Petition
Justice System (Child Sex Offenders) (PE862)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the 17th meeting in 2006 of the Justice 2 Committee. We have only one apology, which is from Colin Fox, who must leave the meeting early. I welcome Paul Martin to the meeting. I remind everyone in the room that all mobile phones, pagers and BlackBerrys must be switched off now.
Agenda item 1 is petition PE862, which the Public Petitions Committee has passed to us. This item has been carried forward from the previous committee meeting, at which the committee agreed to defer further consideration of its approach to the petition pending discussions with the Public Petitions Committee and the Minister for Parliamentary Business. The clerk has circulated a paper, which notes that the Public Petitions Committee no longer accepts the referral of petitions from subject committees.
The clerk, the deputy convener and I met the Minister for Parliamentary Business last week. Members will remember that I flagged up at our previous meeting the fact that a large burden is being placed on this committee in relation to legislation that is to be dealt with before the next election. We sought hints from the minister as to whether further legislation will come to the committee, and it looks as though it will. I am anxious to ensure that anything that the committee takes on is done thoroughly and properly, with full scrutiny—that is the committee's role.
The Minister for Justice has sent an update, copies of which have been circulated to members. The clerks have kindly produced a paper on what we have discovered, which has also been circulated to members. A series of options is suggested for discussion at this meeting. The first is to seek further written evidence on any of the matters raised in the petition. The second is to hold an evidence session with the Minister for Justice to examine the progress that the Executive has made on the issues raised by the petitioner. Of course, we do not know whether the proposed sentencing bill, which will probably come to the committee, will cover some of those issues, so that would be a reason for choosing the second option.
The third option is to seek oral evidence from the petitioner and other, wider interest groups on the issues that the petitioner raises. If the committee decides to take that option, it is suggested that the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre be asked to report back to the committee before the summer recess with a suggested programme of evidence and proposed timings for any inquiry.
The fourth option is to identify the issue in a legacy paper as an outstanding issue that warrants further scrutiny. That paper would be passed to our successor committee after next year's parliamentary elections although, of course, our successor committee would be under no obligation to pay heed to a recommendation from this committee. To all intents and purposes, parliamentary business finishes before the election; there is completely fresh business in the next session.
The final option available to us is to take up any other suggestions that the committee and those present at this meeting might make.
I open up the discussion to take members' views.
It almost goes without saying that the petitioner raises a serious issue. As colleagues will remember from our meeting of a fortnight ago, the petitioner identified outstanding areas of concern in her response to the Scottish Executive's letter of November 2005. I think that in many of those areas the update that we have received from the Minister for Justice is helpful, but I still feel that there needs to be an exploration of areas such as the reclassification of child sex offenders in order to make a distinction between paedophiles and sex offenders and to reduce confusion in dealing with sex offences against adults and sex offences against children. That may or may not be a distinction that can be made; it would take a full inquiry to establish that.
A thorough inquiry would also be necessary to consider the relevant housing matters. There is also the issue of people assuming an alias, although the minister seems to have met that concern, along with others, fairly reasonably. Given the burden of legislation that the committee must deal with, I am not sure whether, as a full committee, we could carry out an inquiry that would be as thoroughgoing and effective as demanded by the serious nature of those concerns. If other members have a way round that, we should listen to what they have to say, but I do not have an instant solution.
At our meeting two weeks ago, I took the committee's view to be that the matter that had been raised was serious and was worthy of further consideration—that was certainly my view. Obviously, we do not want any work that we do to overlap with work on legislation that will be scrutinised by us or by the Justice 1 Committee, as and when that legislation is introduced. We cannot take lightly a decision to hold a full inquiry.
Do other members have a view?
I thank the committee and, in particular, the convener and the deputy convener, who met the Minister for Parliamentary Business to discuss the petition.
I have a suggestion about how we can make progress and do all the things that are helpfully suggested in paragraph 25 of the committee's paper. We could achieve those aims by setting up an ad hoc committee of three or four members. Members of the justice committees could sit on it and the Communities Committee could have an input on housing registered sex offenders, which Margaret Ann Cummings raised in her petition. The Public Petitions Committee, which has already taken a significant amount of evidence on the issue, could also be represented and a reporter could be appointed to gather evidence.
I have spoken informally to the Minister for Parliamentary Business about the possibility of an ad hoc committee being established. She has advised me that she would give such a proposal serious consideration in a short timescale of a matter of weeks. Obviously, the setting up of an ad hoc committee has to be agreed to by Parliament, but that should not be a problem, given that we all agree on the seriousness of the issue. If an ad hoc committee were established, that would deal with some of the committee's concerns about the pressures that it faces. Under my suggestion, the committee would be able to share the burden of an inquiry and the various committees that have dealt with the petition would be able to have an input. Moreover, Margaret Ann Cummings would be given reassurance that Parliament was continuing to take her petition seriously.
When we had our meeting with the Minister for Parliamentary Business last week, she raised the issue of whether it was possible to divide the work into chunks. Similarly, the letter from the Minister for Justice subdivides the petition into different issues, including housing. The Minister for Parliamentary Business said that she would reflect on the matter further, but made it clear that she understood the committee's concerns. I thank Paul Martin for what was a positive suggestion.
I endorse what Paul Martin said, although I seek clarification on two points. I agree with him that Margaret Ann Cummings has waited a long time and that it would therefore be inappropriate to delay consideration of the issues that the petition raises until the next session of Parliament. We should attempt to make progress in whatever way we can.
Ad hoc committees report directly to Parliament, but perhaps it is the intention that the committee that Paul Martin proposes would report back to the Justice 2 Committee, with which the petition resides. That would obviously have implications for the workload not just of the committee, but of the clerks. I would want us to make a specific request for additional temporary resources to deal with that, because if we are to do the subject justice, we require not only MSPs' time, but the valuable help that allows us to undertake such inquiries.
That is a very positive comment. Members may think that the committee has a lot to do, but the clerks—who are invaluable—have even more to do in assisting us in going wherever it is we wish to go. Jackie Baillie touched on the issue of the status of the committee that Paul Martin proposes. I wonder whether it would, in fact, be a beast of the Parliament. The Parliamentary Bureau would deal with the question of establishing such a committee in line with the decisions that it takes on membership of private bill committees and so on. I seek further views from the committee.
In effect, the options that are laid out before us summarise everything that we were trying to come to a conclusion on. We want to do all those things, but the timetabling prevents us from doing so. The suggestion that Paul Martin made is extremely helpful; I had not considered it before.
If it was agreed that an ad hoc committee could be formed, we would have a committee that would deal exclusively with this one issue. It would have the time to take the right evidence, do the proper research, get all the background stuff together and produce a serious report, and it could do that in a relatively short timescale.
If we are talking about an ad hoc committee that was properly established by the Parliament, it would also be resourced separately; the burden would not fall on our clerks. I assume that the ad hoc committee would report to the Parliament and not to a subject committee. Although that is a procedural point, the way in which a committee is established has an effect on its status; it would have greater status if it was established by the Parliament. An ad hoc committee may also be able to seek an early opportunity for a parliamentary debate on its report, in the same way that other committees do. We may be able to move things forward more quickly in that way than we could if we tried to do things ourselves. Paul Martin's suggestion is sensible.
I take the point. Since the matter was referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee, I seek advice from the clerks on whether the matter would come back to us or go straight to the Parliament.
That would depend on the nature of the committee that was set up by the Parliamentary Bureau. If it was a free-standing ad hoc committee, it could report to the Parliament. I am sure that it would be possible to find a mechanism by which it could also report back to the Justice 2 Committee, the Communities Committee and the Public Petitions Committee.
We need further discussion on the issues. Characteristically, Paul Martin's suggestion was very constructive, and I endorse it. However, I suggest a slightly alternative model. I hear what Stewart Maxwell said, but an ad hoc committee could be the slower of the options. We would have to get it established, arrange slots for the discussions with the Parliamentary Bureau and set up the arrangements for clerking staff, timetabling of meetings and so forth.
I am very attracted by the idea of the three committees appointing reporters who, under the commission of this committee, would be given a remit for the work that they would undertake. We could hold in reserve the possibility of having an evidence session with the Minister for Justice after the report was published. I like Stewart Maxwell's idea of seeking time in the chamber to debate the report. If we did the work in that way, we could be looking at completing it before the end of this calendar year. That would be the quickest way of doing things. My fear in taking the ad hoc committee route is that that committee would report to the Parliament in the next session. It would be useful if we were to achieve a mechanism by which we could secure parliamentary time before next spring. We would still have to address Jackie Baillie's point about clerking support.
We should not go to the extent of entering into discussions on establishing a committee. It is inevitable that all the parties would want to discuss their representation on such a committee. As it stands, most members sit on two committees. I would not like things to get bogged down in that way. I hate to call the other proposal an informal grouping of reporters, but whatever we call it, I believe that we could quickly establish its remit, give notice to the Minister for Justice and work to a timeframe that we would agree on at the outset.
I am mindful of the committee's previous discussion of the petition a fortnight or so ago. I think that all of us are agreed on the seriousness of the issue and that our earnest wish is not to have a perfunctory look at it but to make meaningful progress. At the same time, we are also aware of how the work would fit into the rest of our workload.
Paul Martin's suggestion about an ad hoc committee has one great advantage: the issue would be that committee's sole area of work. When such issues come on our agenda, we consider them for perhaps only half an hour or 45 minutes out of a three or four-hour meeting.
I realise that establishing an ad hoc committee would be an unusual route to take. On the suggestion of having reporters, I would like to know what their role would be and how they would report to Parliament. I looked through the options in the paper, and the idea of this committee meeting twice a week frightens me to death. With the other options, we would run the risk of just having a glance at the issue but not doing any sufficiently in-depth work to make a meaningful contribution. An ad hoc committee that would deal with this issue alone strikes me as the right middle way. This committee would have input and all members would have the opportunity to debate the issue in the Parliament when a report was produced.
I am not sure whether it would be quicker to appoint reporters or to set up an ad hoc committee. However, if we are going to do anything, we must ensure that we do a thorough job. I am pleased to see the suggestion that the Communities Committee should be involved, because a large part of the petition is about housing and communities. We must bring in the Communities Committee. I am not sure whether that committee has been approached about the matter—we obviously have to know its views.
On the issue of whether we should have an ad hoc committee or appoint reporters, I presume that an ad hoc committee would be set up by the Parliament and members would be put on it, whereas, if reporters were appointed, we might find that the opposite of what Jeremy Purvis hopes for would happen—we might find it difficult to get volunteers from committees. It might be easier to get members for an ad hoc committee. However, all those issues are up for discussion. We must consider them further and then come back to decide the approach.
The discussion has been positive, but there are some issues that we must explore further, which might best be done by the convener and the clerks. I know that that would cause another week's delay, but questions arise that we cannot answer now. Jeremy Purvis thinks that his suggestion would be more expeditious. We must consider whether that is the case, but I tend to think that Maureen Macmillan will be proved right and that an ad hoc committee could be set up fairly quickly. Another point about an ad hoc committee is that it would have more status. The seriousness of the issues that have been raised demands that extra status. If Jeremy Purvis is right that it would take an age to set up such a committee, we would have to reconsider, because the process must be expeditious and thorough. However, if an ad hoc committee could be set up quickly, we should choose that route, as it would have added status. That should be explored, given the seriousness of the issues.
It was in my mind to suggest to the committee that we hold off from making a decision until next week and that, in the meantime, the deputy convener and I, with the clerk, could meet the Minister for Justice and the conveners of the other committees that have been mentioned. We could then return to the issue next week. The other conveners need to have time to come to a view and to sound out opinion among their committees. The Parliamentary Bureau will have to be involved, too.
I have a feeling that we could end up with a slight cross, with some of Jeremy Purvis's ideas feeding into a formal committee of the Parliament. Such a committee would have far more power in taking evidence. There is also a need for input from the Minister for Justice. Despite the meeting that we had last week with the Minister for Parliamentary Business, we still do not have absolute clarity about what the proposed sentencing bill will cover. The housing issue is almost an issue in its own right. The Minister for Justice's letter identifies several risks, such as those that relate to aliases and pushing people underground.
I am minded to ask committee members whether they agree to the deputy convener, me and the clerks meeting the people I have just mentioned during the coming week, to see whether we can come to some formal agreement among the different bodies in the Parliament as to how we can best proceed. I take Jeremy Purvis's point—we do not want the situation to go on and on. If everybody is prepared to play their part, we could be focusing, by the end of this calendar year, on a response or a result, although it is not for us to predetermine what that result might be at this stage. I am also aware that the committee was charged with the task of helping in that process, so it must have a role, along with the Parliament itself. Jackie Baillie is quite right to talk about resourcing, as that is something that we would have to take care of one way or another.
Does the committee agree with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
The clerks have a full note of what has been discussed. We will keep in touch informally with all members during the week. It is a question of trying to get people to come together so that we can draw up an action plan for next week, hopefully with the help of the Parliamentary Bureau and the ministers. I thank Paul Martin for his suggestion.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—