Hansard

It shows what a varied life the members of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee have that this morning we were all engaged in a battle of ideas and wills, and this afternoon we are agreeing—essentially—on a piece of legislation. The Official Report shows that during stage 2 of the bill, Brian Monteith noted that we voted in a variety of different ways. Column 3910 is the only recorded instance of Irene McGugan and me voting on different sides, but as I was supported only by Brian Monteith, I suspect that Irene was right in the circumstances—it is always wise to change one's mind.

The bill is essentially the last brick in the wall, and results from the Cullen inquiry into the shootings in Dunblane. It has taken so long to put that brick into the wall because of the difficult issue at the heart of the bill. The difficulty is balancing the undoubted need to protect our children against the obvious need for natural justice for those who are accused. That has been the central difficulty for every member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee during the passage of the bill. It was a difficulty during stage 1 and it became an acute difficulty during stage 2, because we listened carefully to a variety of organisations that had genuine fears about the balance being struck. In particular, I mention the STUC, which was concerned about some of the bill's implications for employment practices. A variety of others, such as the NHS Confederation, gave evidence to the committee, but we were most struck by the evidence from children's charities and parents.

It has taken some time for me to be persuaded that the balance is right—I am not totally persuaded as yet. It is clearly the will of the committee and the chamber that the bill should pass, and do so without opposition. However, we should maintain concern about some of the key aspects of the bill. Ian Jenkins indicated that well in his speech.

There is, for example, the issue of tribunals. The bill itself does not establish any independent tribunals; instead, it establishes a procedure for which the minister is responsible. She has said on more than one occasion that she will devolve responsibility for that to another group, which will presumably be made up of senior civil servants. I concur with the Justice 1 Committee, which said in its report on the bill that it would have been better to establish an independent tribunal system. However, that was not the will of the committee when it finally came to a vote. That said, we should bear the issue in mind, because in time it might be necessary to consider it.

I am very glad that we have dealt with defamation and with one of the issues in connection with provisional listing, but we have not dealt with other issues in that regard. I return to the point that the bill might create a unique concept that might be known as being provisionally guilty. I accept the reason for doing so and that there is a need to protect our children. I also accept that, in the light of the Cullen inquiry into Dunblane, there might be a need to recognise that some people are guilty although they cannot be totally found out at a crucial time because of the nature of their actions. That said, I am still uncomfortable with some of the bill's detail—I see Ian Jenkins indicating his assent to that remark. We will have to move forward with the bill and examine carefully how it is implemented.

Finally, I want to thank not only the individual committee members, the minister and others with whom we have worked, but the clerks to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, who bore the brunt of the work on the 81 amendments—a record total—that I lodged at stage 2. It is appropriate that one of those clerks is sitting in one of the hot seats today to watch what happens at the very end of the process.