Mosquito Devices (PE1367)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of PE1367, by Andrew Deans, on behalf of the Scottish Youth Parliament, on banning Mosquito devices. Members have a note and further submissions. We have worked hard on the petition and Andrew Deans has been before us previously. This appalling device has had a high profile. I ask Andrew Deans to kick off and to give us a quick summary of the situation for members who are perhaps not familiar with the issue.
I begin by saying how pleased I am that more petitions are coming from the Scottish Youth Parliament. If the committee puts as much effort into the new ones as it has into this petition, we will all be very grateful.
Thank you again for your comprehensive report to the committee. We have done a bit of research ourselves since we last met. The clerk tells me that around 100 of these devices were purchased by police and councils in the initial years between 2006 and 2008. I hope that we have some intelligence for you on that point.
Given that we launched the online survey just this week, we hope to have all the evidence, including the human rights evidence, the evidence from young people and the collation of evidence from bodies responsible for tackling antisocial behaviour—including the police, who have obviously responded to the committee before—children’s charities and other such organisations by the end of March. The committee might wish to hold off until then, look at that evidence and then decide whether to call the minister back. In any case, we are looking to collect all this information by the end of March.
On a point of clarification, the figure of 100 is over and above the number of devices that police and councils have purchased. That is as far as we can get on the detail of that.
Is that the figure for Scotland?
Yes.
And that is the number of devices purchased by private individuals.
That was the number purchased between 2006 and 2008. We got those figures from the manufacturer. Later on, I will read the information that we have received into the Official Report for the sake of clarity.
I have to say that I share Fergus Ewing’s position on the matter. I do not know what kind of society we are building, but I certainly know that we do not need these things.
We have considered the issue of health protection during the petition’s lifespan. However, I would rather not go down that route; the issue for us has been always been about rights and our belief that there should be no place for such devices.
We have been at this for two years. There comes a time when we have to say, “Perhaps we need to take a different route.”
We have looked at that route, but did not think that it was any more promising. Our best opportunity would be for the Scottish Government to decide to ban the devices because it feels that they are not appropriate in Scotland.
As you might know, I am the committee member who is moved to close the petition. I think that the whole thing is barking mad.
We have two types of evidence, the first of which is the evidence that David Stewart has cited.
That is evidence of acquisition. What evidence do you have that one of the units is being deployed somewhere in Scotland today?
I have a number of points to make in response to that question. First, the acquisition of more than 100 of the devices points to the fact that at least one of them is bound to be in use today. Secondly, there is anecdotal evidence that they are in use. Thirdly, we have launched a survey to find examples of devices that are in use.
The petition has been open for two years. Why in that time has no one come forward to us with evidence that one of the units is in operation anywhere in Scotland today?
It is the minister who is interested in that evidence and feels that it is particularly necessary to have it. For us, the anecdotal evidence that the units are in use and have been acquired is more than enough. It is only because the Scottish Government has come back and said that it does not feel that that is enough for it that we are now looking to get that information. We are essentially trying to satisfy its requirement for that evidence before it acts.
The question is not whether we think the units are desirable—I think that we are all agreed that they are not. They were a fashionable accessory when they were introduced but public opinion and the opinion of all manner of organisations—from representative organisations to elected councils—has been hostile to their deployment. I do not believe that there is any evidence that they are being deployed today.
We are searching for the evidence and for the Mosquito devices that are currently in use. On top of that, there is an issue in relation to our research into the human rights element, which is based on legal advice that the Equality and Human Rights Commission gave to Tim Loughton when he was Minister for Children and Families. The EHRC’s position was that the Mosquito device contravenes several of the articles of the ECHR and that, in failing to act, a Government would be in breach of its positive obligation to safeguard human rights—
So all Governments across the world are in breach of that obligation.
If they come within the remit of the Council of Europe and the ECHR, yes.
They are all in breach of the convention.
In the EHRC’s opinion, yes.
So every country should pass legislation to ban something that is not being deployed. That is just preposterous. In the event that a device was deployed, surely the objective would be to have it removed. If there was ever evidence that a device had been deployed, could not elected councillors, MSPs, MPs and other people, on behalf of the community, effectively represent to whoever was deploying it the need to remove it? That is what councillors, MSPs and MPs do regularly with socially undesirable things—for example, when a shopping centre puts a Golden Balls gambling machine into its concourse, where young people who should not be gambling have access to it. MPs, MSPs and councillors make representations and such things are removed. What recourse would it be for this Parliament to spend time passing legislation to ban the device when there is no real evidence that it is a problem?
MSPs, MPs and councillors should all do that when they find a Mosquito device. As I am keen to stress, we are looking for evidence of the devices. You seem to suggest that it is hypothetical that the devices might be in operation. It is fairly clear from the evidence that we continually get from young people and the evidence that we have from Compound Security Systems that it is not a hypothetical situation—
Where is this evidence? You are telling me that you have received evidence from young people that the devices are being deployed. Where is it?
Anecdotal evidence and evidence—
Anecdotes are not evidence. You have just said to me that you have evidence from young people that the devices have been deployed. Where?
Everyone who is involved in this and who has spoken to young people is in no doubt that the devices are being deployed. I appreciate the point that you are making. At the end of the day, my feeling has always been that if we are trying, as the Scottish Government is keen to do, to make Scotland the best place for children and young people to grow up, it should not be left to individual councillors, MPs and MSPs to tackle human rights abuses on an ad hoc basis. The fact that the devices are legal and people in Scotland are buying them does not go along with that view of Scotland.
We are a bit tight for time. This has been an interesting and useful dialogue but I am conscious that I need to bring in other members. As I understand it, you are saying that you require a little more time to prepare further evidence to give to the committee. We would then be in a better position to look at the next steps. You talked about the end of March—we are just into March.
I thank Andrew Deans for pre-empting my earlier questions. I appreciate the research that he has done, particularly with regard to Belgium and France. Jackson Carlaw assumes that none of the devices is being deployed. That begs the question: where is his proof?
I have asked for evidence.
I believe that we should give the petitioners the opportunity to identify examples of where the devices are being used and that we should certainly continue the petition.
Before I throw the discussion open for people to ask questions, I place on record the paragraph from the clerks’ paper about the number of devices, as it probably was not clear enough. Paragraph 3 states:
The dilemma that I face, having listened to Jackson Carlaw, is this: if the devices are not being used and people have stopped buying them, why is the manufacturer continuing to produce them? Of course they are being used.
I throw the discussion open. As usual, I will allow as many questions as I can—I see a forest of hands. At the end of the questions, I will ask Andrew Deans to summarise the answers and will then ask the committee to consider the next steps.
You ask for evidence. It is not our fault that you cannot hear the noise—we can. In South Lanarkshire, there are three devices that we know of, one of which we have heard for ourselves. There is one just down from our youth club, and once it has been put on at night it does not go off until 7 o’clock in the morning. We have continually approached the seller, asking whether they would be able to take it out of that shop, but they have refused to do so. You say that it is up to the local MSPs to try to get them out. We also have one in our Spar in East Kilbride, and they will not take it out of there either. There is your evidence—there are three devices in our area.
In that case, you should submit those names and addresses to the committee.
We have. We gave everything to Andrew Deans this week.
You have not submitted them to the committee.
Not to you, but to Andrew Deans.
I ask colleagues to speak through the convener, so that we do not get into a dialogue.
I will be brief, as a lot of other people want to speak. We do not ban things because they are not in use; we ban things because they should be illegal and because it is wrong to have them. You are quite right to say that the Parliament is elected to carry out the will of the people—
It was not in my manifesto.
Well, you take part in things that go ahead. This is the Public Petitions Committee and we have submitted a petition because we honestly believe that the situation should be changed. You say that you want evidence. We will present the evidence to you at the next committee meeting, and I hope that you will change your mind.
We have heard that there might be 100 of the devices in Scotland. Regardless of whether the number is one, 100 or 1,000, the Scottish Youth Parliament and the Scottish Parliament should fight for a fairer future for Scotland. If the device targeted a racial or elderly group there would be an international outcry, but because it targets young people it has been overlooked. We will have to make progress on such things in the future, and we are starting now.
The devices have been deployed, but iPhones and stuff also use the Mosquito device. People in schools use it for a joke, but it is still an issue.
I do not know whether all members heard that, but I have experienced that. A friend who had one of the new iPhones was able to play back the sound that a Mosquito device makes, and all the young people in my company heard it but the adults did not. The noise of a Mosquito device can be replicated by an iPhone.
Only young people hear the Mosquito devices, but it is not always young people who are responsible for the antisocial behaviour in the areas where the devices are put. Why do we have this device that only young people can hear when it is not always young people who create the problems?
I ask people to raise their hands if they want to speak. There was a forest of hands a minute ago, but they have all gone.
Jackson Carlaw said that it would be a waste of time to legislate but surely it is more of a waste of time to leave it to people in every individual constituency to deal with the issue by themselves.
The point is not about individually banning those that have been deployed already; it is about prevention rather than intervention. Instead of people going after individual cases, individuals need to be stopped before they deploy a device.
Has any research been done into the effect of Mosquito device on crime rates in different areas? When I was researching the issue, I spoke to the local community police officer and he said he could see that it was an effective deterrent to crime in an area where crime is high among young people who are at age when most crime is committed. Is there any research out there that suggests otherwise?
I am the MSYP for South Perthshire and Kinross. I represent the same constituency as Roseanna Cunningham, and I was incredibly disappointed to learn that she does not think that the issue is a concern for the young people in her constituency. Not only have I yet to meet a young person who is not horrified by the notion of the devices being used in their community, but I have had conversations with at least two young people who have experienced them and are horrified that they are allowed. I look forward to following up those conversations so that I can contribute to the quantitative evidence that will be presented to the committee. However, I do not think that the Government can argue that the issue is of no concern to young people.
I will be generous and allow a couple more questions. Never let it be said that we do not let people speak.
The Mosquito device is not necessary. I have been racking my brains to remember where it is but there is a shop that just plays Elvis Costello music and other old-fashioned music that young people do not like and it keeps them away. [Laughter.]
I think that that is a petition to ban Elvis Costello.
I am an MSYP for Galloway and West Dumfriesshire. The problem for me is that the devices allow stigma to be attached to young people. They are meant to target young people and no one else, which creates stigma in society.
We are coming to the end of our time but I will allow one more question. Who wants to ask the final question?
My question for the committee is, given the evidence that has been given today and all the work that Andrew Deans has done over the past couple of years, is it not time that committee and Scottish Government showed some leadership by saying that the situation is not good enough? That is what we would like to see. It is time that some leadership was shown and time that the Government said that it will take action to prevent it from happening.
Thank you; that is a good point on which to end. Andrew, will you do a very quick summing up of some of the questions?
I think that the Public Petitions Committee has, over the years, shown good leadership on the issue, and I am grateful to it. I am also pleased that we are already getting evidence in from young people about the existence and location of operating Mosquito devices—I assume that that evidence is coming through the survey. The survey is doing its job already and I hope that we will be in a position to present more evidence soon.
It would make sense for the committee to continue the petition until we receive the evidence that you are looking at. Jackson Carlaw made that point quite fairly. We should continue the petition so that we can look at that evidence; then, if the committee agrees, there will be the option of inviting the minister.
In order to expedite matters, I would be grateful if, when the clerks receive the evidence, the committee could write to the individuals who are named as operating the units to ask them to confirm whether that is the case. That would facilitate our debate. I certainly would not wish the minister to come before the committee on the basis of evidence that proved not to be substantiated.
That is a reasonable point. We will do as much as we can as quickly as we can.
Previous
New Petitions