Official Report 115KB pdf
This is our first consideration of the bill. There is quite a lot to consider, so we will take it step by step.
I am slightly concerned about section 29(2), which specifies that the accused will be given the benefit of the doubt over any misunderstanding about the age of the child only when they have not been previously charged with a relevant offence. It is a bit dangerous if the fact that someone has merely been charged—and is therefore innocent until proven guilty—can be used as a mechanism to deny him or her a defence on a subsequent charge. Someone might be charged, but innocent, and they will have been denied a possible defence for later. I can envisage situations whereby someone could be innocent, but denied a defence.
The thrust of what we are saying about the bill is that the delegated powers that it proposes to grant to ministers are rather sweeping at various points. We are asking whether those powers should be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure, or whether the provision should be specified in the bill. Your question might well be relevant within that context.
Yes, but it is diffferent. I agree that we should find out what the relevant offences are, because that is a broad range. However, I am asking about denying someone one element of a defence solely on the ground that they have been charged with a previous offence. In our country, people are innocent until they are proved guilty, so it is not right that a possible defence should be taken away from someone because they have been charged.
Very good. We can write to the Government about that.
Section 35 confers a power to specify circumstances that are to be regarded as constituting the provision of care services for the purpose of the offence of sexual abuse of trust of a mentally disordered person.
Sections 38 and 30 confer powers to prescribe the form of notice of alternative verdicts. Section 42 confers a power to prescribe a period of notice of defence to an offence under section 42(1). Section 43 confers a power to prescribe the period of notice of defence to an offence under section 43(2)(b). Are those powers acceptable and are we content that they are not subject to parliamentary procedure?
On section 45, "Ancillary provision", are members content to ask the Scottish Government the two questions that are set out in the summary of recommendations?
Are members content that the power conferred under section 46, "Orders", is acceptable?
Finally, on section 49, "Short title and commencement", are we content that the power is acceptable and that it is not subject to parliamentary procedure?
We do not normally have a problem with the short title and commencement, do we?