Petition
Justice System (Child Sex Offenders) (PE862)
I welcome Paul Martin, who joins us for item 2. Petition PE862 was submitted by Margaret Ann Cummings. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct a full review of the current system for dealing with and monitoring convicted child sex offenders. The Public Petitions Committee referred the petition to us. Members have received a cover note from the clerk, which sets out the background. The purpose of today's consideration is to ask the committee what actions, if any, it wishes to take. A number of choices are available to us.
Before we make our decision, I ask Paul Martin, who has a constituency involvement in the petition and has spoken on the petitioner's behalf at the Public Petitions Committee, to say a few brief words.
As the committee will know, Margaret Ann Cummings—who is here today—submitted her petition on 7 June last year. She has followed its progress closely. Although it is recognised that the Executive has responded to the petition in legislation, there are a number of outstanding issues, which are set out clearly in the members' paper. One of those is housing allocation policy as it relates to the relocation of registered sex offenders. Another issue is how effective Megan's law is in the States.
One proposal that I suggested to the Public Petitions Committee, which it has referred to this committee, was identifying a number of issues that arise from the petition that Margaret Ann Cummings has lodged and inquiring further into whether the legislation that the Executive produced can be added to. Another idea is to consider the best examples of managing sex offenders throughout the world. Members will appreciate that, given the concerns that Margaret Ann Cummings and the community have raised since the tragedy of Mark Cummings's murder, we want to learn the lessons. The Executive has responded positively, but we could still constructively deal with several outstanding issues.
The committee might wish to consider an inquiry, which could include evidence from holding a videoconference with experts in the States who deal with Megan's law. I know that we have taken evidence in videoconferences with other parts of the world; I remember doing that as part of the Justice 1 Committee for its prison estates review inquiry.
As the Parliament progresses towards the end of the second session, the committee has quite a workload. That is not an excuse, but a fact of life. Another bill is to come to us. However, the issue that the petition raises is very serious and has been well aired in the media. The issue has arisen in the Parliament in various forms and not just through the petition.
Does the committee wish to seek written evidence on any of the matters that the petition raises, to seek oral evidence from the petitioner, the minister or any other relevant individual or group or to take any other action? Paul Martin described a modern way of taking international evidence. I open comments to committee members.
Obviously, everyone in Scotland is aware of the tragic and awful murder of Mark Cummings. Paul Martin was correct to say that the Executive and the Parliament have taken a range of measures that seek to deal with the management of people who have been convicted of child sex offences. The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which we passed last week, and Professor Irving's report, "Registering the Risk", are positive steps forward.
Paul Martin raised a couple of issues that Margaret Ann Cummings relates in her response to the Scottish Executive's letter. He mentioned housing allocation and comparable systems abroad—he referred to Megan's law. Margaret Ann Cummings also mentions issues such as the assuming of an alias, and the reclassification of child sex offenders to distinguish paedophiles from other sex offenders. She mentions other issues, but those are the four main points that I recollect from her response to the Executive's letter.
As the convener said, it is a fact of life that as we approach the end of the session, the committee's time is constrained. I suggest that important issues remain to be examined fully. I accept entirely what Paul Martin said on behalf of his constituent and what his constituent said in her response to the Executive's letter. However, if we examined the issues, what we did would be rather piecemeal, given what is on our plate.
I suggest that we refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee, not as a matter of batting it back to that committee so that it remains in limbo, but with regard to the issues that are outstanding. I did not know this, but I have been informed that the Public Petitions Committee is now able to institute a full-scale inquiry. I think that that committee would be in a much better position—and, I hope, have more time—than this committee to examine comprehensively the important issues that remain. I suggest that constructively as a means by which the outstanding matters could be interrogated by a committee of the Parliament.
Bill Butler has ably set out the differences that remain. There are other issues, including the proposal for specific courts and how many sex offenders would be settled into an area. Those are complex issues that require detailed responses. I am sympathetic to the call for a more thorough inquiry; however, I disagree with Bill Butler's suggestion. This committee has done quite a bit of work on the petition so far. We have received a briefing from the officials in taking forward the Irving recommendations and we have had an evidence session with the minister. We have also scrutinised some of the proposals to change the legislation, as Bill Butler outlined. I therefore think that it would not be a big burden on the committee to extend our work to look in detail at some of the issues that Paul Martin has raised.
When we considered our advance work programme, there were a couple of slots for potential evidence sessions. I suggest that, if the committee feels that it wants to do more work on the petition—which I believe would be a good thing—we should ask the minister to come back not only to update us on where the Executive is on implementing some of the non-statutory Irving recommendations, but to respond to the further points in the petition. There are other issues, which the committee raised in connection with the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill—for example, regarding children's hearings—that require a degree of consideration by the Executive in written evidence. We could perhaps get that in time to decide whether we want to have the minister before us in one of our sessions. I would be keen on our doing that as a minimum.
I am more relaxed about whether we should take comparative evidence from elsewhere in the world on the specific aspect of Megan's law. I would not be opposed to that. The question is whether SPICe is able to undertake a desk exercise on whether research has been carried out, to enable us to decide whether the committee needs to take evidence directly. I am open to either of those suggestions. I would be interested to know what happens elsewhere, as it is a complex issue.
As the first stage, however, I would welcome an update from the Executive to the committee. We would then be able to decide whether we should invite the minister and the petitioner to give us oral evidence.
I am sure that the whole committee is aware of the public's anxieties about the current process for handling convicted child sex offenders. The petition highlights the other side of a report that was produced by Professor Irving. I note that the petitioner lodged the petition almost a year ago, and I am pretty sure that she will be anxious for us to get on with this as soon as possible. I lodged a bill that took two and a half years to come before the Parliament for debate. The petitioner will be looking for an assurance that the matter will be dealt with thoroughly and the complexities gone into. She will also want an assurance that the matter will be dealt with promptly, as she has waited for a year already. My concern—given the workload that the clerks outlined to us last week, which frightened us to death—is whether the committee can deal with the issue soon enough.
The petitioner is probably anxious for the petition to be dealt with as early and as thoroughly as possible. However, we must consider what is the earliest at which we can deal with the petition and when we can do it justice by taking video evidence from abroad. Paul Martin's suggestion about that was reasonable because the petition deals with a worldwide phenomenon. We should invite the petitioner and the minister—and others—to give evidence to the committee. It seems to me that we would need at least two evidence-taking sessions, and perhaps another for video evidence.
I am happy for the committee to deal with the petition. I agree with Jeremy Purvis that, given that the committee has already considered Professor Irving's report, it would make sense for us to continue the matter. However, what can we say to the petitioner about when we can deal with the petition? It seems to me that we cannot deal with it before the summer recess, so can we figure it in for after the recess? I am sure that the petitioner's concern is not whether the Justice 2 Committee in particular deals with the petition, but that whichever committee deals with it starts gathering evidence timeously and ensures that the petition is not lost in a morass. I suppose that that does not help our consideration of whether we can do the petition justice in the next six months. That is an open question on which I seek guidance from the convener and the clerks.
I agree with what Colin Fox said. It is important that the petition be dealt with as quickly as possible, irrespective of which committee deals with it. The Public Petitions Committee might be able to deal with it more quickly than we can. It might also be more appropriate to send the petition to the Public Petitions Committee again because of the cross-cutting nature of what must be considered—for example, housing policy, with which this committee is not used to dealing. The Public Petitions Committee may be more cross cutting in considering all aspects, rather than just the legal aspects, of preventing reoffending by child sex offenders.
I agree with much of what has been said. The Executive has already dealt with a number of points that the committee raised and its proposals are welcome. Some points may be dealt with by the sentencing bill that we will get later in the year, but we do not know yet. In the context of our workload, the convener referred to another bill coming to the committee. However, if memory serves me right, we will deal with two bills: a member's bill and an Executive bill.
It is almost a year to the day since the petition was lodged. The petitioner has a right to expect the Parliament to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. I would prefer the Justice 2 Committee to deal with the petition. Jeremy Purvis made good points about relevant work that we have already done, including the areas that we debated last week and other issues with which we have dealt. I agree with Paul Martin's suggestion of taking video evidence from abroad. We should take video evidence from America or wherever, if that is appropriate.
I am happy for this committee to deal with the petition, but I think that we should undertake a full and proper inquiry. That would mean not only inviting the minister, the petitioner and other interested groups and bodies to give evidence, but taking video evidence. For example, there is a specialised person in the sex offenders unit in HMP Peterhead from whom we could take evidence. A full inquiry would entail inviting a range of bodies and individuals to give evidence and undertaking visits. However, given our timetable between now and the end of the parliamentary year, I do not think that we could do justice to such an inquiry. I would not like to start with, for example, an evidence session of an hour with the minister or somebody else, then just say, "Well, that's as far as we can take it because we don't have any time." Either we do an inquiry properly or we find another committee that can. It is important for an inquiry to be done properly and promptly. I struggle to see how we can fit an inquiry into our timetable, without evidence to the contrary. I agree with Maureen Macmillan's point about housing policy, but I think that the petition deals mostly with justice aspects, so it would be appropriate for the Justice 2 Committee to deal with it, if we can find time to do so.
That was a helpful set of comments. The clerks have advised me that there would be some time on Tuesday 20 June and Tuesday 27 June to deal with the petition. However, given our current scheduled workload, we already run the risk of requiring two meetings a week, rather than one, when we come back in September.
Members also raised the point of committee members' expertise. Since I have been a member of the committee, we have been unable to conduct an inquiry, which is an essential part of parliamentary committees' work, because of our legislative schedule. I have been approached by other committees about which committee is most relevant to consider the Christmas Day and New Year's Day Trading (Scotland) Bill. The question of whether we will try to accommodate an inquiry involves the Minister for Parliamentary Business, the Parliamentary Bureau, the Minister for Justice and the Executive—obviously, because of the work that it has already done and its input—but also the Public Petitions Committee. We have to consider whether it could allocate time.
I support the idea that there should be a full-scale inquiry. We should either do it properly or not do it at all. I have great sympathy with the idea that the Parliament should consider the matter because it is a matter of public concern. I have no argument with that whatsoever, and I agree that we would have to take evidence from the various agencies that have been mentioned. Those agencies have to implement current legislation and possible future legislation and to provide appropriate staffing. Any committee that considers the matter will have to deal not just with the petitioner and the ministers but with the other organisations that are involved, many of which have been mentioned this afternoon.
I wonder whether the committee would allow me, before next week's meeting, to discuss the matter with the Minister for Parliamentary Business, the Parliamentary Bureau, the Minister for Justice and the Public Petitions Committee to see whether we can agree on where the petition should be placed and whether one of the committees can accommodate it, bearing it in mind that the Justice 2 Committee has expertise in the field and that we have finished dealing with the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. However, if we are to make the right decision, we have to seek other people's views because it is the bureau and the Minister for Parliamentary Business that are in charge of the workload. We have some input into that, but we have to seek others' views before we can say yes or no.
I get the impression that the committee is minded to do the work, but our ability to do it justice is restricted because we have a compressed timetable before the Parliament is dissolved next year for the election. If we start the work and then the Parliament is dissolved there is no guarantee that another committee will be willing to carry on where we left off. That is unsatisfactory for the petitioner and others, given the importance of the issue. I ask the committee to give me guidance on what it would like me to do.
You sum up the position well, convener. The issue is a matter of serious public concern—everybody knows that. Colin Fox and others made the point that we want the matter to be dealt with thoroughly and promptly, given that it is a year since the petition was lodged.
I agree that you should discuss with the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Public Petitions Committee the best way to progress these important matters. That is the best way forward. I agree that, in the next week, you should try to come to an arrangement whereby we can deal with these outstanding and serious matters.
I agree whole-heartedly with that. However, there is something that we can do now. The correspondence from the Minister for Justice in response to the petition is at least seven months old. We could write to her and ask for a response to the outstanding issues that Margaret Ann Cummings mentions in her letter and an update on where the Executive is with implementing the Irving recommendations. We can do that this week without prejudicing any other decision that is taken, and that will start the ball rolling. Whatever type of inquiry is held and whoever does it, it would be useful for us to do that. At least we will be taking action immediately.
I have great sympathy with that view. Are there any other comments?
I appreciate that there are timetabling issues. David Davidson used to be a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee and will appreciate the timetabling challenges that all committees face. In fact, I am meant to be at a Local Government and Transport Committee meeting at the moment—it is dealing with stage 2 of a bill.
As has been said, the petition was lodged on 7 June 2005. It will soon be the second anniversary of Mark Cummings's tragic death. The petitioner and members of the local community have raised their concerns constructively. The community has engaged with the Parliament and the Executive—it has met the minister—to change the current regime. I stress that concerns have been raised constructively; no vigilantes, who people always picture when communities are affected by such matters, have been involved.
There must be a committee inquiry of some sort. The petition has been batted about. The Public Petitions Committee considered it and referred it to ministers, and it has now come to the Justice 2 Committee. I am sure that we all appreciate the petitioner's anxieties in that respect.
I appreciate what has been said about not concluding the work by the end of the session, but we can at least have a target of completing it by then and dealing with key aspects of the matter. One aspect that alarms me incredibly is housing allocation. There is no housing allocation strategy. I do not want to get into the petition's details—I know that the committee is not doing so—but that is an example of the kind of issue that must be identified to be worked on. If key work is identified at an early stage, the Executive can respond in the interim even before the committee concludes its work. It would be wrong for the Executive to say that it will wait until the Justice 2 Committee completes its work before it takes any action. Influencing the debate while the issues develop would be helpful. Obviously, committee evidence taking is a powerful part of the Parliament's work. The committee could take evidence and influence how people think.
There is a wide range of views on housing allocation, and we must consider how to deal with it. As Jeremy Purvis said, we could pull together the existing evidence and mark it against what is in Margaret Ann Cummings's petition. The petition is good—it is clear about what it wants to achieve. We could consider the outstanding issues and have an inquiry. If that inquiry is not concluded, at least there will have been some influence. I appreciate the pressures that the committee is under, but if we do as I have suggested, we will serve the petitioner and the local community well. That community has served us well by being constructive and patient and reflecting on the issues that we face.
I hear what you say, and you have heard what the committee has said. I think that we should make a formal decision the week after next when we have heard from others. In the meantime, I have no objection to writing to the Minister for Justice to obtain information that would be useful to any committee. Doing so would give us an opportunity to negotiate with people who have control over the workload that results from the Government's legislative programme. We respond on behalf of the Parliament and the people to proposed Government legislation.
I have a question for Paul Martin. Earlier, I said that most of the issues that are involved are justice issues, and it is clear that a justice inquiry should be undertaken in the round. I am not trying to say that one issue is more important than another, but Paul Martin said that housing allocation had not been tackled at all. If housing allocation is one of the primary outstanding problems—I know that there are others—would it be relevant for the Communities Committee to tackle it if it has enough time to do so?
I will clarify what I said. Housing allocation is an issue for the Communities Committee, but the release programme for sex offenders is a justice issue. There is a crossover, but the primary issue is the monitoring process that is followed on the release of registered sex offenders. Significant progress has been made, but significant outstanding issues must be considered. It would be helpful to do so.
Thank you for so clearly expressing your views to the committee on behalf of your constituent on a matter of great public concern. If you would kindly leave the matter with us, we will do our homework and find out what we can do. We need certain answers from other people before we can say yes or no to what has been asked and before we can refer the petition anywhere.
The public session of the meeting is now closed.
Meeting continued in private until 17:26.