The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Analysis of External Consultation on, and the Scottish Executive's response to, 'Reducing the Risk: Improving the Response to Sex Offending', the report of the Expert Panel on Sex Offending

9. GENERAL ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

10. Respondents welcomed the report and generally supported the recommendations. They endorsed the report's conclusion that the problem of sex offending could not be eliminated completely. It could only ever be managed because an unknown number of sex offenders have not yet and might never come to the notice of the authorities. In addition there may be people who are potential offenders but who might never actually offend if a suitable opportunity to do so does not arise.
11. Consultees made many points in their responses which were relevant, not to a specific recommendation, but to the report generally. These are discussed below:

• All except one consultee gave support for the report's overall stance of vigilance and not vigilantism.
• Many of the measures will require funding and some have staff recruitment and/or training implications. This is recognised by the Expert Panel within the report for some, but not all, of the recommendations. The Panel took the view that most of the recommendations were about building on good practice rather than anything which was radically new and costly. For example, the training provided by individual agencies might benefit from being multi-disciplinary.
• Some recommendations might give rise to legal considerations, for instance under the European Commission on Human Rights (ECHR) or the Data Protection Act, such as:
  • Medical confidentiality issues, for instance in chapter two and chapter six (one health board said that sometimes professional sensitivities about the release of information might be valid and in the patient's interest).
  • In chapters one and two, there might be ECHR implications from the recommendations regarding disclosure of information, and intervening with suspected sex offenders against whom no charge has been proven.
  • In chapter six, there might be problems with the transfer of information due to the Data Protection Act.
• Consultees pointed out that recommendations that involve local authorities working with the Scottish Prisons Service (SPS) will need to take account of the changes in the way social work is provided in some prisons. The need to strengthen information exchange between SPS and local authorities was highlighted in responses as well as in the Expert Panel's report itself.
• The separate consideration of SPS and community based programmes in chapter three was not seen by all as helpful in addressing the problem of a lack of continuity and compatibility between these two types of programme. This should be addressed through close collaboration with SPS in the development of community based programmes.
• Recommendations that sought more comprehensive provision and availability of programmes did not take into account the difficulties an authority with a sparse population might have in meeting them. This was particularly problematic because as one respondent said, these areas typically might have higher levels of abuse due to social isolation.
• The establishment of the Criminal Justice Social Work Accreditation Panel will improve the information available about the effectiveness of programmes for sex offenders.
• All educational material and intervention programmes should take account of all types of learning disabilities and should be suitable for all audiences, including all ethnic communities.
• The report does not always recognise that men as well as women (boys as well as girls) can be victims of sex offenders.
• Use of term 'sexually aggressive' could be misleading. Some behaviour might be problematic but not aggressive. There is a need to define certain terms.

And the following ideas came forward from consultees:

• Decisions made about people that will effect them should be open to challenge.
• There is a need to involve others in consultation and planning mentioned in the report. Some suggestions include:
  • Health should be significantly more involved in many of the initiatives and processes mentioned
  • Scottish Domestic Violence Partnership
  • 'Who Cares?' in development of materials in chapter one
  • Child Protection Committees
  • Community Safety Plans
• Materials developed must take account of the fact that much abuse is familial.
• It is important to continue to try to better understand sex offending through research.

11. Some consultees mentioned issues that were not covered by the remit of the Expert Panel. These were:

• Two authorities said that there are social features which effect sex offending and the extent to which such offending might be accepted or implicitly encouraged, and that the report did not address these issues. The Panel did take a comprehensive look at sex offending, but was concerned with direct actions that would reduce the risk from this behaviour. Amongst its recommendations, it suggests a public information strategy, a national conference and a series of local workshops. These can reach all members of the community. Action to effect social values beyond this is out of the scope of the Expert Panel's work.
• Consultees who expressed a view supported the appointment of a children's commissioner, as did the Expert Panel. Consultees also welcomed the awareness in the report of the problem of internet abuse. Although the Panel expressed a view on these issues, the first is outwith its remit, and the second became an issue late in the Panel's deliberations.

« Previous | Contents | Next »