We now move to item 7 on the agenda.
I am not happy with Jim Wallace's response. Someone who submits an application to an employer has no details about the criminal record certificate that might be sent to the employer unbeknown to the applicant—the minister explained that such a situation might arise due to the likely volume of applications. I would have thought that a system could be implemented whereby an individual was informed if a certificate was sent. The individual could then choose either to withdraw his application or to support it with a statement indicating that he queried the detail of the certificate.
Are you talking about something akin to an appeals mechanism, which the petitioner specifically asked about?
It is wrong that a bad report, based on unsubstantiated information, should be made up about an individual, particularly if it is passed on to other people without the individual knowing its content.
The minister obviously believes that the delay would disadvantage a lot of people who would not be adversely affected by the certificates. We have put the petitioner's points to the minister on more than one occasion and we have seen his response. Do you wish to suggest further action in addition to what is in the clerk's note?
It would be easy for the minister—or whoever the application for a certificate is made to—to inform the individual concerned of the response that is being sent about him to whoever is inquiring about his employment prospects. It would be administratively acceptable and reasonable to do something like that.
I suggest that I take the petition away to examine the points that Phil Gallie has made and to consider whether we can do anything further. I will bring it back to the committee next week with either a proposal for different action or the suggestion that we take the action proposed in the note from the clerk.
Thank you, convener.
The second petition is PE265 from Mr George McAulay on behalf of the UK Men's Movement. This morning, some additional information—a letter from the Scottish Executive and an e-mail in response to that letter—was circulated to members. If members have not received the information, copies are available. Do members wish to comment on the petition?
The minister seems to have missed the petitioner's point about anonymity. I accept that, in most circumstances, the information that an individual has been charged with an offence is made public—that may be quite right. However, cases of rape or sexual offences are different, because the victim's identity is held back, particularly if the victim is a child. That does not happen in other criminal cases. Irrespective of whether a man or a woman is charged with rape or another sexual offence, there is justification for saying that the identity of the person charged should not be declared until he or she is found guilty.
I have sat through more rape trials than I care to think about. I am not unsympathetic to Phil Gallie's comments. I accept that being accused of rape, indecency towards one's children or any other sexual offence is different from being accused of other crimes. There is a question of degree. Mud sticks. If one were accused of theft but then acquitted, the mud would still stick. However, I accept that being accused of a sexual offence is different.
The Public Petitions Committee took that position. It did not take points 2, 3 and 4 any further but wrote to the minister on the first point. The minister's reply is attached to the clerk's note.
I might not have picked up Phil Gallie correctly. Was he saying that his concern is that if you identify the accused you might consequently identify the victim, or is his concern restricted to the disclosure of the identity of the accused? There may be circumstances where, if you identify the accused, there are implications for the victim. In that much more narrow sense, I would have some sympathy with Phil Gallie's concerns.
It is quite unusual for that to happen, although I am not saying that it never happens.
Part of the problem is the salacious interest of the press in such cases. Mud sticks when somebody's name is blazoned across the tabloids. That does not happen when somebody local is charged with stealing something from Woolworth's. Mud may stick a bit in a small community, but we are talking about somebody having their life destroyed. Is there a case for restrictions on reporting such cases?
I raised the unusual situation that Euan Robson picked up on—which arose in a constituency case in Falkirk—when I questioned representatives from the Crown Office. The accused had been named and, as a result, people were able to identify the victim. Although the victim was not named, the local paper picked up on the case and it quickly became public knowledge. The attitude of the accused and their family towards the victim and their family changed entirely as soon as the case hit the news. The victim's family was victimised because the accused's family saw their son as having had his name blackened.
We have written to the minister. There is no point in writing to him again, because we will get the same reply.
There is a victim-accused axis here. In certain circumstances, it may be possible to provide protection to the victim and their family by not providing the name of the accused.
I undertake to consult the clerks and to draw up a list of organisations to which we can write. Members can suggest other people to whom we might write. Once we get the responses we can consider where to take it from there. Is that okay?
I am happy with that, but I point out to Gordon Jackson the difficulty in identifying false charges of rape, which do happen, as the instance in Ayr demonstrated. However, we are concentrating on the right issues, so I am happy.
Phil Gallie also mentioned cases of abuse against children. We might put that in the melting pot as well.
Meeting continued in private until 16:08.