Hansard

I congratulate Paul Martin on securing this debate, and I recognise the courageous campaign of Margaret Ann Cummings, which came about after the horrendous murder of her son, as Paul Martin said. I have corresponded with Mrs Cummings and regret that I will be unable to meet her after the debate due to my chairing the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing meeting immediately afterwards. However, I certainly hope that she sees that I understand why she has campaigned in the circumstances.

Like Paul Martin, I recognise the complexity of the area. If only we could sort it all out.

I have looked at the recent joint report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland and the Care Inspectorate on multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPPA. Those arrangements are set in place when sex offenders have finished their sentence and have been released into communities. I note their main findings. They say:

“there is strong evidence that MAPPA is well-established”

and working across communities.

However, I have had issues in my constituency, of which the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Minister for Housing and Welfare are well aware. There have been issues with the operation of the national accommodation strategy for sex offenders, or NASSO. Where those people go is, of course, key. It is not just about how they are monitored; it is also about where they are placed. Sex offenders must be returned to the place where they last resided when the offence took place. There are very special circumstances whereby the offender, with negotiation with other local authorities, can be rehoused elsewhere, but I have been unable to determine how often that has been invoked. I will come to whether or not offenders should be out, but key to the management of those offenders is where they are, the authorities knowing where they are, and tagging their every movement where necessary.

That issue arose for me when the convicted rapist Robert Greens was released after serving six years and eight months of a 10-year sentence for the horrendous attack on and rape of a young student from the Netherlands, who had gone to visit Rosslyn chapel. When he was released, he was rehoused in a rural cottage on the outskirts of Newtongrange and Gorebridge in my constituency, just a few miles from the scene of the attack. Because of the NASSO rules, he had to be rehoused in Midlothian. No other authority in the United Kingdom would rehouse him. Almost predictably and understandably, hundreds turned out to protest outside the cottage. I can understand that. The matter became resolved only when he breached the restrictions under his registered sex offenders order and was seen in Penicuik, where he was not supposed to go. That took him back to prison. However, he is due for release next year, and the community will be back where it started.

The joint report says:

“It should be stressed that while the fundamental purpose of MAPPA is to protect the public, MAPPA and the work of Responsible Authorities cannot entirely eradicate risk.”

I accept that, but I still have issues with resolving the problem of rehousing, which is required when someone is released. I think that the issue that Paul Martin has raised in relation to serious sex offenders repeating offences happens in a very small number of instances, but it happens. Those people are very serious. Although their number is small, we cannot allow those things to happen again.

I have issues with housing and the system by which we rehouse, but I have another issue, which Paul Martin touched on. We should not interfere with judicial independence, but I, too, am concerned about some people being released back into the community when they should never be released at all. That does not happen very often, but once is once too often.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Minister for Housing and Welfare are here. I know that those are difficult issues and that, if they could resolve the housing issues—sentencing is another issue—they would do so. I ask them to look at the matter again, because Paul Martin’s issues, which are worse than mine, are repeated to some extent in my constituency.