Official Report 283KB pdf
Judiciary (Freemasons) (PE306)
We have three interesting petitions before us this morning. The first is petition PE306, from Thomas Minogue, which members have already seen. When we previously considered the petition, which is about freemasonry and the judiciary, we agreed to consider it again. We have received further information from Mr Minogue about the judiciary and membership of the Speculative Society. Members will note that we have written to the Minister for Justice, whose response is that he sees no need for a change in the current requirements. I invite members to make comments and suggestions on how to deal with the petition.
I know that we have already written to the minister and received a response from him. However, the committee was not totally satisfied with the response. Without entering into constant correspondence back and forward, I would favour the committee writing to the minister again urging the consideration of declarations of interest by the judiciary, perhaps as part of the new judicial appointments procedure. That would be one way of getting round the problem, as the procedure would be open and might satisfy some of the issues that have been raised, both in the past and today.
I support Scott Barrie's proposal. The petition deals with the serious issue of declarations of interest. Members of Parliament are now required to declare their interests, so I think that we should pursue the matter with the minister and say quite clearly that the practices that have been adopted by the Scottish Parliament should be spread to the judiciary as well.
On the basis that I would not join any club that would have me as a member, I declare that I am certainly not masonic. It was Groucho Marx, not Karl Marx, who said that.
It is useful to bear in mind what MSPs are enjoined to do: to declare an interest when it touches on the matter under consideration or might be thought to do so. That latter point is the most important. It is up to all of us who hold public office, of whatever kind, to be absolutely scrupulous and open. Judges should generally follow the same dictum. However, I am reminded of the phrase, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes," or, "Who will guard the guards?" If I misquote the Latin, I apologise. In other words, there is a point at which we must trust people whom we have put into office to act according to their own code. We should not pursue the matter ruthlessly, but we should certainly take the steps that Scott Barrie proposed, as they would add to transparency and confidence in the system.
I agree with Scott Barrie, George Lyon and Stewart Stevenson. It is not suggested that the judges' oath is not enough, but there is a public perception about members of societies that have a secretive reputation, whether that society is the freemasons or another organisation. If we ask the minister to reconsider the matter, we should be clear that we are talking about any group or society in which there could be deemed to be a perception of secrecy where there could be a declaration. If the committee agrees that we should to write to Jim Wallace, we should refer to all organisations that may fall into that category. Does any member dissent from that?
There might be a difficulty in defining excessive secrecy, but I will not fall out with any member over the matter.
We have not been given a satisfactory explanation of why we are not taking the route that I think England has already taken. There has not been a strong enough answer as to why, in the interests of transparency in the judiciary—which Stewart Stevenson mentioned—there should not at least be a declaration from judges. It remains to be seen whether Bill Aitken is correct in saying that the new system is transparent enough. We have not had an opportunity to consider that matter in detail, but the committee may wish to take it up in the future.
Members indicated agreement.
Parental Alienation Syndrome<br />(Sibling Contact) (PE438)
Petition PE438, from George McAuley, on behalf of the UK Men's Movement, calls for procedures to enable children to establish a right of contact with siblings. Again, there is correspondence for members to study, including correspondence from the Public Petitions Committee.
I do not doubt the difficulties that siblings and half-siblings have in trying to maintain contact if they live in different households and if legal orders, such as residence orders, are in force. However, I understood that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 sought to make such situations easier to resolve. Any person can make an application under section 11 of the act, not just a parent. A sibling can apply. In Scotland, siblings have instructed legal proceedings. I am not suggesting that that is the route that we ought to go down, as such matters are better resolved without seeking access through the courts. However, in complex and difficult situations, a young person does not have to be 12 to be able to instruct a solicitor. They can be younger than that. I know of an eight-year-old who instructed a solicitor independently of their parent.
It is difficult to see what can be done. There will be unanimous sympathy for the aim of the petition to make contacts easier, but I am not sure that we can do anything. The legislation is comparatively recent and seems to be working. I do not think that we can advance the matter much further. However, if something were to come to light, we would want to respond.
I am reluctant to leave our consideration of the petition at this point because I am unclear about the practical effect of the provisions in the 1995 act. I have not had the opportunity to talk to people who have had experience of how the act operates. Like many MSPs, committee members will have received correspondence from Grandparents Apart, which makes similar points about the difficulties of using the provisions of the act. The legal advice that I have had is that the same provisions apply in both cases—for grandparents and siblings. I do not know whether the presumption for access is strong enough. It applies for parents in terms of custody and access, but I am not clear about whether it applies in relation to siblings and other family members.
The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 states that anyone who can demonstrate that they are a significant person can make an application under section 11. That clearly applies to siblings, grandparents and other significant adults in a young person's life.
That is a helpful suggestion. We could then find out whether the provisions are adequate and take the matter from there. Does the committee agree that we should take that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Obscene Material) (PE476)
Finally, petition PE476, from Catherine Harper, on behalf of Scottish Women Against Pornography, calls for the enforcement and a full review of legislation on the display of obscene material. Do members wish to comment or make any suggestions on the petition?
I have some sympathy with the point that is being made, but I have a difficulty in knowing how to define "obscene" or "indecent". That has been a long-running legal issue; it has been the subject of argument for at least 40 years. One of the options suggested by the clerks is to ask the minister to commission further research on the link between pornography and violence against women. We should perhaps pursue that option in an attempt to move the matter forward on a factual basis.
I would be interested to see some follow-up on the matter in relation to the law. Obscenity was defined for me years ago in my council days when we had to view uncertificated films. If material was likely to pervert or corrupt, it was regarded as obscene. However, I never found a satisfactory definition of what was likely to pervert or corrupt, because different people can be affected by different things. The issue is difficult.
I agree that definitions are difficult in this area. I have a lot of sympathy with the thrust of the petition and Stewart Stevenson's suggestion on getting further evidence of a causal link might be a good starting point. I remember from my youth one of the greatest groups ever in Britain, the Sex Pistols. When they released their album, "Never Mind The Bollocks", there was a huge outcry and someone tried to have the album banned under legislation on indecent advertising. However, when the case came to court, it was found that the album could not be banned under that legislation, because one person's definition is different from someone else's. Because the law does not give a definition, we get ourselves into a difficult situation.
I am happy to go along with that. The only other issue for me is that I do not really understand the background to what is driving the petition, such as an identified increase in obscene material. The report that is referred to is "Preventing Violence Against Women: Action Across the Scottish Executive". Perhaps the petition has just been lying around for a while, but I would like a bit more clarity from the petitioner on why she feels that a full review is needed now. She is calling for a full review of legislation, especially the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. Do other members know of anything of note that has happened to drive the petition?
There is nothing that I am aware of.
I make a personal observation that the length of the top shelves in shops appears to have increased. In some cases, we are now talking about the top two shelves. It is a salami change, if you like; it has happened a little bit at a time over a relatively long period. I suspect that the petitioner has got to the point of saying, "This is enough." I have some sympathy with that view. I am not aware of a specific incident that might have inspired the petition; the gradual increase in the display of pornography seems likely to have led to it.
Would the committee be happy to add to our list of things to do that we write to the petitioner asking whether anything in particular concerns her and has prompted her to petition the Parliament?
Members indicated agreement.
We shall also take up Stewart Stevenson's suggestion and ask the Executive to consider whether there is any proven link between pornography and violence against women, which is the issue that lies at the heart of the petition.
Previous
Item in Private