise with Paul Martin the complexity of this area, if only we could sort it all out. I have looked at the recent report of the Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and the Care Inspectorate on what we call MAPA, the multi-agency protection, which is set in place when sex offenders are finished and their sentence is released into communities. I note their main findings and there is strong evidence that it is well established and working across communities. However, I have had my own issues in my constituency, which the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister are well aware of. It is issues with the operation of the national accommodation strategy for sex offenders. Of course, the key to this is where do those people go, not just how they monitor but where they are placed. The circumstances are very special. They must be placed and returned to the place where they were first resident, where they were last resident when the offence took place. There are circumstances and there are very special ones whereby the offender and MAPA with negotiation with other local authorities can be rehoused elsewhere, but I have been unable to determine how often that has been invoked. The key to the thing is management of those offenders, according to whether or not they should be out or not, but the key is management of those offenders, where they are and the authorities knowing where they are and where necessary, tagging their every movement. This issue arose for me when convicted rapist Robert Greene was released after serving six years and eight months of a 10-year sentence for the horrendous attack and rape of a young student from the Netherlands who had gone to visit Roslyn Chapel. When released, he was rehoused in a rural cottage on the outskirts of Newton Grange and Gorebridge in my constituency, just a few miles from the scene of the attack. Because of those naso rules, as I have said, he had to be rehoused in Midlothian. No other authority UK-wide would rehouse him. Almost predictably and understandably, hundreds turned out to protest gathering outside the cottage. I can understand that matter, and it only became resolved when he breached the restrictions under his registered sex offender's order and was seen in Penicook when he was not supposed to go. That took him back to prison, but he is due for release next year and the community will be back where it started. I accept, as it says in this joint report, that it should be stressed that, while the fundamental purpose of MAPA is to protect the public and the work of responsible authorities, it cannot entirely eradicate risk. However, I still have issues with resolving the rehousing issues that will be required when someone is released. I would think that there is a very small number of instances where we have serious sex offenders and the issues that Paul Martin has raised when they repeat happen, but they happen. Those are very serious people. Although they are small in number, we cannot allow them to happen again. I have issues with the housing and the system on which we rehouse, but I have another issue that Paul Martin touched on. That is this question. While not interfering with judicial independence, I, too, am concerned that some people are released back into the community when they should never be released at all. It is not very often, but once is just once too often. I note that we have got the Cabinet Secretary for Justice here and the Minister for Housing. I know that those are difficult issues. I know that they could resolve the issues about the housing and certainly about sentencing. It is another thing that they would do so, but I ask them to look again at it because the issues that Paul had worse than mine are also repeated to some extent in my constituency. I congratulate my colleague Paul Martin on his long-standing commitment and campaigning on the issue. To Margaret Ann Cumming, who has courageously spent the 11 years since her personal tragedy, is trying to ensure that no one has to suffer in the way that she has. Paul Martin is right to identify the sterling work that is done and being done by our local housing associations. If this Parliament is about anything, it must be about protecting those who are most vulnerable in society. In this context, clearly, that is our children. The report that was produced by the Parliament's Justice Committee in 2006 made 33 recommendations and was seen as a major contribution at that time to the debate. The fact that some of those recommendations—and in particular recommendation 20, which concerns housing applications—has not yet been implemented is, in my view, very regrettable. However, that report is now 10 years old and perhaps it is time to have a fresh look at the entire subject and issue. However, I want to look in a wee bit more detail about housing and a particular aspect of housing that happens to be particularly dear to my heart from my own experience. Most sex offenders, when they are released from prison, will avail themselves of social rented housing by the very nature of the individuals and their circumstances. Housing providers are rarely aware of that aspect of an applicant's background, so people will be housed where there is available accommodation. In my constituency and constituencies like mine, that might well be in a high-rise block. Living in a high-rise block is very different from living in any other kind of accommodation. You, in effect, have an entire street with one entrance. On a daily basis, you cannot cross the road to avoid someone that you do not want to talk to. You will be likely to have to travel for a period of time, perhaps alone, in a very confined space every time you want to go into and leave your home. You also have the added complication of stairwells and of fire exits, which are not often used because people will obviously want to take the lift whenever they can. Those are all areas in which people become particularly vulnerable. For parents with children, it is often very hard because they let their children go to school in the morning, for example, and once the child goes out the door, they do not know what has happened to that child or where they are. It seems to me that the particular situation that arises because of the particular circumstances of high-rise flats should be particularly taken into consideration. Even for parents putting their children out to play, they often cannot see where their children are, and they have very little oversight. It suggests to me that families should not be accommodated in high-rise blocks, but perhaps that is an argument for another day. I certainly think that we should be looking very seriously at the issue that is confronting us when we have sex offenders in the community and they may well be accommodated in a high-rise block. Christine Grahame is absolutely right to say that this is a very complex issue, the rehousing and resettlement of particular offenders, but we must surely redouble our efforts to find solutions so that no case can be seen to have fallen through any loophole that we have allowed to continue to exist. There are international examples of good practice that we can call upon and we can look at, and I am sure that the present Government is doing that and is bringing every opportunity that it has to bear on this, but I really do think that the time has come for us to review what has happened in the past, to look at those international examples and to do everything in our power to make sure that children in this country are protected to the very limit of our ability to do so. I thank Paul Martin for bringing this important debate to the chamber. This is a motion that I was more than happy to sign, not least because it gives deserved recognition to the courage and tenacity of Margaret Ann Cummings in campaigning to ensure that sex offenders are managed in a way that poses the least possible risk to our communities. There is little doubt that the tragic murder of Mark Cummings served as a wake-up call to the Scottish Parliament that more can and must be done to keep our communities safe from serious sex offenders. It was with that in mind that the Justice Sub-Committee was established in 2006 to review those dangerous and devious individuals. Following on from the review, 33 recommendations were made intended to protect children. Nearly all of those have been implemented. However, I do consider it totally unacceptable that almost 10 years later, the vitally important one, calling for sex offenders to disclose information about previous convictions on housing applications, still has not been implemented. That is a situation that must be addressed now. The motion also refers to the need for the risks posed by serious sex offenders in communities across Scotland to be examined. A good starting point would be the Scottish Government's annual report, which was published in October this year on MAPPA, which stands for the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements in Scotland. The MAPPA guidance states that the primary purpose of sex offender notification requirements is to enable the police to know the location of sex offenders and to manage those sex offenders and minimise the risks of further offending against the public. However, the report reveals that in the past year, a staggering 331 registered sex offenders failed to comply with the notification and to let the police know where their whereabouts or their current situation. Furthermore, that represents an increase of a third compared to the year before. That brings me to the situation that requires urgent analysis. There has been a third of an increase in breaches. That is factually incorrect. The proportion of breaches year on year is broadly the same. What has happened is that the number of individuals who are on such orders has increased, but proportionately the numbers that have breached them have not increased by a third. I thank the minister for that clarification. It is still not a statistic that we can be proud of in any way, shape or form. Clearly, an urgent analysis needs to be carried out to establish what has gone wrong here and to rectify the situation as a priority. That brings me to the Scottish Conservative proposal to address and reduce the risk, namely for sex offenders to lose their right to anonymity if they breach the notification requirements imposed under the terms of their release. Losing the right to anonymity in those circumstances is entirely justified to protect the public and to reduce risk, as well as aiding the police in their efforts to locate the individual. It would also serve as a powerful deterrent to any sex offenders who may be considering breaching the terms laid down on the sex offender's register. There is a balance to be struck between allowing someone who has served their sentence the freedom to integrate back into society and protecting the communities in which they are placed. It is evident from the MAPPA report that, 10 years on, from the justice sub-committee review on the management of serious sex offenders that much more requires to be done in an effort to ensure local communities are protected. At the very least, those communities have a right to expect that everything that can practically be done is being done to ensure that tragedies like mark Cummings murder will never be repeated in their neighbourhoods. I thank my colleague Paul Martin for raising this difficult and challenging issue. It is one that we often struggle with and repeatedly find difficult to resolve. Secondly, I thank Kate Margaret and Cuming for maintaining a very positive role in reflecting on behalf of all victims and survivors of crimes of sexual abuse and death at the hands of sex offenders. Constantly reminding us in authority, this Parliament and this Government of the need to constantly revisit these issues and acknowledge that we still have not found a way to get it right. It may well be the case in this world that we will never get it absolutely right, but that does not mean that we should not strive to repair the elements that we do identify as having shortcomings. A lot has been said about the MAPPA environment and there have been many positive comments in relation to the development of MAPPA in the years. I certainly say on my own behalf that I do not see today's debate as a criticism of the Government or criticism of what has gone on in the past. It is a contribution to see how best we can do it in the future. I acknowledge that although MAPPA has been a step change for us, we rely too heavily on the notion that MAPPA exists and therefore we should take some comfort from it when we should continue to challenge what MAPPA does on our behalf and to realise that those officers and other services that contribute to the MAPPA knowledge balance many stresses and anxieties as they try and manage probably too many demands with too few resources at their fingertips. Behind that, too, I think that I would like to see acknowledged today that although we have an intelligence management system in Scotland, it is not as robust and as effective as it should be. Again, I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary that he will take a second look at the way IT systems operate across the public services to manage the very dangerous circumstances that repeated sex offenders present to all services. Mention was mentioned of the GPS tracking systems that are available. This system exists. It can be switched on by merely the flick of a switch now, I am told, by those who manage the electronic surveillance of those on remand and subject to supervision. We need to face a challenge. Do we want to use GPS tracking? If the answer is yes, then we need to get on with it sooner or later. If the answer is no, we need to work out what it is about the tracking system that it is not available to us now. I am happy to give way. To clarify the point, because Mr Martin raised the issue about establishing a working group, the expert advisory group has been in place for a number of months now, and its report is just weeks away. The advice that it will give to ministers on the use of GPS, the issue of GPS, there are some technical challenges around it in terms of it does not give the level of security that some individuals believe it does. There are some challenges around how it can be properly used, but the expert advisory group has been looking at that internationally and not identifying how it can be best applied within a Scottish contact. Graham Pearson, you can have the time back. I am grateful for that response. I can tell the minister that having visited the monitoring centre itself, the advice that I was given during the visit is that it is very confident that the ability of the GPS system to more effectively monitor dangerous offenders, whether sex offenders or other offenders, is currently the situation as we have missed it now. I would ask him to challenge those who are advising him, and let us get to the right answer in that regard. A couple of bullet points that I would mention in time available, offender management should begin in prison before release. I think that more attention needs to be paid to dealing with offending in prison and to initiate those kinds of courses that can better redirect offenders on to a more useful lifestyle for the future and deal with their reoffending rates. Secondly, it is important that housing associations should know the backgrounds to those sex offenders who are applying for tenancies. The difficulty arises when there is a public knowledge of offenders within communities, and I know that Paul Martin is aware of the issues that lie behind those challenges, the threat of vigilante action, offenders going underground, encouraging offenders to create their own networks, et cetera. However, I think that housing associations should be aware of their responsibilities in managing applications, and they cannot really accept those responsibilities unless they know the nature of those people that they offer houses to. The final bullet point that I would mention is that the White Flowers Alba is a group who provided a briefing ahead of today's debate and fully supported the motion from Paul Martin. It also raised the fact that a broad remit in the public inquiry that is on going just now might give us more lessons to learn for the future and how we respond to sex offenders and how we manage that risk. I hope that the Government will listen to what the White Flowers Alba has to say and try to encourage the best use of that public inquiry. I thank Paul Martin for bringing the debate to the chamber. He made it very clear and I think that we all agree that it is a very sensitive issue and that it is a very difficult issue to deal with. I know that Margaret Ann Cummings is in the gallery today and, like other members, I want to commend her in the work that she has been doing—her and her supporters—to avoid any other child suffering the fate of her son. I completely understand why she has taken that action and why she is doing everything possible to learn the lessons from Mark's death. I want to give some reassurance that the Government and responsible authorities are all working towards that shared goal. A number of speakers mentioned the joint thematic review of MAPPA, which was published last week by the Care Inspectorate and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The report shows, as Christine Grahame says, that there is strong evidence that MAPPA is well established across Scotland and that professionals are working effectively on a day-to-day basis to protect communities. I will give way. I thank the minister for giving way. The report also includes that six offenders could expect to receive a visit—a retrospective part of a monitoring visit—once a month. Do you find that acceptable for the most serious offenders? What we are saying is that we have received the report and we are going to take every recommendation in that report and look at it as well. We are all agreed that we have to look. It is a very difficult issue and I understand the concerns that members have across the chamber. I share those concerns and I also get people coming to my surgeries with very sensitive issues about sex offenders and the monitoring of sex offenders. We will be looking carefully at the thematic report that has just been published. We will be taking out the 10 recommendations that the report makes to improve processes and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. We have accepted that all of those will work with police and other responsible authorities to take them forward. In such a difficult subject, as I think we said, we cannot ever, ever be complacent. I have looked through the recommendations and I am back to what I have been chasing for a while with myself and other members is about rehousing of sex offenders under the national accommodation strategy for them. I know that that is difficult, but I do not think that it is sufficient, frankly, to say that it is working well. There are issues in high-rise flats, there are issues in small communities and there are issues in island communities. I think that we have to look at something that works better for the community, whether it is the issues raised by Patricia Ferguson and myself. I hope that the minister would look at that again, because I do not think that the inspection report refers to that. I understand the concerns that Christine Grahame has raised regarding the housing of sex offenders in community. However, with every single case in housing sex offenders into the community, when assessing the suitability of accommodation for offenders, it is about the safety of the community. That is the absolute priority in that is the safety of the community. It will be looked at the type of accommodation, the high-rise flat in relation to the offence, whether that is a suitable place to house somebody. However, I think that it was said by Graham Pearson that we have to be very careful that we do not push people underground here. We do not want to push people underground, we need to know where the people are and we need to be able to monitor them. If members have suggestions—I am not saying for a minute—in terms of housing, we will not look at them. We will always look at suggestions in terms of how it can best serve communities and other people living in the area, but priority will always be for the safety of the community. I want to push on a bit. If I have time later, I will come back to Patricia Ferguson. A number of members have mentioned the Justice Committee report on sex offending requiring housing applicants to declare their registered sex offenders. However, in 2014, the Justice Secretary came to the chamber and explained that implementing the recommendation would not be compatible with the Scottish Parliament's duty to ensure that all legislation that it passes is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. Even if it were possible to implement that recommendation, there is still a risk of driving offenders underground. I know that everyone in the chamber does not want to do that. I want to push on for a bit and then I will come back to monitor and manage the risks. We need to be able to know where people are, monitor and manage the risks. As I said to Christine Grahame, if members have raised concerns here today, they are not going to be ignored. We will look at that. We will look again. We are looking at the thematic report and then we have to look at how that works with some of the other things that are proceeding just now. I will take the intervention. I recognise the urgency of a situation in which housing associations are saying that communities are feeling that disproportionately sex offenders are being housed in deprived communities and vulnerable communities already. What representation—I see the cabinet secretary no longer here—has been made in the budget discussions with John Swinney on financing a proper monitoring programme? Perhaps people would be less anxious about the monitoring programme if we had any confidence that it was actually being done. What resources are going in to make that real for people and to give people protection? I cannot respond for the justice sector, but I know that across Government we are looking very carefully at how sexual offenders are monitored. When I come on a bit later, we will talk about some of the things that we are doing that should help with the monitoring of sexual offenders. The justice sector said there what is happening in surveillance, the expert group, how it is reporting and looking at that and what can be done there. We have the sentencing council looking at sentencing tariffs and that is another area that we can look at. It is a difficult area, and I think that everybody recognises that, but we want to reduce the risks as far as possible. We all have, in our constituency experience, the rehousing of sex offenders that are released into the community. That is a particularly fraught problem, but we have to reintegrate them into the community like other offenders on release from prison. In common with other offenders, registered sex offenders will generally return to their communities unless there are exceptional circumstances, which will mean that that will increase the risk to the community. That might cover the point that Christine Grahame raised, but there are flexibilities in that where local authorities can work with another area and agree, but they have to take the responsibility for the sex offender to know where they are and to follow the monitoring and the surveillance. The thematic inspection found that during a two-year period from 1 January 2013, to 2 December 2014, 86 per cent of sex offenders released returned to the same type of housing following imprisonment and 73 per cent returned to the same or a neighbouring community. Where a sex offender is placed outside their own local authority area, it is to increase the safety of the community and not to protect the anonymity of the offender. We want to make that clear at all times about the community and protecting the community. The Scottish Government will continue to take steps to make sure that Scotland has in place a strong legislative framework with robust monitoring arrangements with agencies working together. That is certainly what the justice secretary is looking at. We are looking across government at how we can all work together to make our communities safer in many different ways. I am going to finish now by saying that I know that this has been an extremely difficult debate, but it has been worthwhile. It has given members the opportunity to raise concerns that are genuine concerns that are across this chamber in every party, including myself. We have listened. It is a distressing subject, but I hope that what we are illustrating is that we take this very seriously, that the market and comings and our supporters, as well as members of the public, will recognise what we are doing, the strength of our arrangements for managing the risk posed by sex offenders, our commitment to making sure that the work is as effective as we can across the country, and that is in line with some of the other things that we are doing in terms of sentencing, surveillance and, overall, in the justice to sexual harm civil action for sexual harm. All of that together should give us some reassurance that we are doing everything that we can, but, of course, we are open to listening to ideas and suggestions. If we can improve things, we certainly will. That concludes Paul Martin's debate on reviewing arrangements for managing sex offenders. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30pm.