Protecting Scotland's Children

Speech delivered on Thu 28th Feb 2008

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 to 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 to 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;".

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-08/sor0228-02.htm#Col6422