Justice 1 Committee, 29 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Official Report 298KB pdf

---

Proposed Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences Bill

Agenda item 7 is consideration of whether to appoint an adviser for the proposed bill to protect children and prevent sexual offences. I refer members to the note prepared by the clerk, which invites the committee

"to consider whether it wishes to appoint an adviser to assist it in its consideration of the proposed Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill."

I ask members to think about the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill, which we have been dealing with, and our initial thoughts about that, which might have been that the bill was small and quite straightforward. The proposed bill might not be large, but it might be equally complex. We have not yet seen it, but in the light of what I have said, members might want to consider whether an adviser would assist the process.

I think that certain evidential problems will have to be considered and we should ensure that we get things right. Having an adviser to consider the implications of such problems would certainly be helpful.

I agree with Margaret Mitchell in that respect, but suspect that we differ on whether the bill is required, or even possible in evidential terms, albeit that I think that there is no difference in our wish to protect children from the kind of offences that the bill addresses. On that basis, there is a substantial need for the committee to have an informed adviser. I make the additional point that the matter is not simply about having legal advice—it is about having expert advice that touches on matters of technology.

That is a good point.

It might be helpful to say that the British Computer Society maintains a list of people who are willing to provide advice on technological matters. I say that only because I know about that list, but I am sure that there are other sources.

Okay. If members are minded to consider Stewart Stevenson's suggestion, they could consider the person specification for the adviser and try to determine whether someone is available who has that added expertise. If they are not, we may have to ask a society such as that suggested by Stewart Stevenson for additional input in some way. Given the nature of the proposed legislation, that would be helpful.

Some lecturers certainly concentrate on that area of law. A number of them have written to me, as I have been concerned about grooming in the past. There is certainly an interest out there and a section of the legal community that is particularly exercised about the matter and that has—I hope—the necessary expertise.

Paper J1/S2/04/30/11 suggests a specification for the duties of an adviser. Do members agree in principle to the appointment of an adviser and to the suggested role that the adviser would play, as outlined in paragraph 5? The role is fairly standard.

Members indicated agreement.

It has therefore been agreed in principle that we will appoint an adviser and we have agreed their duties. We will consider the person specification in the light of Stewart Stevenson's comments on the expert advice that we will need. I invite members to agree that the committee will meet in private to discuss a person specification, as we will be discussing individuals. We normally take that approach.

I am happy to support meeting in private to discuss individuals, but I am not sure whether you are saying that we should discuss the specifications that the individual should fulfil.

We have just agreed the principle that we will appoint an adviser and their list of duties. That will be shown in the Official Report.

That is fine.

What I am asking is, do members agree that, when they are given a list of potential advisers, we should meet in private, as we normally do, to protect the identities of the individuals?

That would be entirely sensible.

I support that proposal.

Members indicated agreement.

I propose to suspend the meeting for a few minutes to give Sylvia Jackson a chance to get here. If she does not appear, I propose to continue the meeting.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—