Good morning. One or two organisations have raised with us concerns about the definition of human trafficking in the bill but, having looked through the written evidence, I note that the Edinburgh Bar Association, the Faculty of Advocates and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service take a different view on the matter. For the sake of clarity, I will put on record some of their key observations.
The Edinburgh Bar Association says that it
“welcomes, in principle, the introduction of a single offence to be known as the offence of human trafficking. We note that the offence is drawn sufficiently broadly to criminalise those whose roles may be ancillary to some extent—i.e. the ‘facilitators’—but whose participation is nonetheless an essential element in the process of trafficking of human beings.”
I will not take too long over this, convener, but I think that it is worth bringing these points to the witnesses’ attention.
The Faculty of Advocates says:
“We welcome in principle the introduction of a single offence, in the interests of clarity.”
Finally, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service makes the short statement that it
“supports the move to consolidate the existing law in order to provide a single Human Trafficking offence and a single offence of Exploitation both of which will assist prosecutors with preparation and presentation of evidence.”
Therefore, the people who are involved in prosecuting these cases seem to support the bill
If we read through the evidence, we can see that such support is quite substantial. In light of the evidence that we have been presented with, can the witnesses give us some views and information that might assist us in the long run?