Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
In the final week before summer recess, the Cabinet Secretary had a Parliamentary double billing, appearing firstly in front of the Justice Committee to answer questions about the about the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, and then hot footing it to the Equal Opportunities Committee where he answered questions as part of their inquiry into females in the justice system. There were also several justice questions in the Chamber.
The Justice Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill – Stage 1 evidence continues
The Committee began their meeting an hour earlier than usual in order to pack in a full agenda in their last meeting before the summer recess. It is customary to hear from the Government (or who ever is supporting the Bill) at the conclusion of Stage 1, and as the Committee has heard from the key witnesses in relation to this Bill already, today they were joined by the Cabinet Secretary. However, given that this legislation is so wide ranging, they decided to ask questions only about the criminal justice provisions in the Bill in this meeting, leaving the questioning on the licensing provisions until after the summer.
The Cabinet Secretary made an opening speech to the Committee, and after he outlined the extra money that the Government have already put into community sentences, he announced an extra £5.5 million over the next two years in order to achieve both a higher number of ‘more robust community sentences’ and to help ‘provide better support to offenders’ in the community. He said that most of this extra money would go to local authorities to help them clear their backlogs and achieve tighter turnaround times, and that this money could then be used to fund the new community payback orders (CPOs) if the Bill were to be passed. However, he said that the success of this Bill depended not only the availability of extra funding, but also about making wider changes such as ensuring information flows are improved and bureaucracy is removed for social workers.
He was asked firstly about the part of the Bill which sets out the purposes and principles of sentencing, and he said that although the Government’s position was that it was correct to state these principles to an offender at the point of sentencing, he would nonetheless be happy to consider any specific suggestions that the committee may have about how this could be improved, and he argued that these provisions were an important way of building public awareness and confidence in the sentencing processes. He was later asked by Nigel Don (SNP) about suggestions made to the Committee that it would be more appropriate to have ‘fairness’ as an overarching principle of sentencing, and he replied that, although fairness has an important role to play in sentencing, so too did other factors such the communicative message a sentence can give to society, or public protection, and he therefore argued that an overarching principle of only ’fairness’ may not be appropriate in this instance.
He was asked about inconsistency in sentencing, which has proved so controversial so far in Committee, and which is one of the arguments behind the creation of a sentencing council. He said that the Government were not drawing on the findings of the McLeish report, but rather on the Sentencing Commission for Scotland, which was created under the previous Scottish Executive, and which he was keen to point had ‘an august board’ comprising of senior and respected members of the judiciary. He disagreed with evidence given to the Committee that the proposed sentencing council would breach ECHR and would be unconstitutional, arguing that because judges would not bound by the sentencing council who would only provide guidance, this would not be the case.
Bill Butler (Lab) asked the Cabinet Secretary how the phrase ‘should have regard to’ should be interpreted by the judiciary, and the Cabinet Secretary replied that requirements for the courts to have regard to certain matters are well precedented in statute and the courts are aware what this means. He quoted evidence from the Lord Advocate about how this would operate in practice, emphasising again that if a sentencer wished to opt out of guidance on a particular occasion, they would be able to as long as they stated in court why they thought this would be appropriate.
He also disagreed with Nigel Don and Robert Brown (LD) that it may be inappropriate to have representatives from the police and the prosecution services on the sentencing council because because it may blur the separation of the different arms of Government. The Cabinet Secretary said that that the inclusion of agencies who are ‘at the coalface’ of the criminal justice system was essential given the breadth of experience they would bring when it came to making decisions about the protection of the public, and he did not see any conflict of interests that this may bring.
Cathy Craigie (Lab) put evidence from the Sheriff’s Association to him which argued that the parts of the Bill which say that the sentencing council should consider the financial cost of a custodial sentence when they decide on a tariff, where inappropriate, given that cost should not be a factor when it comes to passing sentence. Mr MacAskill again disagreed, saying that there was nothing in the legislation which said that they should chose the cheapest disposal, but rather that these were considerations which should be borne in mind in the spirit of ‘joined up working’ without putting constraints on courts.
He was asked about the provisions in the Bill for the presumptions against sentences of six months or less, and he said that it was important that if an offender is sentenced to a community payback order and they do not comply with it, then the option of sending them back to prison must remain. He refused to give specific examples of what a ‘less serious offence’ might be to Paul Martin (Lab), who wished to know what sort of offence profiles would not receive a custodial sentence, saying that this would remain an issue for the sentencing council. There were also discussions about the difficulties in giving guidelines which would be broad enough to incorporate the fact that Scottish common law allows a large degree of flexibility in dealing with common law offences.
He was asked about the provisions in the Bill dealing with community payback orders, and he reiterated the importance of ensuring that these are started as soon as possible after a sentencing being passed, and he said that the Bill would be working towards a target of seven days. There were some less than enlightening exchanges about what ‘visible’ community payback would mean, and about how the number of breaches can be reduced.
He also defended the provisions in the Bill which deal with serious and organised crime, saying that, although there is currently conspiracy legislation which can be used for this sort of crime, prosecuting people under it can at present be difficult. He also defended the very wide definition of serious and organised crime in the Bill, saying that he was relying on police and prosecutors to use their common sense when deciding when to use these laws, and he disagreed with evidence heard before the Committee that the problem lay more with the procedure and evidential law rather than the substance of the legal provisions.
The Cabinet secretary was asked about the retention of DNA of young offenders, and he confirmed that following the review into the matter carried out by Professor Fraser (who also recently gave evidence to the Committee on this issue), the Government were now considering proposals which would allow the retention of DNA of those under 18 in a limited number of cases. Paul Martin tried very hard to make the Secretary admit that there may be merit in storing an accused DNA indefinitely as has been the policy in England and Wales prior to the European Ruling which ruled this was against human rights, but Mr MacAskill said that the Scottish approach strikes the correct balance between civil liberties and public protection.
That concluded the lengthy session of Mr MacAskill’s evidence before the Committee. It is a credit to the Scottish Parliamentary system that such detailed questioning can be made of a member of the Government as part of Bill scrutiny. However, from the questioning it seems as though the Committee were not persuaded over several parts of the Bill, and this session did not appear to allay many of their concerns. However, we await to see how things progress after the summer recess, and the Cabinet Secretary will return before the Committee in the autumn to discuss the licensing parts of the Bill together with any other outstanding issues.
You can read all his evidence in the Official Report, and you can also watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. See also the CJScotland Newsblog
You can also read all the documents related to this Bill on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill Homepage
Equal Opportunities Committee
Inquiry into females in the justice system
The Cabinet Secretary hot–footed it from the Justice Committee to the Equal Opportunities Committee in order to give evidence as part of their inquiry into females in the justice system. This was the final session of oral evidence as part of this single issue Inquiry, and the Committee will no doubt produce its report with recommendations shortly after the Parliament reconvenes in the Autumn.
The Cabinet Secretary began by making an opening statement, in which he outlined the improvements that have been made in the provision of female offenders in custody over the past 10 years, and he paid tribute to the staff that have coped with the ever rising numbers of prisoners in Cornton Vale.
Sharon Grant from the Scottish Government answered questions about the gender equality assessment that have been carried out as part of the formulation of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, saying that the proposals on short term prisoners serving sentences in the community instead would mean that more holistic services could be provided to female offenders, and might also help prevent women from ‘falling through the net’ once they left prison. She also said that in the past, although the Government have met the legislative requirements to provide equalities impact assessments as part of their consideration in developing policy, they have recently been more imaginative about making sure that proposals will not impact disproportionately on women.
The Cabinet Secretary praised the 218 Centre, but said that it may be difficult to replicate this service throughout Scotland, and he said that different geographical areas and service providers must be encouraged to develop services that suit their locale. He also reiterated that it should not be the job of the prison service to provide a place of respite or care for women, and that a more meaningful sentence could attend to their needs in the community whilst also requiring them serve a sentence which would make them face up to the consequences of their offending. Ms Grant answered questions about how the CPO is being developed in order to help provide some of the services as part of community services that were previously provided in custody, and she also spoke about how the transfer of funds from the prison to the community would be managed in the event of CPOs being passed in their current form.
There were also discussions about community facing prisons and Tom Fox from the SPS said that although their preference is for a greater number of small units that are closer to where people come from, a balance needs to be struck between size and viability given that for specific services to be available within a prison a minimum number of prisoners would have to be there. He also said that the recent dispersal of women from women from Cornton Vale to other prisons throughout Scotland is because Cornton Vale is so overcrowded, and not because of a policy decision towards local prisons. He said that plans for future local facilities are heavily reliant on the level of the prison population, so it was difficult to make firm plans at this stage, but that it was safe to say there will always be some female offenders who require a specialised set of facilities in a central national prison.
Mr Fox also spoke about a women’s strategy that the SPS is in the early stages of developing together with partners, and he promised to give the Committee more information on this once this was more developed. Ms Grant also spoke about a change in approach to the way that programmes are evaluated within the Government, saying that there was a need to move away from a system based purely on numbers towards a consideration which also looked at which parts of an intervention were successful and which were not.
You can read all this evidence in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also access all the documents relating to this inquiry on the female offenders inquiry home page
The Chamber
Questions
Knife Crime
Paul Martin (Lab) asked the Cabinet Secretary about a recent report in a local newspaper which reported that more than 200 pupils in Glasgow, some as young as 12, said that they carried knives. He also wanted to know whether the Government would support Labour’s call for a knife amnesty.
Mr MacAskill said that tackling knife crime was a priority for this Government, and he said that educating pupils about the dangers of carrying knives was extremely important, mentioning an initiative he had visited in a school the previous week as part of the ‘No Knives, Better Lives’ programme. He said that there has already been a knife amnesty, but that he is not ruling anything out at this stage. In response to a supplementary question from Margaret Curran (Lab) about calls from residents for CCTV in an area of Glasgow in which a number of violent crimes have recently occurred, he said that the Government believes that CCTV can play a role in community safety if it is part of a broader package of measures.
You can read this question in the Official Report.
Child Protection and Drug Addicted Parents
In his last question for the First Minister before the summer recess, Iain Gray asked Mr Salmond about the most recent inspection report on child protection services in Dundee which was critical of their ability to provide protection for vulnerable children, and Mr Gray pointed out that this was not surprising given that this was the area in which the Brandon Muir case had occurred. He said that this boy’s life had been ‘brutal and chaotic’, and he pointed out the child was one of between 10,000 to 20,000 children who live with drug addicted parents in Scotland. Mr Gray said that overstretched social services are doing their best, but the current child protection measures were clearly not good enough, and he called for a national inquiry to devise a new and better child protection system for Scotland.
Mr Salmond replied that there is already an independent inquiry being carried out into the situation surrounding Brandon Muir’s death, and he said that a ‘strenuous and stringent’ system of inspections have been carried out in all local authorities in Scotland, which has identified five local authorities which have serious deficiencies, and he said that the responsible Minister has met with those authorities’ leaders to address these deficiencies. He defended the system of child protection in Scotland, saying it was probably the best in the UK, and he highlighted cases where there has been significant improvements in provision following critical reports.
You can read this story in the Official Report. You can also read the stories surrounding the Brandon Muir case in the CJScotland Newsblog
Alcohol Summit
The First Minister got the opportunity to talk about the Government’s plans for minimum pricing for alcohol, in response to a question from Michael Matheson (SNP) who read out a letter that the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police had written to national newspaper, in which he said that ‘cheap drink is fuelling crime in Scotland’. The First Minister naturally agreed with his colleague and he also spoke about the evidence which connects the price of alcohol with the level of consumption. He spoke about the Alcohol Summit which was recently held in the Parliament, and he quoted from experts who spoke at the summit who argued strongly in favour of minimum pricing.
In a supplementary question, the ex Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson (Lab) urged the Government to continue to work on a cross party basis to develop alcohol policy, rather than ploughing ahead with an approach which others are not signed up to. The First Minister replied that the Government are also eager to adopt a cross–party approach, and they will set up a cross–party group which will meet on an on–going basis together with representatives of the drinks industry. However, he also said that this was also Scotland’s opportunity to take the lead in tackling alcohol abuse, as they have demonstrated they can do with the passing of the Climate Change Bill.
You can read this question in the Official Report and you can also read the press about the alcohol summit in the CJScotland Newsblog http://cjscotland.org.uk/index.php/cjscotland/dynamic_searchitem/alcohol_policy_summit_minimum_pricing/ .
Anti–Sectarian Strategy
Bill Butler (Lab) asked about the Government’s national anti–sectarian strategy, and he wanted assurances that it would contain a commitment to a rehabilitation programme for those who are convicted of religiously aggravated offences. The First Minister said that the Government would present its strategy to the Parliament in October, he outlined the various projects that will continue to operate as part of the strategy, saying that that Bill Butler’s suggestions were being ‘actively considered’. And you can read this question in the Official Report
Written Questions
There was a question about the amount of outstanding court fines, and the value of assets recovered from drug dealers, both in the Lothian and Borders, and a question about the number of community services which have been revoked in the past year. There was a question about the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Policing Report, and about how much work prisoners carry out in prison. There were more questions about the rehabilitation of sex offenders in prison (see also the CJScotland Newsblog)
Posted by KM
on Wed 1st Jul 2009
at 7:00 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend