Good morning and welcome to the 14th meeting this year of the Justice 1 Committee. I have received no apologies. I ask members to switch off their phones if they have not already done so.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (Draft)
I welcome Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Justice, and his team.
The draft regulations build and improve on an earlier set of regulations—the Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/188). It is unfortunate, but a large body of evidence proves that people convicted of sex offences are among the most difficult and challenging offenders with whom the criminal justice system deals. They can be extremely skilled in avoiding detection and in creating and manipulating situations to their advantage.
Good morning, minister. I welcome the draft regulations, which are a move in the right direction. You said that the previous period of travel was eight days, which will be reduced to three days. On what basis was three days chosen?
In making that decision, we tried to strike a balance in respect of the length of time that such offenders could travel to the areas that would cause concern. One issue that the police considered and reflected on was whether the period should be reduced even further. The difficulty with that was that it would place significant strains on the police, who might not only have to log and register every movement for a day if a person was to fly to a football match and back, for example, but perhaps think about whether they needed to notify the authorities in those countries. The aim was to try to identify areas of particular concern, how long it would take to travel to and back from those areas, what measures could reasonably be introduced that did not infringe the ECHR and what would be reasonable for the police and other authorities to be able to cope with without causing undue strains on the system. The balance is reasonable and is based on the experience of those who are directly involved.
Given that the regulations concern the protection of vulnerable people—particularly children—from sexual predators, was the possibility considered that any travel within the UK for periods of several days should also be notified? Obviously, that matter is not covered. If an offender in Glasgow moved to London for a week and came back, for example, is there any reason why that should not be notified?
There is a notification requirement when such people move within the United Kingdom. If I can be given a minute, I will double-check with my officials what the period is.
I accept what you are saying about sex tourism, but it seems, from what I have read, that many such offenders operate in paedophile groups across countries and across the world and that they co-operate in exploiting children. It would be quite simple for such a person from Scotland to travel to London for a week to carry out those offences, but that would not be sex tourism in the sense that we have been talking about, even though an offence would be committed. Would not it be reasonable to reduce the period of travel within the UK that had to be notified, to avoid people travelling to another part of the UK, exploiting children there and then returning home, with no recognition by the authorities that that person had been in the area at the time?
I recognise what Stewart Maxwell is saying. That would indeed be of concern. The considerations on the regulations were based on the experience and evidence of practitioners who were knowledgeable about patterns of sex offending behaviour and what was required to restrict such behaviour. It was a matter of trying to strike a balance, with restrictions that protect the public but are not overly burdensome on the police and that do not go so far as to infringe other rights that individuals have under the ECHR.
Was there the opportunity to make such provision when the Sexual Offences Bill was passing through Parliament last year? If so, why did the Scottish Executive not take the opportunity then?
There had been an earlier attempt to introduce regulations, but a problem was identified by the scrutiny committee at Westminster. We have now come up with something that we believe is more robust. We are working in partnership with the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, the proposed timetable is almost identical and we are aiming for a common implementation date. We are working consistently across the United Kingdom to ensure that provisions apply equally and that there are no anomalies or loopholes and no different time frames in different parts of the United Kingdom. We believe that this is the appropriate time to do that, working in partnership with the UK Parliament.
You may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the majority of the 2003 act applies UK-wide, so the Scottish Executive would have to have exempted itself from being included in the provisions. Here we are, a year later, closing the gap. I just wonder how that came to be, because it does not seem to be the most efficient way of doing business.
I am not quite clear about the point that Margaret Mitchell is driving at. We are not talking about closing a loophole that we failed to identify. With your permission, convener, I would like to bring in one of the officials to see whether we can tease the matter out a bit further.
I am clear that you have brought previous regulations to us as and when issues have arisen and my understanding is that, in this case, having researched the matter, you have proposed a reduction in the number of days.
Paragraph 8 of the note from the clerk says that the regulations were laid
Convener, with your indulgence, may I bring one of the officials into the discussion?
Unfortunately, officials are not permitted to speak in this debate, but you may take whatever time you need to reply.
I apologise for the uncertainty, but I am still not entirely clear what the issue is, although I think that it is the one to which I referred earlier. Regulations were laid previously at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament and, when the Westminster committee was considering those regulations, it identified a loophole. That loophole having been identified, the Westminster Government withdrew the proposed regulations, and the Scottish Executive withdrew its proposed regulations. The Westminster Government has come back with a new set of proposals and we have come back with a new set of proposals, too, which are the draft regulations that we are considering today. They take account of the identified loophole.
I am happy to accept the minister's explanation that this is the earliest opportunity at which the regulations could have been introduced.
Are similar regulations being passed at Westminster? If so, when were those regulations published and when will they be passed by Westminster?
Regulations that will have exactly the same effect as the ones that we are discussing are being considered at Westminster. The intention is that those regulations will come into effect on 1 May. I ask for a minute to find out whether we have details of when those regulations were published.
I suspect that that is where the confusion exists.
The regulations were debated in the House of Commons yesterday; they have still to be debated in the House of Lords.
When do you expect them to be passed?
As far as we are concerned, they should be passed in time to have effect on 1 May, but I am not familiar with the procedures in the House of Lords.
In effect, there is no loophole at the moment in Scotland; the debate is about preventing one. There could be a loophole if the regulations take effect in Scotland at the beginning of May but the Westminster regulations hit some problem and are delayed. However, at this stage, there is no loophole.
No. The loophole to which I referred earlier was more of a technical loophole that the Westminster committee had identified, which would have created certain difficulties and anomalies. The new regulations are intended to address that. If the two sets of regulations were completely out of kilter, I would have my worries, but I have no reason to believe that the timescale within which we are operating will produce any great difficulties in relation to what is happening in Westminster.
Okay. I will revert to some of the technical issues. You said that failure to notify is a criminal offence. Would that mean that in every case in which an offender did not give the requisite seven days' notice—if they gave six days', five days' or four days' notice, for example—they would be committing a criminal offence of failing to notify? If not, what would happen?
The offender would be liable to be prosecuted in the same way as anyone would be for committing an offence. They have a requirement to notify and, if it becomes apparent that they have travelled abroad without giving the proper notification, they will be liable for prosecution.
There are no further questions.
Motion agreed to.
That the Justice 1 Committee recommends that the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Travel Notification Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 be approved.
We could just use a summary of the debate to compile a report and we could check whether members wish to emphasise any particular points. We will circulate a draft report by e-mail. I ask members to check their e-mail in the next few days to ensure that they are happy with the draft report's contents. Please let us know if you are not. I thank the minister for attending.
Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2004 (Draft)
Item 2 is consideration of a second piece of subordinate legislation. I welcome Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. I know that it is a while since he has been at a meeting of a justice committee and I welcome him back. We will deal with the draft Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2004. Members have a note that the clerk has prepared, as well as some very helpful maps. Although there are not enough maps for everyone, everyone should be able to see one. I hope that they will help to illustrate the order that we are about to discuss.
Thank you, convener. It is indeed good to be back to discuss land reform. We are pressing on with our land reform agenda. I am glad that you find the maps helpful. They will give members a better visual image of what we propose.
I thank the minister for the very visual way in which he expressed the order's intention, which was helpful in addition to the maps that have been provided. I invite committee members to comment on what is before them.
It will come as no surprise to the minister that I do not welcome the advent of the new legislation—in fact, I am totally opposed to it. It is not really a community right to buy; it is a community right to pre-emption. It is funded by the taxpayer and lottery money, so we are all paying for it, and it forces landowners to sell at an artificially low price rather than at genuine market value. Were the right to be extended to property rights generally, we would be going back to the dark ages and a Stalinist regime. I do not welcome the new legislation: I am totally opposed to it.
I suspect that that says more about the contemporary Tory party than it does about the proposals that I have put before you. It surprises me that you continue to maintain what I believe to be unreasonable opposition to a very reasonable measure that will afford communities the length and breadth of the land the opportunity to take direct control of the land in their communities, which will benefit them socially, environmentally and—potentially—economically. It is a tremendous opportunity for communities throughout Scotland. It is sad that the Tory party cannot welcome the opportunity that I am offering the Scottish people.
I have allowed Margaret Mitchell a bit of latitude—
Could I just press a little further—
Let me finish. The order is specifically about excluded land. I ask members to relate any further comments to the order.
In the past, communities have had the opportunity to do what is proposed without the community right to buy. On what basis does the minister justify the order being passed?
The order extends the right to buy to smaller communities that display rural characteristics and which have a population of between 3,000 and 10,000 people, enabling them to take advantage of the community right to buy that we introduced with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The order extends the right to buy to 117 additional communities with a combined population of 675,000. It gives greater opportunity for many more communities to benefit from the provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Parliament decided that there should properly be a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer: there is no question of compulsion. If more communities demonstrate a desire to own land that is of social, economic or environmental value to them, that is a good thing. That should be welcomed and I encourage them to do so.
On a point of information, if the communities sell the land on, will it be sold for genuine market prices? In other words, will it be open to auction, not a matter of first emption—take it or leave it—as it is under your proposals?
As the convener knows, we had a long discussion in committee and subsequently in Parliament on the need to ensure that no depreciation in overall land value is brought about by the introduction of a community right to buy. I argued then—and I believe now—that the community right to buy will stimulate the market in land and will act as a boon to land values in our communities. I fully expect communities to demonstrate an increasing interest in securing greater ownership of land that is of economic, social or environmental benefit to them, which will stimulate land values in areas that were hitherto derelict or devoid of any interest or speculation over their acquisition.
Can you confirm that individuals will be able to sell on and make a massive profit?
As I thought I said when I answered the question, we introduced provisions in the 2003 act to have the land independently valued by a market valuer, so that the amount reflects the market value of the land at the point of acquisition or disposal.
We will tell that to Jack Vettriano.
To whom? I thought that he was a painter.
I was alluding to market prices.
The order is before us because it is the remit of the justice committees to examine ownership. Obviously, as the minister has illustrated, there are issues that are vital to the regeneration of rural communities, and those are a matter for the relevant committee. In addressing the question of land ownership, I whole-heartedly welcome the continuation of scrutiny of the 2003 act, which will, I hope, change the profile of who owns land in Scotland.
I must take considerable responsibility for that because it was during our stage 3 deliberations on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill that I began to think about how we might ensure that more communities could benefit from the opportunity that we were affording to the smaller communities that are rural settlements of 3,000 people or less. Subsequent examination of the maps and of the register to which I referred demonstrated clearly that many other communities display the same rural land characteristics as the smaller communities. Consequently, I believe that they ought to be included in the 2003 act's provisions, to allow them the opportunity to buy land for community purposes, whether those are economic, social or environmental.
What you are saying makes perfect sense to me. I support the order. I just wanted an insight into what sparked off your thinking about changing the cut-off point from 3,000 to 10,000. I wondered whether any representations were made to you that sparked off your thinking.
Members will probably recall that there was a debate on the matter at stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, when I indicated an interest in extending the definition of excluded land. I wanted to consult widely on how we would define that. As I have said, during the consultation, a sizeable number of people said that they wanted to extend the opportunity to the whole of Scotland. As members know, that is not possible under the current Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 because of the way in which the act refers to rural land. However, by defining rural land in a better way in this order, we can extend the provisions to many more of our fellow citizens. It was the stage 3 debate before the passing of the 2003 act that set us off on this road.
It appears that no other members wish to speak so I will allow the last word to Margaret Mitchell—as long as she does not mention Jack Vettriano.
I would like the minister to clarify something: initially, is it not taxpayers' money and lottery money that will fund this?
No. It is for communities themselves to raise funds to secure the opportunity to buy land that is of interest to them. Obviously, those communities can apply for lottery funding and I hope that they will. That would obviously assist them in bringing more land into community ownership.
Is it merely lottery money that they have access to, and not taxpayers' money?
They are at liberty to apply to the New Opportunities Fund's Scottish land fund, and I hope that many more people will do so to take advantage of the opportunity to bring land into community ownership.
At least some of us think that there will be benefits for communities that take advantage of the land fund. Does the Executive intend to monitor that benefit in years to come? I believe that, following some community buyouts, people are already starting to pay back some of the money that they were able to raise.
Lottery money is not the same as taxpayers' money. People contribute to the lottery voluntarily; there is no compulsion. However, as members know, the Executive liaises with colleagues in DCMS on the best use of lottery funds, which are raised for good causes. I believe that extending community ownership to more communities is a good cause. It will allow communities to take a direct interest in land, which could lead to social, economic and environmental benefits. With my colleague Frank McAveety, who is the minister responsible, I will be liaising with colleagues at DCMS. Like the convener, we will want to consider how communities respond to the new opportunity. We will want to assist them, in any way we can, to buy land for which they have registered an interest and from which they may gain social, economic and environmental benefits.
We were wondering what you meant by "DCMS", but I take it that it is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Yes. Sorry. It is easy to fall into acronym-speak.
As there are no further questions, I will put the question.
I do not agree.
In that case, there will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
That the Justice 1 Committee recommends that the draft Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2004 be approved.
I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance this morning.
Thank you, convener.
That brings us to the end of our agenda. I remind members that the next meeting of our committee will be on Wednesday 5 May in committee room 2. At that meeting, we will have an informal briefing from the Scottish Executive on the Civil Partnership Bill; we will take evidence on the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill from the bill team; and we will consider a statutory instrument.
Meeting closed at 10:19.