Justice 1 Committee, 10 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Official Report 228KB pdf

---

Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill

Item 3 concerns the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. I refer committee members to the note inviting the committee to consider the approach that it wishes to take to the bill.

I invite members to consider what witnesses they would like to call before the committee to give oral evidence. I would also like members to consider a proposal that I put together in the paper to hold a seminar as part of the evidence taking. In my mind was the fact that, in the past, that has been a different and successful way of bringing witnesses together to have a discussion about a bill. That might be another way of getting evidence, making the session more interesting and allowing direct dialogue with groups that might have different views. It is only a suggestion; it is for committee members to determine what they want to do with the time that is available for evidence sessions.

I am not opposed, in principle, to the policy objective of the bill; however, I have real concerns about whether the bill will deliver on that policy objective. I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to discover the age of consent and the age of permissible marriage around the world. It appears that we might make illegal in this country acts that are preparatory to committing legal acts in other countries. I take no position on that; I just say that the issue needs to be explored. I have discovered a series of such issues.

Scottish Executive officials have been suggested as witnesses for our first evidence session. We might consider whether we want to preface the formal evidence session with an informal session with the Executive officials, to examine more openly some of the details of the bill to ensure that they support its policy objectives. If we took that evidence in public, the officials might, of necessity, have to be more constrained in what they say to us. I am not suggesting that with the objective of catching anybody out or making life difficult; I am suggesting it so that, if there are things that we do not understand, the officials can explain why they came to some of the conclusions that they have reached. I suspect that that can best be done in private or informal session before we question them in public immediately afterwards.

That is the key issue that I want to raise; otherwise, I am relatively content.

I support that idea. I also support the idea of holding a seminar, which would work quite nicely along with that and would better prepare us for dealing with the bill.

I have a couple of suggestions of people who might give evidence. I see that written evidence is called for as well. It would be a good idea to get oral evidence from the Association of Directors of Social Work, which I see is on the list. What about education? I declare an interest as a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland. The EIS might be in a position to give evidence on the bill. It might also be useful for us to talk to the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, which brings together many experts.

I agree with Stewart Stevenson's suggestion. An informal session would be really helpful, as we need to clarify exactly how the bill has been conceived and what its intentions are. I am also attracted by the convener's suggestion of a seminar. When we have witnesses before the committee, we sometimes receive evidence that is contrary to what we have heard but we cannot fire it back and forth. The seminar might give us the opportunity to have a more rounded discussion of some of the issues that we will address. I would be supportive of that suggestion.

I agree that an informal session would help to iron out issues and perhaps allay some of Stewart Stevenson's fears. I suggest that we involve Children 1st in the evidence seminar, as that organisation has expressed an interest in the subject and will make a worthwhile contribution.

I know that Margaret Mitchell has a special interest in the issue and has done some work already. Would it be important to hear evidence from experts on enforcement?

Yes.

I confess that I have not been able to devote much time to the bill so far, but I am struck by Marlyn Glen's point about learning lessons from previous legislation. For this bill, it will be important to spend time with people who have expertise in enforcing the law.

I think that the slimness of the bill will turn out to be deceptive.

The convener's point is important. The purpose of the bill is to prevent offences from occurring rather than to deal with the aftermath. Therefore, enforcement of the sections that deal with prevention of the offence is extremely important. I have read the bill and the accompanying documents only once, but I am already concerned. Although the intention is laudable, how will we make the provisions stick and ensure that they are effective?

I came late to consideration of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill but it set the alarm bells ringing. We need legislation that is enforceable and which operates to prevent situations from occurring in the first place.

It is a question of taking a step back and considering the whole grooming aspect. We have to prove that there was an attempt to groom—grooming being a forerunner to an illegal sexual act taking place. If we can concentrate on enforcing the provisions on grooming, it would be helpful. I agree with the convener's suggestion.

We have Stewart Stevenson's suggestion of an informal session with the officials, which I think makes perfect sense. Everyone agrees that a seminar would be useful and members have a proposal in front of them. Marlyn Glen has suggested some additional witnesses, including the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Witnesses from Children 1st have also been suggested, although I think that we would have included them anyway.

The suggestions have been helpful and we can now prepare a list of witnesses and a timetable. I see that Margaret Smith has had a brainwave.

I just wondered about the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland.

Would she have special expertise in this issue?

No, but the bill is specifically about children. Unless I am wrong, this is the first piece of legislation that is specifically about children since we have had a children's commissioner.

I wrote to the children's commissioner—she had just been appointed—and she did not really know anything about the issue and could not comment, so I am not sure how worth while it would be to have her as a witness.

It might focus her mind.

Members might think about inviting the children's commissioner to the seminar. She might be more comfortable with that.

One of her jobs is to be a conduit between children and decision makers. This is the first bill about children since she was appointed—the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill was earlier—and we should show that we are serious about involving her. It is difficult to listen directly to the views of children but we might be able to do so indirectly, through the commissioner.

I have no difficulty with that suggestion. I agree with Margaret Mitchell and Bruce McFee that, when it comes to scrutinising the bill, having the expertise of the enforcers will be critical.

It was a political point with a small p.

When we have the seminar, we could invite the children's commissioner as a courtesy. She might have something to say on how we can canvass the views of children.

I have one other suggestion. An organisation that deals with victims of sexual abuse—of which grooming is an important aspect—might be able to contribute something on likely scenarios and evidential issues.

Sorry, I missed that. Which organisation are you referring to?

We should hear from representatives of an organisation that deals with the victims of sexual abuse. They would have a worthwhile take on the grooming issue because they are familiar with it.

Which organisation do you suggest?

The cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse would be able to give suggestions.

Is that the group that Marlyn Glen mentioned?

Yes.

Marilyn Livingstone is the convener.

Do members agree to the suggestions in the paper, with the additions that have been discussed?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay. We will draw up proposals for a timetable on that basis. I draw members' attention to the proposal for an informal session with the Sheriffs Association, which would be useful. Such sessions have proved useful in the past.

As I said at the beginning of the meeting, we have rejigged our business and will not meet next week. We will consider the item that we would have considered on 17 November at the meeting on 1 December. Our next meeting will be on 24 November, when we will begin stage 2 consideration of the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that members are looking forward to that.

Meeting closed at 13:11.