Good morning everyone and welcome to the 4th meeting in 2010 of the Equal Opportunities Committee. I remind all those present—including members—that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be switched off completely, as they interfere with the sound system even when they are switched to silent.
The issue is complex. If possible, it would be good to get the relevant minister to come to the committee to answer our questions. Given that there is no need to make a decision about an amendment until more than two weeks from now, we have time for that. Once we have a bit more detail on the situation and the Government thinking on it, we could take it from there.
For clarification, we understood that we had to lodge our amendment by 25 February, but the number of amendments that have been lodged for the bill means that that is no longer the case.
As there are no further comments, I will summarise our discussion. The committee will invite an appropriate minister to give evidence at our next meeting, which should be on 9 March, after which we will discuss the evidence before coming to an agreement on whether to proceed with the amendment. Are we agreed?
I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that we need to probe the issue further . As I have said, I have some concerns on the matter, given the two pieces of legislation that are coming into play. We are discussing an amendment to legislation on criminal convictions, but there is also legislation on disclosure and the protection of vulnerable groups. In considering which minister to invite to committee, we should consider the minister with responsibility for the protection of vulnerable groups. The subject is being looked at across the board. My big concern is that we could create a situation whereby, if we were to separate out a small group or specific offence, we could leave vulnerable groups open to exposure to someone who should not be working with them. Our focus should be vulnerable groups.
One challenge that we always have in the Parliament with regard to legislation is that we do not have a revising chamber. Given the nature of complicated bits of legislation that bump into each other, we could—if we do not seek further clarification—be in danger of creating an unforeseen circumstance or consequence that would materialise only further down the line. Malcolm Chisholm’s proposal is helpful. It would help us to gain an understanding of where the Government sits on all this.
My understanding from the clerks to the Justice Committee is that, if the amendment goes ahead, the earliest that the Justice Committee would consider it would be at its meeting on 16 March, in which case our amendment would have to be lodged by 11 March. That gives the committee the opportunity to discuss the issue further at its meeting of 9 March.
The issue is complex. There is no doubt about that. Malcolm Chisholm’s proposal is worth while.
I welcome the idea of going a bit further in our discussion on the issues involved, which are complex. Christina McKelvie spoke about vulnerable groups. We are considering the matter because of our inquiry into women offenders and our discussion on what happens to ex-offenders. People who are convicted under section 46 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 may often be in just such a vulnerable group. It is important for us to work on the issue.
Previous
Attendance