Equalities and Human Rights Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, December 6, 2018

Official Report 702KB pdf

Work Programme

Mary Fee wishes to raise an item.

I am grateful to the convener for allowing me to raise this issue. I would like to ask that the committee reopens the evidence-taking process in relation to our scrutiny of the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Bill. I have two reasons for the request: the first relates to the stage 2 amendments that have been lodged by our colleague, Alex Cole-Hamilton; and the second is the intimation that the UN is consulting on the age of criminal responsibility with the intention of raising the age to 14 earlier next year.

The amendments that have been lodged by Alex Cole-Hamilton would raise the age of prosecution to 14 and the age of criminal responsibility to 16. The committee will be aware that we took no evidence on the age of criminal prosecution or on raising the age of criminal responsibility specifically to 16. I appreciate that we had some evidence from stakeholders that they would like the age to be higher, but we did not ask for specific evidence on the age of 16. In light of that, it is my view that it is impossible for this committee to reach any kind of decision on the amendments.

As committee members, we have a responsibility to thoroughly scrutinise the legislation that comes before us. The power of this Parliament is and should always be in our committees. It is therefore incumbent on us to fulfil our obligation and take further evidence on the amendments that have been submitted by Alex Cole-Hamilton and fully consider the intention of the UN to raise the recommended age of criminal responsibility to 14. If we do not do that, we will introduce legislation that will already be at odds with recommendations from the United Nations.

I assure the committee that this is not about party politics. This is about us as a committee fulfilling our responsibility and obligation to this Parliament.

You have put your views on the record. As you know, agendas have to be published in advance, so there is no capacity to take items on the record that are not on the published agenda. The agenda is a matter—

I have a question. Given the point that Mary Fee has raised, would it be possible to have a discussion in private session on the work programme, and perhaps take some advice from the clerks?

The agenda is a matter for me, as convener, and I suggest that we put this item on the agenda for next week. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I close meeting.