Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Friday, April 08, 2011
From now on please use our new site for current information about Scottish criminal justice. However, this site will continue to be available for research until we can manage to transfer over all our posts. This has to be done by hand and so will take several months. During that process some of the posts from this site will be aggregated with others of the same topic as the new site is populated. So if you can’t find what you are looking for here then please try the new version.
When the transfer is complete both this and the transitional addresses will merge automatically. In the meantime we recommend refreshing your bookmarks using the new site’s temporary address at http://cjscotland.co.uk.
Posted by MM
on Fri 8th Apr 2011
at 8:51 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Monday, December 21, 2009
This was an exceptionally quiet week for justice business. The Justice Committee continued to take evidence on the Legal Services Bill, and there were a number of general questions for the Cabinet Secretary.
Parliament is now in recess until the 5th January.
The Justice Committee
Stage 1 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill
The Committee continued to take evidence on the Legal Services Bill. Today it heard from the Law Society of Scotland, the Law Agents Society, Scottish Legal Action Group, and the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
If you wish to read their evidence, you can do so on the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read more about the Bill on the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill Homepage .
The Chamber
General Questions
Licensing Exemption Amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill.
Cathy Peattie (Lab) asked if the Government would introduce an amendment at Stage 2 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill which would ensure that voluntary organisations would not have to pay a licensing fee for fundraising events, saying that the average fee is about £200 was not affordable to many. The Cabinet Secretary Replied that this exemption is in the Bill because of recommendations that were made by a group set up by the previous Administration, but he said that given the concerns that have been expressed by organisations, he would introduce an amendment to retain the exemption. You can read the question in the Official Report.
Christmas Closure of the Open Estate
James Kelly (Lab), asked the Cabinet Secretary about the closure of the open prison HMP Noranside over Christmas, which appeared in the headlines last week. He argued that the Cabinet Secretary was backing up his ‘prison is a skoosh’ remark by freeing prisoners for Christmas and he wanted to know how much the prison service would save from this closure and where the money would be reinvested. The Cabinet Secretary replied that this was an operational decision for the Scottish Prison Service, who had advised him that the decision had been taken to consolidate the management of all prisoners who remain in open conditions over Christmas on one site in order to provide efficient and effective service delivery. He also said that parts of the open estate had been closed before at this time of year, and that more prisoners were given home leave at Christmas under the previous administration than under the SNP. You can read this question in the Official Report
Scottish Police Services Authority and VAT
Bill Aitken asked the Cabinet Secretary about the SPSA’s VAT status. The Secretary replied that the SPSA has now been appointed as an agent acting on behalf of the eight Scottish police authorities and joint police boards, which means it will now be exempt from paying the £3.8 million a year that would otherwise have been paid in VAT.
In follow up questions, Sandra White (SNP) asked what impact the return of VAT to 17.5% in January would have on the justice budget, to which the Secretary replied that it will add to the cost pressures on top of the Chancellor’s cut to the Scottish Government budget, which is “apparently 800% or more”.
Richard Baker argued that the uncertainty of leadership in the SPSA did not help strategic planning for Scottish police forces, and he wondered when a permanent chief executive will be appointed to the SPSA. The Cabinet Secretary replied that Labour should decide where it stands on the SPSA given that it established the agency, but now seems to have doubts about its structures. He also said that “matters were under way” with regards to the new position of the agency’s Chief Executive. You can read this question in the Official Report.
Written Questions
There was a question about whether the Government asked NHS boards to publicly support the minimum pricing policy at a recent meeting, there was a question about whether Inverness Sheriff Court was fit for purpose, and a question about whether the Government had any plans to help acquitted defendants recover legal costs. There was a question about the commencement time of community service orders, a number of questions about prisons including new technology for detecting drugs in prison, and the number of foreign nationals in custody, and finally, a question about types and numbers of wildlife crime.
Posted by KM
on Mon 21st Dec 2009
at 10:37 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Monday, December 14, 2009
A quieter week for Justice in Parliament this week: there were questions for the Law and Justice Officers in the Chamber, and the Justice Committee began its consideration of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.
The Justice Committee
Stage 1 Legal Services Bill
The Justice Committee has been designated the lead committee on the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to introduce a new business structures within the legal services industry in Scotland, along with a new regulatory framework for those who provide legal services. The reforms are intended to liberalise the legal services market and create a more flexible and modern regulatory framework for legal services, with the aim of improving access for everyone to high quality legal services. The Bill has been referred to as ‘Tesco-–law’, given that it will allow organisations that are not owned by legal professionals (such as banks and supermarkets) to offer legal services to the public.
Because this Bill is concerned with legal services rather than criminal justice, it will not be covered in detail in this Parliamentary Report. However, the links will be provided for those who wish to find out more information.
You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read more about the Bill on the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill homepage.
Inquiry into decision on Abdelbaset al–Megrahi
Although the discussions were held in private, the minutes for the Committee’s meeting reveal that they decided to conclude the inquiry into the decision to release Abdelbaset al–Meghrahi, after hearing from the Cabinet Secretary last week. They also agreed to report its conclusions to the Parliament, and they will consider a draft report in private at future meetings. You can find out more information about this inquiry on the inquiry into decision on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi homepage.
The Chamber
Questions to the Justice and Law Officers
Antisocial Behaviour and short prison sentences
Conservative MSP John Lamont asked the Minister for Community Safety about antisocial behaviour in the Scottish Borders, the area which he represents. Mr Lamont called on the Minister to recognise the good work that is being done by agencies to combat antisocial behaviour in this area, and he argued that if the Government succeed in scrapping sentences of six months and under, they will be removing a ‘vital tool’ in tackling those who persistently commit antisocial behaviour.
The Minister replied that the Government were committed to tackling antisocial behaviour and he paid tribute to the professionals he met in the borders who are putting the Government’s Promoting Positive Outcomes framework in practice. He also said that although some practitioners use ASBOs, they acknowledge that although they may provide temporary respite, they do not tackle the root causes of problematic behaviour. The Minister also said that if someone is sentenced to six months in prison, they will spend on average less than one month in custody post–conviction, and that this was therefore not an effective disposal.
Life Expectancy of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al–Megrahi
The veteran Parliamentarian Lord Foulkes (Lab), asked whether the Cabinet Secretary had received any information about Abdelbaset al–Megrahi’s current health status, and whether he would share this with the Parliament if he had.
The Secretary replied that he was in not in a position to do this, because these reports remained with the council that is charged with dealing with his release, but that once they have been forwarded, they will be made publicly available.
In a supplementary question, Bill Aitken argued that the Cabinet Secretary ought to be more proactive in finding out the current status of Mr al–Megrahi’s health, given that it has now been five months since his release when he was given a three month prognosis. The Secretary replied that the criteria for compassionate release had been met in respect of the prognosis of a life expectancy of three months, in the health information provided by the SPS. He reiterated that such diagnoses were not an exact science and the Cabinet Secretary does not have the power to decide when someone lives or dies.
Domestic Violence
Christina McKelvie (SNP) asked what proportion of domestic violence crimes alcohol is believed to be a contributing factor. She argued that according to research from Scottish Women’s Aid, around a third of all reported domestic abuse incidents involve alcohol, which would account for approximately 18,000 recorded incidents in Scotland last year. She was careful to say that while she was not implying there was a straightforward link between alcohol and domestic violence, there was nonetheless a relationship as alcohol could function as an intensifier in cases of violence.
The Cabinet Secretary agreed with her that although alcohol does not cause domestic abuse, it had to be acknowledged that it was a contributing factor in a large proportion of cases. He said that while action taken on Scotland’s drink culture will not end domestic abuse, it would contribute to a reduction in the harm caused, and he called on the rest of the Parliament to support the Government’s policies on alcohol.
In a supplementary question, Cathie Craigie (Lab), asked about the pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow, and whether there were any plans to roll it out further into other areas in Scotland. The Secretary replied that this was work in progress, but that there was no one–size–fits–all solution and that the Government would do what is appropriate for every jurisdiction in Scotland.Minimum Pricing of Alcohol
Kenneth Gibson (SNP) asked about the impact on violent crime if a minimum pricing of alcohol were to be introduced. He said that the evidence for the policy was so overwhelming that if the approach does not become law, there will be a concurrent rise in violence and disorder and more misery for families and communities than would have otherwise been the case, and he called on the Members to support the proposals.
The Cabinet Secretary naturally agreed with his colleague, and he spoke about the University of Sheffield study which quantified the benefits that introducing this policy would bring. He said that rather than giving ‘vacuous words about talking tough on crime’, some members should think about some of the causes of crime, which in many cases is made worse by cheap alcohol.
Richard Baker asked a supplementary question in which he pointed out that this policy could lead to an increase in the unregulated sale of cheap alcohol bought in England and Wales. He also pointed out the link between crime and caffeinated alcoholic drinks, which would not be identified by minimum pricing
Kenny MacAskill replied that people have always travelled to buy alcohol, whether from Calais or elsewhere, and he said if this policy were to be introduced in Scotland, people could still chose to do that, though it would be costly given the increased duty on fuel announced in the Pre Budget Report. He did not address the issue of caffeinated alcoholic drinks.
Scottish Crime Recording Standard and Male Victims of Domestic Abuse
John Wilson (SNP) asked about the implementation of the Scottish crime recording standard, and what impact this has had on the police recording of male victims of domestic violence The Secretary replied that the SCRS has provided a more uniform and victim–orientated approach to crime recording, and that there has recently been an increase in recording of domestic violence, which was to be welcomed. He said that while it was clear that domestic violence is committed against males in around 10% of cases, this means that in the vast majority of cases the victims are female, and this should not be forgotten when talking about domestic abuse.
Environmental Justice
In his question to the Minister for Community Safety, Patrick Harvie (Green) argued that for many members of the public who suffer from environmental damage, the possibility of seeking justice through the courts is an impossibility given that the associated costs often run into tens of thousands of pounds. He said that members of the public are often up against well resourced business interests, and he wanted to know whether the Government accepted that ‘protective cost orders’ should be granted in environmental public access cases. These orders are available in England, and they mean that at the beginning of a case, a judge can deem this an issue of public importance and restrict the liability of those taking action if they lose.
In response, the Minister denied that cost was an impediment to seeking justice in environmental cases, saying that individuals have access to legal aid were appropriate, which has been made more generous under this Government. He said that those who pursue action in environmental public access cases face the same issues as those who take other cases through the courts, and therefore that there cannot be a special case made for litigants who pursue environmental cases. He also said that the issue of protective costs orders had been covered by Lord Gill in his recent review of civil law and that these issues will therefore be considered together with the other issues raised in the review when they come before Parliament.
Private Car Park Fines
Irene Oldfather (Lab) spoke about the tactics that some private car park companies use in collecting fines, which she said can cause considerable distress to elderly and disabled constituents, and families on low income. She said that some companies double the fine if it is not paid within 28 days, and in some instances quadruple it if not paid soon after that. She asked whether the Government would consider regulation to ensure that any fines are collected in a fair way that does not impose undue time penalties on those who have the most difficulty paying.
The Cabinet Secretary replied that that this issue was primarily a matter of contractual law between those who own and those who use those private car parks, although he shared Ms Oldfather’s concerns. He said that if there was any harassment or abuse, that should be a matter for the police, and that it was a matter of individuals getting legal advice because it seemed to him that in many instances, such contracts were not enforceable and could not therefore be successfully pursued.
You can read all the Questions in the Official Report, or watch them on Holyrood.TV.
Written Questions
There was a question about the number of primary school aged pupils admitted to hospital for alcohol misuse in the Lothians, and how many primary pupils have been excluded from school for alcohol misuse, also in the Lothians, and the age of those convicted for handling offensive weapons, and a question about the number of heroin users in Scotland, and how many convictions there have been for loitering and soliciting under the Prostitution (Public Places) Act 2007, and about the Government’s response to Lord Cullen’s Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Act review, and there were a number of questions about wildlife crime.
Posted by KM
on Mon 14th Dec 2009
at 8:19 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
The main event in Parliament last week was the Justice Secretary’s evidence to the Justice Committee as part of the inquiry into the decision to release Abdel Basset Al–Megrahi. There was also a good debate about domestic violence to mark the global ‘16 days’ campaign, and a private members debate about the detention of children in the Dungavel.
The Justice Committee
Inquiry into the decision to release Abdel Basset al–Megrahi
Most of the Committee’s meeting was spent taking evidence from the Cabinet Secretary and his officials as part of their inquiry into the decision to release Abdel Basset Al–Megrahi. The Committee decided to launch this inquiry in an attempt for the Parliament to hold the Government (and perhaps the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in particular) to account for this decision.
The remit of the inquiry is restricted to the processes that were followed in considering the application for compassionate release, and the application by the Libyan Government for the transfer of the prisoner under the UK — Libya prisoner transfer agreement.
MacAskill first answered questions about the consideration of the two applications, and he said that even though the application for the prisoner transfer came six weeks before the application for compassionate release, once the two applications had been made, there was some logic in dealing with both applications at the same time. And although the original purpose of the meeting with Mr Al–Megrahi in Greenock Prison had been to discuss the prisoner transfer application, both applications were therefore discussed. He was asked whether Mr al–Megrahi was influenced to lodge another application on the basis that it was likely that the initial application for prisoner transfer would be rejected, and he replied that this was not the case given that the application for prison transfer was made by the Libyan Government, not by Mr al–Megrahi and the application for compassionate release was made by Mr al–Megrahi.
He also answered questions about Mr al–Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal, and he explained that the application of prisoner transfer, although lodged by the Libyan Government, could only proceed if there were no outstanding issues and the prisoner decided to drop his appeal, and he said that the decision on whether to do this or not was one for Mr al–Megrahi alone. He was asked about stories in the press which say that his colleague Christine Grahame (SNP), who has long campaigned for Mr al–Megrahi’s release, had seen emails which allude to the fact that pressure had been put on the prisoner to drop the appeal, but the Secretary said he had no knowledge of these emails and he reiterated that Mr al–Megrahi’s own lawyer and the Libyan Government both deny that any such pressure was exerted.
He was also asked about his decision to visit Mr al–Megrahi in prison. Cathy Craigie (Lab) argued that this was not necessary, given that the guidance was only that he was allowed to ‘make representations’, and this did not have to be in person. However, the Cabinet Secretary said that he had been obliged to make the offer under the regulations of the prisoner transfer agreement and that once the prisoner had indicated that he wished to make representations in person, the Cabinet Secretary was therefore obliged to visit him, as it would not have been possible to transport the prisoner to visit the Secretary in Saint Andrew’s house or elsewhere. He also argued that the Government were acting in this way so as to avoid the possibility of being sued for not following appropriate procedure, and he repeatedly pointed out that the solicitor who was representing Mr al–Megrahi was the same lawyer to took the Sommerville slopping out case to court, which cost the Scottish Government millions of pounds in compensation payments.
Committee convener Bill Aitken (Con) also argued that the prisoner could have been visited by one of the Government officials rather than the Secretary himself. The Cabinet Secretary argued that because the victims had been given the chance to make representations to the Government directly, albeit via videolink, so the prisoner should also be given the opportunity to make representations direct. He argued that this situation was analogous with the rights of the accused in a court of law.
The prisoner transfer application was refused because the victims’ families who lived in the US made it clear they had been assured that the prisoner would serve the remainder of his sentence in the UK. He said that when he sought further information from the UK Government on this matter, they refused to comment, which meant he had no choice but to believe the relatives. The Committee expressed regret that the documentation that the US Government sent to the Scottish Government could not be published.
There were also questions about the health advive that was given to the Government regarding the three month prognosis.
The Secretary was also asked about whether the Government had considered any other options for where the prisoner could be released, apart from his repatriation to Libya. He explained the high cost of providing security to Mr al–Megrahi and his family. In comments widely picked up by the media the next day, he also disclosed that Mr al–Megrahi had been wearing bullet proofed amour on his journey to the airplane to take him back to Libya. He also said that it would have been inappropriate for the prisoner to be held in a hospice or hospital in Scotland, given the high media attention that would have pervaded the place.
The Committee wanted to find out more about where any possible threat to Mr al–Megrahi’s safety came from, but the Secretary was reluctant to divulge this, saying that he had not pressed the police or intelligent services to tell him. He was berated for not investigating further whether or not there were other places that he could have returned to, but the Secretary pointed out that no other prisoner who had been released under compassionate release had been freed to a place other than their home.The decision whether or not to release on compassionate grounds was then discussed. The Government’s legal official who prepared the advice on compassionate release for the Cabinet Secretary, came under tough questions from Robert Brown (LD) for not emphasizing the victims’ views on possible compassionate release, when they had been included in the guidance relating to prisoner transfer. Mr Askill was questioned further about whether he considered the “heinousness of the offence” for which Mr al–Megrahi was found guilty, sufficiently in his decision, and whether there would ever be an occasion in which the offences was so bad that the decision to release on compassionate grounds would not be taken. The Secretary said he did not expect the victims to forgive or for their pain to heal, but that he had made this decision on the basis of how he saw the values that are upheld in Scotland, which are about forgiveness, and that there is no crime which is too severe to not be forgiven. He also said that it was a matter of “great regret” that the Libyan Government reneged on their promise not to release Mr al–Megrahi amidst scenes of celebrations, and he rejected that had he got these assurances on paper rather than verbally this would have made any difference.
The Committee will decide next week whether they wish to continue with their inquiry and seek further evidence, or whether they are satisfied on the basis of what they have heard. They will also have a chance to decide whether it wishes to report to the Parliament on this issue.
You can read the transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
The Chamber
Debate on Violence against Women
On Wednesday there was a debate in the Chamber to mark the annual global ‘16 days’ campaign, which draws attention to violence against women worldwide. The speech was led by the Minister for Housing and Communities, Alex Neil, who spoke about the 16 days campaign and the white ribbon which was being worn by many Members in support of it. He spoke about the recently published statistics which showed that more than 1,000 incidents of domestic violence were reported to Scottish police every week in the year 2008–09, and the fact that only 55% of those incidents went on to be reported as a crime. He quoted from one of the organisers of the white ribbon campaign who said that if this level of violence were between countries, it would be called war, but when it happens to women, it’s just an every day affair.
The Minister spoke about the effect of domestic abuse on young people, and the allocation of funding over a three year period to ensure that children have access to dedicated domestic abuse workers. The massive increase in domestic abuse that is reported around Old Firm matches was also spoken about, and the Minister said that as a result of closer working between the Government, the police and a range of other stakeholders, additional resources have been provided for the time around these matches, and he said that at the time of the latest game, there was a 28% reduction in incidents of domestic violence reported.
There were some interventions about female on female domestic violence, and about domestic violence against men, and the Minister said that as a result of an informal cross–party group, the Government would hold a debate on this issue in the new year. However, Marlyn Glen (Lab), urged the Chamber to retain a gendered analysis of domestic violence which sees violence against women as part of men’s power of women in society.
Johann Lamont spoke next for Labour, and she said that although the fact that the Parliament had reached a consensus about significance of the problem of violence against women, it was nonetheless crucial not to settle for a ‘cosy coming together’, but rather to reflect on the critical issues that still needed to be addressed. She said that Saint Andrew had died encouraging a women to stand up to her abusive husband, and that his ‘gentle manliness” should be our inspiration.
She wanted information from the Minister about the implementation of single outcome agreements (SAOs), which she argued were crucial in order to make sure that provision is being delivered and to a consistent standard. She highlighted recent analysis conducted by Scottish Women’s Aid on SAOs, which she said showed that different councils prioritised the domestic violence differently, if at all, and she argued that it is often subsumed into a more generalised community safety agenda. She also spoke out about the Government’s plans to end sentences of six months and under, saying that there was a need to deter men by marking domestic abuse as a significant offence, and that time for a violent partner in custody can give a woman respite and also space for her to make a life-changing decision and to be supported in the process. She therefore called on the Government to clarify whether cases of domestic abuse would be included in any presumption against short sentences. She echoed points made earlier about the need for this issue to be viewed not just as incidents of violence, but as taking place in the context of the power of men over women in society. She also called on the Minister to clarify comments he made to the press that one explanation for the recent rise in cases of domestic abuse was that there was an economic recession, arguing that this perpetuated the view that violence was caused or excused by poverty.
Bill Aitken spoke next for the Conservative party, and he also highlighted the recently published figures, saying that one of the saddest parts of them were the number of repeat offenders which had increased by 39% in comparison with the previous year’s figures, and he said that it was sadder still to think that there are even more cases that go unreported to the police in the first place. He said that domestic violence affects not only the current generation but also the future generation of Scotland, as children who have grown up in domestic abusive households are likely to suffer long term trauma and also be more likely to be violent themselves, an argument that was disputed by Johann Lomont during an intervention. He said that the dedicated domestic violence court which has been established in Glasgow, should be considered in other parts of Scotland as well, and that one of the biggest attractions of such a court was that it had the power to issue appropriate disposals.
Robert Brown spoke next for the Liberal Democrats. He said that it was difficult to get a sense of trends when looking at figures, because it was impossible to know whether the increase in the recently announced figures was due to increased likeliness to report crimes, or if it mirrored an actual rise in crimes. And while he agreed that much of the violence is rightly viewed as gender based, he queried whether this was universally the case as factors such as drugs, alcohol, and the pressures of an economic turndown do also affect abuse, although they naturally are not an excuse. He also agreed with Bill Aitken to an extent, by saying that children who grow up in households in which violence is normal, there is a higher risk that this violence will continue when they become adults.
He said that there was a need for a cultural shift, which would mean that domestic violence is known for what it is, namely a crime as bad as or worse than other violent crimes. He was not alone in mentioning the effect of the local government concordat and the reduction in ring fencing, saying that it was not acceptable that essential local services are cut as a result of changes to bureaucracy. He also called on the domestic abuse court to be rolled out nationally, and lastly, he also spoke about the issue of women who come from abroad often as part of an arranged marriage, and are threatened and disempowered when they get here.
During the debate that followed, single outcome agreements were spoken about, with some Members saying that each outcome should be subject to an equality impact assessment, in order to protect services. Rhoda Grant (Lab) spoke about the consultation she has just launched on a member’s bill to improve the protection that is given to victims of domestic abuse. The proposed bill would give automatic access to non–means–tested legal aid for anyone looking for an injunction with powers of arrest to protect them from abuse; would introduce a provision that a breach of such an injunction would become a criminal offence, punishable with a prison term; and lastly, would provide an easier access to non–harassment orders by removing the requirement to show a course of conduct.
Christine Grahame (SNP), who is the Convenor of the Health and Sports Committee, the lead Committee on the Alcohol Bill, spoke about the role that the misuse of alcohol in domestic abuse, emphasising again that alcohol was an exacerbating factor in domestic violence and not the cause. Members spoke about the events that were taking place across the globe to mark the ‘16 days campaign’, and about their experiences helping constituents who have been the victim of domestic abuse. Marlyn Glen (Lab) argued that prostitution and pornography were part of the range of violence against women, and the joint “Safer Lives: Changed Lives”, published by the Scottish Government and CoSLA was also spoken about. Sandra White (SNP) said that much of current music and videos in popular culture talks about women disrespectfully and there can be little hope of boys growing up to respect women if the music they listen to refers to women as ‘bitches and whores’.
In his summing up speech, the Minister referred to the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill on extreme pornography, and he said that the Government would be happy to support Rhoda Grant’s Bill if the consultation showed that it was needed. In relation to the issue of sentencing and sentences of under 6 months, he said that this was being considered in the context of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and that when the sentencing council is established, this could be one of the areas that it considered. He also said that the Government would support the Conservative motion that the domestic abuse court should be rolled out throughout Scotland where practicable.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Debate on the detention of children at Dungavel
Later that afternoon, there was a private members debate about the detention of children in the Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre, which holds asylum seekers prior to being deported. This debate was led by Sandra White (SNP), who used it as an opportunity to press for more political action to end what she called the “shameful and immoral” practices of holding children in camps such as this one. She referred to figures received from the UK Border Agency which showed that between October 2008 and September 2009, 103 children were detained at Dungavel in Scotland, and 884 children were detained at Yarl’s Wood in England. She said that despite the best intentions of both the previous and this Administration to stop the detention of children at the camp in Scotland, the practice continued and showed no sign of stopping. Ms White said that last year’s commitment to limit the detention of children in Scotland to a maximum of 72 hours was encouraging at the time, but all it has meant is that children are now being held for a maximum of 72 hours and then transferred to Yarl’s Wood in England after that period has expired. She also said that the Home Office is actively directing MSPs and MPs not to intervene with cases as it can halt the deportation process. She spoke movingly about the conditions inside the camp calling them barbaric, and she said that it was unforgivable that children who have often witnessed horrors such as the torture of their own family are locked up in what to all extents and purposes is a prison, when they in the UK.
An open debate followed, where all Members spoke out against the detention of children in Dungavel. This was an issue which fostered near cross–party support, although some Nationalist Members where perhaps more vocal than others at being frustrated that jurisdiction for this issue lies in Westminster. The pilot that is being run by Glasgow City Council which provides houses for families to live prior to being deported, was welcomed by all, but recognised as not being successful in stopping child detention in Dungavel.
If you want to read the whole debate, you can do so in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV.
Questions
There were written questions this week about a potential cross-border traffic increase resulting from a minimum price for alcohol, if there is a single public agency who are responsible for ensuring that intoxicated people are not a risk to themselves or others, and what the age ranges of those caught handling offensive weapons . There was a question about the waiting list for drug and alcohol treatment, an interesting question about the average fine for possessing various drugs over the past 10 years was and a question about how many migrants from other EU states are serving a custodial sentence in Scotland. There was a question about whether the Government are committed to central government funding for additional police officers beyond the current parliamentary session, and finally, about how many individuals have disputed information from a criminal record check carried out by Disclosure Scotland since 2002
Posted by KM
on Tue 8th Dec 2009
at 2:15 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
This week saw the Stage 1 debate of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill take place in the Chamber. This gave all the parties the chance to fully debate their stances on the different parts of this legislation, in wake of the Committee’s report which was published a couple of weeks ago. The Sports and Health Committee issued a call for evidence in the week that the Alcohol Bill was published, and the Justice Committee dealt with an item of subordinate legislation.
The Justice Committee
Subordinate Legislation
The Committee were joined by the Cabinet Secretary who spoke to move an item of subordinate legislation, which related to mutual assistance from foreign countries in criminal investigaton or proceedings. This order would add Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Israel, Montenegro, Serbia, Switzerland and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as participating countries in relation to a number of provisions in the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. The Cabinet Secretary spoke briefly about the Order, and after a number of questions, the Committee agreed the motion.
You can read the transcripts of this in the Official Report, and read more details of the Order in pages 1 – 16 of the Committee Papers
Health and Sports Committee
Call for evidence on the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill
The Government launched the Alcohol Bill on Wednesday, which contains a range of measures aimed at tackling Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. The key provisions in the Bill are to:
- Introduce a minimum sales price for a unit of alcohol
- Introduce a restriction for off–sales on supply of alcoholic drinks free of charge or at a reduced price
- Make provision in law with respect to the sale of alcohol to under 21s
- Restrict the location of drinks promotions in off–sales premises
- Introduce a requirement for licence holders to operate an age verification policy
- Make provision in law for a social responsibility levy on licence holders
The Government are leading this as public health legislation rather than criminal justice legislation, although the provisions contained in it did initially belong to the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The lead committee is therefore the Health and Sports Committee, which is convened by the SNP Member Christine Grahame.The day after the Bill was launched, the Labour party publicly announced that they would not be voting with the Government on the key issue of minimum pricing, having looked as though they might support the these measures until recently. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are also opposed, which means that the Government will not secure enough support to get it through Parliament. Nonetheless the Committee is calling for evidence and will begin Stage 1 scrutiny in the New Year.
You can read the Committee’s call for evidence and read all the documents on the Bill on its homepage. You can also read the press stories in the CJScotland Newsblog
The Chambe
Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill Stage 1
On Thursday, the Parliament held the stage 1 debate for the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. This is takes place following publication of the relevant Committee stage 1 report, and it gives the whole of the Parliament a chance to debate and vote onthe proposed legislation. The Committee agreed to the ‘general principles’ of the Bill, although disagreed with some of the key proposals including the presumption against custodial sentences of 6 months and under. If Parliament also agrees to the ‘general principles’ of the Bill, then particular parts of it can be modified by way of amendments during Stages 2 and 3. Because the Bill is so large, the debate took place in two parts, beginning in the morning and concluding in the afternoon. The length and complexity of the Bill also meant that not every aspect of it was covered in debate.
The Cabinet Secretary introduced the Bill, and began by talking about the provisions for serious organised crime, which create 3 new offences including ‘failure to report serious organised crime’. The Committee report said that although it strongly supported the intentions behind this part of the Bill, they were unsure whether the Bill as drafted would achieve its stated aims, primarily because of the definitions used. In his speech, the Secretary defended these saying that the wording had to be wide because serious and organised crime is wide ranging and evolving, but that although the definition did need to be broad, the Government were considering introducing an amendment at Stage 2 to modify it. He also defended the provisions relating to ‘failure to report’, saying that it was not the legislation’s intention to prosecute those who inadvertently discover that another person may be involved in serious organised crime during the course of their employment.
He went on to speak about the parts of the Bill that would create a Scottish Sentencing Council with the ability to develop sentencing guidelines with the stated aims of improving consistency, transparency and public confidence in sentencing. There was no fixed agreement on this subject from the Committee, although they agreed that the public’s perception of inconsistency was in itself problematic. However, they felt that issuing sentencing guidelines to address this problem would compromise other fundamentals of justice. The Cabinet Secretary said that the Government were considering the Committee’s thoughts on how to achieve these aims without tempering the independence of the judiciary.
Robert Brown (LD) intervened as the Secretary talked about the new single community penalty, the community payback order or CPO, to say that this title did not capture the important rehabilitation element of the order. Mr MacAskill replied that he could now guarantee that up to 20% of the order would be spent on some form of rehabilitation, such as work on literacy, drug or alcohol problems. He also spoke about the additional resources that would need to be in place in order for these orders to work, which was another point highlighted by the Committee, saying that they have already provided extra funding for community service both this year and next year, which will also help the transition into the new regime.
During another intervention, James Kelly (the new Justice Committee Member who has taken over as shadow deputy justice spokesperson for the Labour party) asked what will be cut from the Community Justice budget in order to fund the increase that will arise from the scrapping of short custodial sentences. The Justice Secretary replied by blaming Westminster for budget cuts and saying that those who deliver community service have assured him that, although it will be difficult, they will manage the expected increase in orders.
The Secretary then went on to speak about one of the most controversial provisions in the bill: the ‘presumption’ against short custodial sentences. This received the most attention in the press, both because of its controversial nature, and also because the Committee were equally divided on whether or not to support it, the final rejection being decided by the casting vote of the convenor. The Committee did agree with the evidence that had been heard in evidence that there is little in the way of rehabilitation that can be achieved in short sentences and also that they serve little deterrent effect.
The Cabinet Secretary quoted to the Chamber from the Sheriffs Association who said that short custodial sentences should be giving sparingly, and from the Chief Executive of Victim Support, who spoke in favour, saying he was ‘disappointed’ that these provisions had not been supported by the Committee. In an intervention, Richard Baker (Lab) pointed out that several crimes of violence would result in a non–custodial penalty should the measures be passed, to which the Cabinet Secretary responded that that because the legislation would only introduce a presumption , sentencers would still be able to override this and impose a prison sentence if they deemed necessary to do so. Mr MacAskill told the Parliament that he and his team had examined the Committee’s reportwith great care, but they were unable to find anything that explained why some Members of the Committee opposed these plans. He gave no indication that the Government were working on any amendments relating to these provisions, and he called on the Parliament to support them.
Finally, he spoke about the parts of the Bill that relate to the retention of forensic data, which would bring the law on the retention of fingerprints and other forensic data into line with current law on DNA retention. The Bill would also allow the retention of forensic data taken from children who are dealt with by the children’s hearing system for committing certain violent or sexual offences for up to the three years. The Secretary said that work was underway on drawing up a list of relevant sexual and violent offences committed by children that will trigger retention of forensic data and that they always sought to strike the correct balance between the rights of individual citizens and the need to keep communities safe.
Bill Aitken spoke next on behalf of the Justice Committee, as is the convention in Stage 1 debates. He said that he presented the report with a mixture of ‘pleasure compounded with relief’: he felt that the Committee had produced a fair, balanced and measured report, but he was relieved that the long, convoluted process was now at an end.
He said that the most difficult parts of the bill to deal with were the more controversial parts which cross party lines, and he said that he hoped for some movement on these issues before stage 2. He said that the most controversial issues were around the sentencing proposals, and that although the different views may never be reconciled at the end of the day, the differences in members’ views were perhaps less than first appeared the case. He spoke about the difficulty the Committee had in reaching a consensus about the role and operation of the sentencing council, and he also reminded MSPs that Henry McLeish had downplayed the significance of a sentencing council when he had given evidence.
He said that Community Payback Orders had been broadly supported by the Committee, although they strongly believed that they must be adequately resourced, and it had been difficult to come to a conclusion about whether or not this was the case at this stage.
Mr Aitken was speaking on behalf of the Justice Committee, and he therefore had to be more restrained than he perhaps wanted to be during his discussion about the presumption against short sentences. He said that although many academics were in favour of the Government’s proposals, the judiciary ‘who actually worked in the courts’, disagreed, and he said that this issue was therefore not resolved.
He also spoke about the proposals on serious and organised crime, saying that although the Bill was well intentioned, he was not convinced that the Government had got it right on this occasion.
The age of criminal responsibility also caused some concern for the Committee. Although it accepted that Scotland is not in line with other jurisdictions, it was also necessary for there to be some protection against the activities of ‘the very small minority of youngsters who can do pretty serious things.’ He therefore called for reassurances that there were a sufficient range of disposals in the children’s hearings system for children under the age of 12.
He said that whether the provisions relating to the retention of samples would extend to those who are offered alternatives to prosecution required further clarification, given that this would not be in proportion to such a measure.
The parts of the bill which deal with disclosure of evidence in court had caused considerable anxiety, although the rational was understood, and he said that these proposals should be kept as simple as possible. He also spoke about the parts of the Bill dealing with licensing, saying that most of these measures were common sense, although he drew Parliament’s attention to a number of areas, such as the provision of antisocial behaviour reports to licensing boards.
Richard Baker spoke next for Labour. Calling this legislation the Government’s ‘supposed flagship bill on law and order’, he said it involved many exercises in consolidation and technical proposals. He said that the Committee were correct to vote against the presumption against sentences of six months or under, because they were ‘unworkable, unfunded and unjust.’ He said that these proposals would apply to 40 per cent of those convicted of indecent assault, 85 per cent of those convicted of assault and two thirds of those convicted of knife crime, which would send out the wrong message to society. He attacked the Cabinet Secretary’s assertion that the declining confidence in community sentences can be blamed on the previous Administration, saying that this is happening under this Government’s watch. He painted a dismal picture of the current state of community orders, saying that one third are breached and only a fraction start on time, and he said that the proposals would result in a shortfall of some £66 million in the community sentence budget which is not provided for in the Financial Memorandum. He argued there was a need for ‘front–loaded funding’ for community sentences, because it will be a while before prisoner numbers and therefore the prisons budget can be decreased.
In response to an intervention from Robert Brown, he said that the Labour Party were opposed in principle to a presumption against short–term sentences, but that they did believe in robust and effective community sentences, many of which they had pioneered when they were in office. He said that his party were proposing and would pursue a policy of mandatory minimum sentencing for knife crime, because it was time to send out a clear message that if someone carries a knife then they will go to jail.
Mr Baker said that his party supported the broad proposals relating to the sentencing council, although they believed it should have a judicial majority, and it should have a narrower remit than that contained in the bill. He also said that he would not oppose the changes to the age of prosecution for children, though he wanted the Crown to retain the right to prosecute in exceptional circumstances.
He also said that the proposals on tackling serious and organised crime were positive, but given that the Government have said they would only apply to two or so cases a year, the impact would be minor.
Overall, he said that the positive proposals in the bill were far outweighed by the negative, and that his party would only let the bill proceed to Stage 2 because amendments can be lodged at Stage 2 to tackle violent crime. He said that the ‘reckless’ presumption against six–month custodial sentences and the Government’s unwillingness to take action on knife crime were ‘lines in the sand’ that if crossed in the final stages, would result in Labour voting against the bill.
Because Bill Aitken had already spoken in the debate on behalf of the justice Committee, it was up to his deputy, John Lamont, so speak for the Conservatives.
He said that his party welcomed some parts of the bill, such the plans to ban mobile phones from prison, and the extension of the upper age limit for jurors. He spent most time talking about the sentencing provisions in the Bill, reiterating points that had been made about the need to make sure that CPOs are adequately resourced, and that if faith in community sentences were to increase then there needed to be much greater enforcement of breaches as well. He called on the Government to change their minds about the community court in Glasgow, saying that such a court would ensure both that justice was done, but also that it was seen to be done.
Mr Lamont pointed out that those who argued that short prison sentences do nothing in way of rehabilitation are forgetting that prison is also there to deter, to punish, and to protect the public. He said that short custodial sentences offer sheriffs and judges the option of dealing with persistent offenders who continuously breach community sentence orders by giving them a short, sharp shock to ensure that they do not reoffend, and that they also provide respite to communities that are affected by persistent offenders.
He spoke about the licensing parts of the bill, saying more consideration was needed about their effects on charitable organisations and community groups.
Robert Brown, another Justice Committee member, spoke next for the Liberal Democrats. He began by saying that this debate was taking place in a different financial climate from when the Scottish Prisons Commission reported and the bill was conceived, and that it was therefore important to ask whether particular proposals are essential or just useful.
He said that aiming to reduce short–term sentences was a no–brainer given its cost and lack of long term success at reducing crime, but it was also imperative that the Government fund CPOs if the public are to have confidence in the community alternatives. He said that he knew from visits to CJAs that increased funding was having an impact in the quality and speed of community penalties, but that the quality of different projects was still patchy. As Richard Baker before him, he also said that if any savings were to be made from the prisons budget as a result of a reduction in prisoner numbers, this would only come about in the longer term and the Government therefore needed to provide bridging finance to ensure that community penalties were adequately resourced so they are able to achieve the real differences that they have the potential to do.
He spoke about the Liberal Democrat’s ‘partial way forward’ of applying the presumption only to sentences of three months or under in the first instance, which he said would reduce the organisational and financial pressure. He said that there was a difference in the sorts of crimes attracting sentences of under 3 months and those of between 3 to 6 months, the latter of which ‘tended to look like more serious crimes.’ He also criticised the Government&r;s decision to not proceed with the Community Court in Glasgow, saying this was a consequence of the Government’s ‘firm but inadequate’ decision making.
His criticism was not only reserved for the Government however: he attacked Labour’s position on criminal justice for attempting to give the impression of ‘ceaseless activity in fighting crime’ and appearing tough in order to ensure favourable headlines in the tabloids, despite the knowledge that short sentences do not work.
He spoke about the social profile of those in prison, speaking particularly about women in custody, saying that it was clear that society had failed these people, and it was very likely that their children would be amongst the next generation of offenders. He also said that, although the Scottish Sentencing Council would be useful body, the annual running costs could probably not be justified in the present financial climate. If it did proceed, it was imperative that any guidelines that the council did produce be endorsed or amended by the appeal court in order to ensure there was a separation of powers.
He said that his party would support this Bill, but that a great deal of work remained to be done to get it right, and that he expected his views to be addressed as it proceeds.
There proceeded a lengthy and well informed debate in which 21 other Members spoke and the final vote took place, in which there was unanimous support for the Bill’s general principles. All the speakers defended their party position, and reiterated the points that had been made in the opening speeches. Aileen Campbell (SNP) also spoke about the effects of prison on the children of those in prison, and Cathie Craigie (Lab) said that the Cabinet Secretary was ‘having a laugh’ with the presumption against short sentences, saying that she had multiple examples from her constituency which showed that short sentences do work. Rona Grant spoke about the changes that the bill makes to harassment orders, which had not been mentioned in so far in the debate. Nigel Don spoke about the Committee process of the bill scrutiny, saying that there was a surprisingly long list of issues which the Committee could not reach agreement on, and he argued that this Bill would need considerable time to be scrutinised in both sections 2 and 3. Mike Pringle was among others who suggested that the cost of establishing the sentencing council should instead be spend on making CPOs work and Helen Eadie (Lab) spoke about her experience collecting petitions on mandatory sentences for knife crime and speaking to those who had been affected.
You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, watch it on Holyrood.TV, and read the press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog
Questions
Minimum pricing of alcohol
Although none of the parties chose minimum pricing as their topic for First Minister’s questions, the First Minister nonetheless couldn’t resist bringing it up himself, saying this was a ‘day of shame’ for Labour, who chose to put ‘political advantage before the public health of Scotland.’ Annabel Goldie goaded Labour for their dallying with this issue, saying they had ‘finally seen the light, or found a backbone’, by following the Conservatives and voting against the government. See the Sports and Health Committee above for more information about the Alcohol Bill.
Air gun legislation
Angela Constance (SNP) used her question to allow the First Minister to talk about firearms legislation which is currently reserved to Westminster, but which the Scottish Government have been vigorously campaigning to be handed over to Scotland, so that it can be in line with the rest of justice legislation. Their claims have been bolstered recently by the Calman Commission, which recommended that this legislation be returned to Holyrood competence.
The First Minister said that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has written to the Home Secretary in order to secure agreement from the UK Government to devolve legislative responsibility for air weapons, but they had said that they cannot do so before the general election, and the UK Conservative party have said that they would delay further devolution of powers if they are elected next spring. He said that if there was consensus within the Scottish Parliament about legislation on airguns and other measures including drinking-driving limits and speed limits in Scotland, then they could be implemented before the general election, and he said that the Liberal Democrats have already indicated that they are willing to back these measures.
There were supplementary questions from the other parties: Robert Brown (LD) pointed out that there was already a range of offences which covered using airguns in Scotland, and that it was important that these laws were enforced as well. Margaret Curran (Lab) spoke about the case of a boy who was killed by an air rifle who’s family live in her constituency, and she called on the First Minister to pay tribute to the family for the campaigning they have done on this issue. Bill Aitken said that if the Government’s policies on a presumption against short sentences were to become enacted, then many of the offences that currently exist for air–gun legislation would result in a non–custodial sentence. The First Minister replied that those who commit serious offences would not receive a short sentence anyway, and he called on the Conservative party to support the further devolution of powers.
And you can read this question in the Official Report, or watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV.
Written Questions
There was a question about the effect on minimum pricing on jobs, about the health costs associated with alcohol misuse, and about the role of Sheriff Officers in removing a child from parents with care responsibilities. There was a question about the average of age of those caught handling an offensive weapon, about the waiting time for drug and alcohol treatment, and another question about Sheriff Officers. There were a range of questions about the Scottish Policing Board, and a question which revealed how many drugs finds there have been in each prison since 2005, and finally, a question about how many referrals have been made to the police by a parent, carer or guardian as part of the Child Sex Offender Community Disclosure Scheme in Tayside since the pilot began in September.
Posted by KM
on Wed 2nd Dec 2009
at 4:29 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
This week the Justice Committee narrowly backed Government plans to close a number of district courts as part of summary justice reform process, the final decision once again being decided on the casting vote of the convenor. In the Chamber there was a Ministerial statement about the Government’s sectarian strategy, and a number of justice questions for the First Minister.
Justice Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Justice of the Peace Courts (Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway) etc Order 2009 (SSI 2009/332)
This was a return to an issue discussed in Committee last May relating to proposed district court closures under the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 (summary justice reform). In order to close any courts, the Government must enact an Order by way of subordinate legislation, and it is the Committee’s role to decide whether or not to make any recommendations in relation to the order to the Parliament. The Committee overturned this particular order following evidence from two Labour MSPs in whose constituencies district courts proposed for closure lay. However, the Government decided to press on after receiving new recommendations from the Scottish Court Service. The current proposals would result in the closure of Girvan, Cumnock and East Kilbride courts, and the Annan district court would be turned into a Justice of the Peace court.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice joined the Committee to speak in favour of the Order. He said that the decisions on which courts should close had been made after a consideration of factors including business level, value for money and the standard of existing facilities. He said that he had listened carefully to arguments made by the Committee in May, particularly with reference to the distance to be travelled to courts and the importance of locally available justice, but that many courts no longer have a sufficient level of business to justify their continuation. He argued that the proposals would allow limited resources to be concentrated on providing secure and modern facilities for all court users.
Cathy Jamieson (Lab) joined the Committee to try and persuade them to annul the Order. She said that she was disappointed that the Government had not listened after the Committee’s earlier decision, and she spoke of her constituents who were eager to that further services not be moved away from their local area. She also said that these proposals went against the McInnes reforms, which intended for justice to be delivered in local communities.
There was a short debate in which a number of Committee spoke, although all along party lines. At the end of the debate, there was vote which was tied (3 Labour and 1 LD MSP voted against the closures, and 3 SNP and 1 Con MSP in favour). The Convenor once again had the deciding vote, and in this instance, he voted with the Government, saying that although the proposals are far from ideal, he had to recognise the financial situation that currently exists.
You can read the full transcripts of this debate in the Official Report, and the details of the court closures in pages 4 – 14 of the meeting papers. You can also watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV and read the press stories in the CJScotland Newsblog
The Chamber
Ministerial Statement on Sectarianism
On Wednesday afternoon, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, made a statement to the house about the Government’s recently announced strategy for tackling sectarianism.
The Minister began by recognising the significant work carried out by Jack McConnell and the previous administration in tackling sectarianism, and said that there was no doubt that progress has been made on this front. He said that the Government’s strategy was based on funding a number of key projects, such as Nil by Mouth, Sense of Over Sectarianism, and Show Racism the Red Card, and they were also bringing together partners to deliver work in communities, workplaces and courts. He also praised work carried out by Youth Link Scotland and the Iona Community (resources for use in Polmont and adult prisons).
The Minister spoke about the importance of working in partnership with agencies, which he said ensures that work is “co-ordinated, focused and effective”, and he said that the Football Banning Order monitoring group, which includes the Crown Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Football Association, were pressing for a banning order to be sought on every occasion that sectarian abuse, violence or disorder occurs. These orders prevent banned individuals from attending matches involving national or club teams and can also prevent them from travelling to football matches abroad, for up to 10 years. He said that as FBOs have been in place for three years now, it was time to evaluate their progress, and this evaluation will be completed by winter 2010.
He also spoke about marches and parades, saying that since the 2006 statement on tackling abusive behaviour at marches and parades, the number of marches has changed little, and he called on the organisers to consider the impact and disruption that marches can cause. The Minister also spoke about the importance of education and the ways in which art, drama and poetry have in making sure young people learn the message that sectarianism has no place in modern society.
During questions that followed, Mr Ewing was asked about issues ranging from a future sectarian summit, the policing of football matches, and how this strategy would tie in with Westminister’s Equality Bill. All questions were relatively good natured, until it was Jack McConnell (Lab)’s turn, who seemed to have lost his patience with the Minister. Saying that this was “frankly, not good enough” he asked a number of questions which he felt the Minister so far avoided, one of which was for the Minister to disclose a list of those who will be invited to the summit on Sectarianism. The Minister replied in a later question that he would be more than happy to provide this information in writing later and that there was no big secret about who would attend.
You can read this statement and questions in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the Government’s press release.
Questions
Short custodial sentences
There was a question from the new Labour spokesperson on community safety and Justice Committee Member, James Kelly, about the recently published Stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, which rejected the Government’s proposals on short custodial sentences. Mr Kelly said that if the Government’s plans were followed, then 40 per cent of those who have been convicted of indecent assault, 71 per cent of those who have been convicted of housebreaking and 75 per cent of those who have been convicted of all crimes and offences, would no longer receive custodial sentences. The First Minister replied by quoting from the Committee’s Report, which said that short custodial sentences have a “limited effect as a deterrent”, and also he quoted from a newspaper article in which an unnamed Labour MSP voiced his concerns with his party’s justice policies. He said that there was a growing consensus outside Parliament which agreed with these views, and said that he ‘felt confident’ that this would be reflected in a majority within the Parliament as well.
In response to a follow up question from Linda Fabiani (SNP), he agreed with the stance taken by the Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith who called for all sentences of two months or under to be scrapped.
You can read the question in the Official Report
Legal Advice on Alcohol Minimum Pricing legislation
Murdo Fraser (Con) asked whether the Government would share the legal advice it had received regarding the legality or otherwise of their plans for minimum pricing of alcohol. Alex Salmond replied that the Government are keen to share “as much legal advise as they possibly can”, but that they are bound by the restrictions on sharing legal advice that all Governments are bound by. He concluded by mentioning that Iain Duncan Smith also supported plans on minimum pricing for alcohol.
You can read this question in the Official Report.
Written Questions
Written questions this week included on the topic of whether the Government plans to introduce ‘neighbourhood crime maps’, about the number of domestic abuse cases prosecuted in the past 3 years, and about the average conviction for possession of different drugs. There were also questions about the ages of women given custodial sentences in different regions of Scotland, and a question about whether the Government would consider amending the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill to bring it in line with legislation in England and Wales in relation to human trafficking , and a question about the number of direct measures given for assaults. There was a question about the cost of the newly established Scottish Police Board and about how many women there are in custody, about funding for rape crisis centres, and finally, about an evaluation of the Child Sex Offender Community Disclosure Scheme in Tayside.
Posted by KM
on Tue 24th Nov 2009
at 9:27 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
This week saw the publication of the Justice Committee’s report into the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, which did support its ‘general principles‘, although did not fully endorse several of its key proposals. The Equal Opportunities Committee also published their inquiry into Females in the Justice System, which recommended, amongst other things, more female specific provisions for women in prisons. And in the Chamber, there were questions for the Law and Justice Officers.
The Justice Committee’s Stage 1 Report on the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill
On Thursday the Committee published its long awaited Stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. This is a crucial part of the legislative process: in order for the Bill to proceed though Parliament, its general principles must be recommended by Committee at Stage 1. The Bill will then be debated by the whole Chamber to conclude Stage 1, and then the finer details are debated and ironed out during Stages 2 and 3.
The Bill is a very significant piece of legislation, more than making up for the paucity of criminal justice legislation under this Administration during its first two years. It contains a wide range of provisions, some of which have attracted significant controversy, including the proposals to establish a sentencing council and a presumption against short custodial sentences. Other less controversial proposals relate to alcohol licensing, disclosure of evidence during trail, the prosecution of children, the upper age of jurors, serious and organised crime and people trafficking, and community sentences. Consideration of the Bill by the Committee has taken a considerable amount of time as well; they first called for evidence in March this year, and since then have received over 90 submissions and taken oral evidence over 8 meetings.
As always, the political make up of the Committee played a key role in determining which parts of the Bill where agreed to and which were not. The Committee is chaired by the Conservative Bill Aitken, other Members are: 3 Labour MSPs, 2 Liberal Democrats MSPs, and 2 SNP Members. The Convenor has the casting vote if it is needed.
The Committee agreed with the ‘general principles’ of the Bill, which means it can continue its journey through Parliament. However, the Committee noted difficulties with several areas which the Parliament expects the Government to take cognisance of and modify at Stage 2.
Key recommendations in the committee’s report
Purposes and principles of sentencing
The Committee rejected the proposals that the ‘purposes and principles of sentencing’ be enshrined in statute. They argued that the purposes and principles as enshrined under Common Law are already well understood by the courts, and that this should not be fixed in statute given that the common law has the advantage of evolving and developing as society changes.
The Scottish Sentencing Council
Proposals for a sentencing council were amongst the most controversial elements included in the Bill, and there was vigorous debate during evidence to the Committee on the issue. The proposals in the Bill would create a council which would prepare and publish sentencing guidelines which would include detailing particular types and levels of sentences that are suitable for particular offences. The guidelines would also include an assessment of the relevant costs and benefits and the likely effects of the sentence on the number of people serving sentences in prison and the community.
The Committee agreed that there was merit overall in the creation of a Sentencing Council, although they were uneasy about its aim of creating consistent sentencing. The report said that although the perception of inconsistent sentencing was problematic, this could not be addressed in this way without compromising other important principles of justice. They accepted however, that there may be a case for the setting of guidelines for sentencers, and that the Council would have some influence over judicial discretion, but they were divided about how the guidelines would be formulated and practised. Some of the Committee thought that guidelines should only take effect after formal endorsement by the Appeal Court, and they also thought that the Council should have a judicial majority on it. The Committee regarded the safeguards in the Bill, namely that any court can decide not to follow a sentencing guideline so long as it states its reason for doing so, as essential, and the minimum necessary to preserve judicial independence.
Community payback orders
The Committee were ‘broadly supportive’ of the creation of the all encompassing new community penalty – the ‘community payback order’ (CPO). The Committee thought that CPOs would simplify and strengthen the current range of community sentences, but they were sceptical that there were sufficient resources at this time or in the near future to make sure they could be adequately resourced. The report said that in order to move offenders from the prison to the community, sentencers must have confidence in the community alternative, but this would only happen if the new CPOs are adequately resourced, and it would be a substantial amount of time before any money was released from the prison budget, should a decrease in the prison population even come about. The Committee did also note however, that if the prison population continued on its current rising trend, this would also cost money, because new prison places would be required. The Committee also recommended that community penalties begin ‘very shortly after sentence is declared’, although they queried once again, whether there were sufficient resources in place for this to happen.
The Committee also did not agree with those witnesses who argued that progress courts should have been established as specialist courts, as the Prisons Commission recommended. They thought that this should be a matter for individual sentencers to consider in the light of local circumstances.
Presumption against short periods of imprisonment or detention
Another section of the Bill to attract widespread controversy were the proposals which sought to introduce a ‘presumption’ against prison sentences of six months and under, although as before, if sentencers wished to opt out of this, they would be able to, as long as they stated their reasons for doing so in court. Most witnesses to the Committee agreed that short prison sentenced do little in the way of rehabilitation, and were broadly supportive of the Bill’s proposals, although some thought that there should be a limited number of 6 month sentences available to sentencers, and others voiced concern that this could lead to a greater number of longer sentences being imposed.
The Committee could not reach agreement about these proposals, and the deciding vote, taken by the Convenor, rejected them. Their report acknowledged all the limitations of short terms in prison that the witnesses reported, but the Committee could not agree whether these sanctions were currently being overused, or whether they should continue to be regarded as an appropriate disposal. Some members of the Committee agreed that short sentences involve only a ‘warehousing’ of offenders and provide no real opportunity to engage them in programmes to tackle their offending behaviour or address their other problems, while others thought that prison could still have a useful effect in persuading an offender to change their behaviour. They also questioned whether short–term sentences are currently given out where better alternatives exist, and therefore doubted that a statutory presumption would make any real difference anyway. One Committee member thought that a three month threshold should be introduced initially, and this would focus on cases which were least likely to involve serious or violent offences.
Amendment of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007
The Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act 2007 has yet to be fully implemented, because the Government believes it would place too high a burden on the SPS and Local Authorities, given that it would significantly increase the number of prisoners who would be subject to supervision and assessment requirements. Part of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill therefore seeks to modify the existing Act. The Committee agreed that the Bill represented some improvement on the current law, as it will result in more prisoners being subject to statutory supervision on release and fewer to automatic unconditional early release, while avoiding the more burdensome requirements of the 2007 Act.
Voluntary intoxication by alcohol – effect in sentencing
The Committee agreed that voluntary intoxication should not be a mitigating factor in criminal trials, but thought it was unnecessary to enshrine this in statute, given that most sentencers already adhere to this principle and also because of the confusion a statutory definition may cause.
Serious organised crime
The provisions in this part of the Bill come from recommendations by the Serious Organised Crime Taskforce. The Bill seeks to create three new offences: the involvement in serious organised crime; directing serious organised crime; and failure to report serious organised crime. It also seeks to create a statutory aggravation ‘where an offence can be proved to have been connected with serious organised crime.’ The Government claimed that although the current common law of conspiracy can be used to prosecute these crimes, and a tighter definition was now needed in statute to make prosecution in this difficult area easier.
Although the Committee ‘strongly supported’ the intentions of this part of the Bill, they were unsure whether the proposals contained in it would achieve the results it is seeking to. They voiced some uncertainty about some of the definitions used, although they supported the introduction of the new statutory offences. They also voiced concerns about the proposals which would prosecute an individual if they failed to report serious and organised crime, saying there may on occasion be good reason why they did not do so and it would be difficult to know how wide to cast the net with regards to those who might know about these crimes.
Extreme pornography
Once again, the Committee agreed with the intentions of the Bill, namely to protect the public from extreme pornography, but it had concerns over the details. For example, they recommended that the definition of what constitutes an ‘extreme image’ should be clarified, and whether ‘realistic’ definitions of acts cold also include cartoons or other images which have been distorted.
People Trafficking
The Committee welcomed the provisions on people trafficking, but wanted further clarification from the Government about what else it is doing to tackle this crime, not least given that there have not so far been any convictions particularly in view of the absence so far of convictions for sexual exploitation under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which makes it an offence to engage in trafficking for the purposes of prostitution.
Prosecution of children
The Bill finally changes the law so children under the age of 12 cannot be prosecuted in criminal courts, bringing Scotland into line with recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. However, the Committee wanted assurances from the Government that there would continue to be a sufficient range of disposals available within the children’s hearings system for children under 12 who ‘sometimes do terrible things’.
Retention and use of samples
The Bill extends the powers of the police to keep forensic (primarily, DNA and fingerprint) data in a way that is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. Currently, where a person has been convicted of any offence, their forensic data can be held indefinitely, and in the cases of people who have been proceeded against, but not convicted in court, their DNA can be retained for a period of up to three years. The Bill would bring the law on the retention of fingerprints and other forensic data into line with current law on DNA retention, and would also allow the retention of forensic data taken from children who are dealt with the children’s hearing system for committing relevant violent or sexual offences, again for a period of three years with the possibility of subsequent extensions of up to two years if authorised by a sheriff.
The Committee were uncomfortable about whether the Bill should be extended to cover forensic data taken from people who are then offered alternatives to prosecution. Regarding the retention of forensic data taken from children referred to a Children’s Hearing, although they were in favour of these proposals, they wanted more clarification over what sexual or violent offences would prompt this. And they suggested that retention should only be allowed on application to a sheriff.
Upper age limit for jurors
The Committee supported the Bill’s provisions to increase the upper age of jurors from 65 to 70, thereby bringing Scotland in line with the rest of the UK.
The Committee’s report also contained provisions relating to disclosure and evidence in trials, and licensing, which are not covered here, but which you can read more about below.
You can read all the report on the Stage 1 Report on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill homepage and read the accompanying press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog
Equal Opportunities Committee Report into Female Offenders in the Criminal Justice System
The other report relating to criminal justice to be published this week was the culmination of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s inquiry into female offenders in the justice system. The Committee launched this report in December last year after being persuaded that the experiences of female offenders merited particular attention in an equal opportunities context, because of the different ways that female offenders, as opposed to men, enter the criminal justice system and are subsequently treated.
The main findings of the report are as follows:
- There are too many women in prison with mental health problems who do not pose a threat to society, but who are a threat to themselves. The way that women with mental health problems are sentenced by the courts should therefore be re-examined.
- More could and should be done to rehabilitate women in prison, particularly those serving short-term sentences and those on remand.
- Around half the children of female prisoners may end up in prison themselves. They must be given more support because children are the innocent victims when their mothers are sent to prison.
- More could and should be done to stop drugs circulating in Cornton Vale, but children should not be punished by having their visits cancelled if their mothers are caught taking drugs.
- Women are often sentenced more harshly than men for the same crime, and the Committee wanted information from the Government to know what it was doing to address this issue.
- There should be more female–appropriate community sentences and these should be better funded. The report was very favourable of the 218 Centre in Glasgow and recommended that this should be replicated on a wider basis and should also be available to women who are at risk of committing crime as well.
- The development of throughcare is welcome, but it should be better co-ordinated.
- The Committee was critical that ex–offenders with a conviction related to prostitution may have to reveal their conviction to certain prospective employers.
The report also states that many parts of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill are relevant to the issues raised in this report, and called the Parliament and the Government would consider the Bill in this context.
You can read the full report in the Females in the Justice System homepage, and also read the press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog
The Justice Committee
The Justice Committee welcomed a new Committee Member in its meeting on Tuesday. James Kelly (Lab) has replace Paul Martin (Lab) as Labour’s shadow community safety spokesperson. Mr Martin has resigned from the Committee in order to ‘take up other parliamentary responsibilities’. Once again, a great deal of the Committee’s meeting was spent in private, considering their final draft of their Stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, see above, and their report on the draft Budget Bill for the Finance Committee. Before that however, they also considered two items of subordinate legislation, which they noted without comment.
The Chamber
General Questions
Gender Violence
Johann Lamont (Lab), who often speaks in the Chamber on gender issues, asked the Minister for Housing and Communities, Alex Neil, about the annual ‘16 days of activism against gender violence’ campaign. This is a global campaign which seeks to connect gender violence with human rights and it begins on the 25th of November, which is the International Day Against Violence Against Women. She said that although important work has been done on this issue, it was important not to become complacent given the continuing scale and impact of domestic abuse on individuals, families, public services and our economic and social wellbeing. She also wanted to know whether the Government would address how violence against women can be tackled in order to address the broader issues of the gender gap in workplaces.
The Minister replied that the 16 days campaign was an important time of year and that the Parliament will hold a debate to mark the beginning of the event which will be on the same theme as the 16 days of action: ‘commit, act, demand: we can end violence against women.’ He also said that he and the national group on violence against women, which he chairs, would be happy to discuss the other points raised by Ms Lamont further with her.
You can read this question in the Official Report and read more about the campaign on the 16 days against gender violence homepage
Questions to the Law and Justice Officers
Length of criminal appeals
Pauline McNeill (Lab) asked the Solicitor General for Scotland, Frank Mulholland, what the Government was going to do about the length of criminal appeals, given that recent statistics show there has been a 34% increase in the duration of solemn appeals. She argued that this increase could damage the Scottish legal system, and she questioned whether additional judges could be hired in order to help alleviate the situation. The Solicitor General replied that 79% of appeals were concluded within 6 months, and that the number of lengthy and complex appeals has increased significantly and that several of these have been full-bench cases, which occupy multiple judges in one sitting. He said that the judiciary are aware of this issue and are already beginning to address it through a number of measures which he was confident about would begin to bear fruit in the near future.
Mandatory sentences for knife crime
Helen Eadie (Lab) raised the case of someone who was murdered with a knife in her constituency after intervening to try and calm a violent situation down. She said that it was time the Parliament sent the message out that ‘if you carry a knife you go to jail.’ The Justice Secretary gave his condolences to the bereaved family in the case Ms Eadie raised, but he said that he sided with the Chief Constable of Strathclyde and the Superintendent in charge of the violence reduction unit, who said the best way to tackle knife crime was through measures such as education and improving the apprehension of people who were carrying. He said that anyone caught carrying a knife would almost certainly be sentenced to a custodial sentence anyway, and that these things should be left at the discretion of the judiciary.
During a supplementary question, Bill Aitken argued that all efforts to tackle knife crime would be defeated by the Government’s proposals of a presumption against sentences of less than 6 months and the fact that many people who are sent to prison are released after only a quarter of their sentence. The Cabinet Secretary replied firstly that automatic early release was established by the Conservative Government and he then went on to give a rather mixed confused answer that although he believed in the judiciary’s right to make decisions, and that in some instances when a Sheriff thinks that a short sentence may be appropriate, for example in cases of domestic abuse, they had the Government’s full support. However, he also believed that short sentences do not work in reducing reoffending.
The Monitoring of Sex Offenders
John Lamont (Con) asked the Cabinet Secretary what steps are being taken to improve the management of sex offenders. He said that the Government should reconsider an earlier statement which said they were opposed to using satellite tracking for monitoring offenders, saying that this could actually have a number of benefits, such as identifying if an individual is in the vicinity of a school or similar establishment. He also wanted to know why the budget for the monitoring of sex offenders been cut by £21,000.
The Cabinet Secretary replied that regarding satellite technology, he was not ruling anything in or out at this stage, although he pointed out that because the police are not convinced that it could prove effective, it was unlikely to become policy. However, he said that the Government are continually looking at evidence from elsewhere and if some measures proved to be cost effective, he was happy to consider adopting it. Regarding the sex offender budget decrease, he said that this is because sex offenders are increasingly monitored using different methods that do not all come through the criminal justice directorate such as housing or social work.
Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004
John Park (Lab) asked if the Government would intervene to make councils use the full range of powers available to them to tackle antisocial behaviour. He argued that the council in Fife do not use the existing legislation, and that he frequently receives correspondence about antisocial behaviour between neighbours which could be tackled using some of these measures. The Minister for Community Safety replied that although it was a matter for local authorities whether to use the powers of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Government would not impose on that decision, he would be happy to look at the examples that Mr Park mentioned.
Joint Thematic Report on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
The recent report which said that the Proceeds of Crime Act was not being fully exploited was raised by Elizabeth Smith (Con), and she asked whether the 2002 Act could be amended so that the onus was on the criminal rather than the Crown to demonstrate that their assets had not been obtained as a result of criminality. The Cabinet Secretary replied that in these cases it is in fact up to the individual to show that an asset was from a legitimate source, and that ways of improving recovering are always being kept under review. In a supplementary question, Richard Baker (Lab) wanted to know whether any discussions had been had with police forces about holding back some of the seized funds in order to give them to forces as an incentivisation policy. The Secretary replied that seized money under this legislation had already recently been given to ACPOS.
Criminal Activity (CCTV)
Finally, Ken Macintosh (Lab) said that the previous Executive made funds available to Scotland’s ethnic communities to install CCTV at places of worship, which resulted in their peace of mind and improved security, and he queried whether the current Government would consider giving a further grant to these communities for the same purpose. The Minister for Community Safety replied that CCTV can play a significant role in the prevention, detection and prosecution of crime. However, the fund that Mr Macintosh referred to was set up after the events of 11 September 2001 and it has now been fully utilised, although issues would continue to be kept under consideration.
You can read all the questions to the Law and Justice Officers in the Official Report, and watch them on Holyrood.TV
Written Questions
This week there were a range of questions from Robert Brown (LD) about the recent European ruling on minimum pricing in relation to alcohol , another question about alcohol fuelled violence in the recent Scottish Crime and Justice Survey, and another question arising from the SCJS, this time about knife crime. There was a question about measuring the efficacy of drug and alcohol treatment and about whether the Scottish Government would contribute to the Home Office’s current review of the classification of drugs. There were a range of justice questions including on the test purchasing of knives, fixed penalty notices, and the unlawful removal of a child from a country by one of their parents, and a question about the number of cases in district courts and justice of the peace courts. There was a question about whether Scottish police forces contribute data on protesters to the intelligence database run by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, about the funding to Dumfries prison and finally, about the number of wildlife crimes since 1999.
Posted by KM
on Wed 18th Nov 2009
at 9:00 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
This week in Parliament there was a Conservative Party initiated debate on the Government’s plans for minimum pricing for alcohol, which gave all the parties the chance to put forward their position and debate the issues. There was also a statement from the First Minister about a recent major child sex offender trial, and questions to the First Minister about budget cuts and the police. In the Justice Committee, MSPs decided what additional documentation they would seek as part of their inquiry into the Government’s handling of the Al–Megrahi release.
The Justice Committee
The Committee once again spent a large proportion of their meeting in private, writing draft reports for the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill and for the Draft Budget Bill.
Inquiry into Decision on Abdelbaset al–Megrahi
The public part of the Committee’s meeting was spent considering what documentation it should seek as part of their inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the decision to release Mr. Al–Megrahi.
The Committee decided to carry out this inquiry as an attempt for the Parliament to hold the Government to account for decision which was, arguably, one of the most controversial events the 10 years of the Parliament’s sitting. The inquiry will only focus on whether or not the Scottish Government followed the appropriate processes in reaching the decision, rather than whether or not the decision to release on compassionate grounds was justified. This will be a relatively short inquiry; the Committee hope to have concluded the reviewing of documentation and taking of oral evidence (including from the Cabinet Secretary) before the end of the year.
The documentation so far available to the Committee is limited to that which the Scottish Government made public shortly after Mr Al–Megrahi was released, and the Committee now had to consider whether or not they wished to seek additional information.
Nigel Don (SNP) argued that the documentary evidence the Committee had so far seemed to illustrate that the Cabinet Secretary was unaware of the understand that the Americans had of the prisoner transfer deal which was agreed between the UK Government and Libya in 2007. There was some discussion about whether information regarding countries’ understanding of the transfer deal should be sought from the UK and the US Governments or not, and whether this fell within the remit of the Committee’s inquiry. Robert Brown (LD) and Cathy Craigie (Lab) expressed reservations, while other Committee members including the Convenor agreed that this information should at least be asked for, and whether or not it would yielded anything of value would remain to be seen.
You can read the transcript of this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV.
You can also read more about this inquiry in the Inquiry into decision on Abdelbaset al–Megrahi homepage. Finally, you can read the press about this story in the CJScotland Newsblog.
The Chamber
Alcohol minimum pricing debate
On Thursday there was a Conservative led debate in the Chamber about the Government’s plans for minimum pricing of alcohol. Minimum pricing is one of a range of measures that the Government will include in a forthcoming Bill aimed at addressing problematic alcohol consumption. Their plans have met considerable opposition so far; the licensing industry have been lobbying hard, and the Government have also so far failed to persuade their Parliamentary colleagues of the merits of the scheme. However, the specific policy of minimum pricing have yet to be subject to a full debate in the Scottish Parliament, so Thursday’s debate gave all parties the chance to set out their positions on this issue in more detail.
The debate was led by the parties’ health spokespersons in light of the fact that this policy is being promoted under a ‘public health’, rather than ‘criminal justice’ banner.
Murdo Fraser opened for the Conservatives. He said that there were three problems with the Government’s plans for minimum pricing. Firstly, they would penalise responsible drinkers: the price of a bottle of ‘Stowells of Chelsea wine’ would increase, while the price of Buckfast would not, and he questioned which of the two ‘neds’ would start their night out drinking. Secondly, he argued that the minimum pricing plans may be illegal under European law because it would constitute an obstacle to the free movement of trade in the internal market. This is in light of a recent ruling by the Commission against the minimum pricing of tobacco, although the Scottish Government have strongly argued that this would not apply to alcohol. And thirdly, he argued that the plans would damage the Scottish spirits industry, and he quoted from the Scots Whisky Association who estimate that minimum pricing would cost the industry millions of pounds per year.
He also put forwards his party’s own solution to alcohol misuse, including better enforcement of the current laws, particularly in restricting sales to people who are under age; better education on the adverse health effects of alcohol; a clamp down on irresponsible promotions by retailers, including a ban on retailers selling alcohol below cost price; and targeted alcohol taxation: a rise in excise duty on alcopops, as well as on super–strength beers and ciders. He also chided Labour’s position on this issue, because they have not come out full–square against the Government, despite voicing some criticism.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, spoke next for the Government. She began by saying that they too wanted a rigorous enforcement of current laws and better education on the effects of alcohol, and she said that the Government would be willing to work with ideas that other parties put forward because a consensual way forward was important. She quoted from recent research which put a financial and health cost of alcohol abuse in Scotland, saying that if minimum pricing were introduced, total alcohol consumption would fall by 5 per cent, hazardous and harmful drinkers’ consumption would fall by 9 per cent, and alcohol–related deaths would fall by almost 20 per cent.
She argued against the Conservative’s view that their policies would penalise the responsible drinker, saying that minimum pricing would be a targeted policy, not a blanket policy: the greatest impact would be on strong, cheap alcohol, which is favoured by harmful and hazardous drinkers, and not on moderate drinkers, nor on mainstream and premium products. She also quoted from those who support their policies , saying they have attracted widespread international praise. The Cabinet Secretary denied that these plans would lead to Scots going to England and Wales for ‘booze runs’, and she said that the EU does not prohibit minimum pricing as long as it is proportionate, nondiscriminatory and achieves a clear health benefit.
Jackie Bailie has taken over from Cathy Jamieson as the Labour party’s health spokesperson, and she spoke next. Indicating her party’s ‘on the fence’ stance, she said that she wasn’t “closing down any options at this stage”. She said that this Parliament has always taken an evidenced–based approach to policy which should continue with this issue, which was too important to play politics with. She said that the statistics on alcohol misuse were “simply appalling”, and painted the picture of a public health picture which the Parliament could not ignore. She did acknowledge that there was a correlation between price and consumption, but she cautioned against the notion that minimum pricing would provide a ‘silver bullet’.
She pointed out that there are different groups who consume alcohol to excess, and different policies may be required for each one. She also said that, although the recent research carried out by the University of Sheffield was persuasive, evidence about the economic and employment effects on minimum pricing also had to be considered. Ms Bailie also urged the Government to share the legal advice it has received regarding the compatibility with European legislation. She concluding by saying that although the Government has said that it aims for consensus on this issue, that did not mean “waiting until other’s come round to one’s own point of view”, and she looked forward to hearing what other parties said on this issue as well.
The Liberal Democrat’s justice spokesperson Robert Brown spoke for his party. He also acknowledged the seriousness of this issue, agreeing that it was absolutely right that the Parliament debates it at “at such a high level of intensity”. He said that although the minimum pricing policy was well intentioned, its effects would be marginal, and that it was badly targeted. He argued that the Government’s obsession with this policy was ignoring the broader and more important issue of how to change Scotland’s cultural attitudes, which say that it is ok and indeed even praiseworthy, to get excessively drunk on a night out.
Mr Brown said that although he had been swayed by the large body of medical and public health experts which have spoken out in support of the policy, the Government’s recent reaction to the European ruling on minimum pricing was the point at which they began to lose the argument given that they were “almost certainly wrong” to claim that the ruling did not apply to alcohol. He also challenged the Government to share their legal advice with Opposition parties to aid them in their consideration of this matter.
During the open debate that followed all Members acknowledged the problem of alcohol in Scotland, but had different remedies to fix it. Many contributions said that there were too many outstanding issues which remained to be addressed before minimum pricing could be introduced, such as the effects of cross border alcohol purchasing and the European legal issues. That the existing laws need to be enforced better was another recurring theme, and some Members criticised the Government for not providing ring–fenced funding for alcohol treatment centres whilst at the same time pushing for minimum pricing. Although most Members acknowledged there was a connection between the price of alcohol and consumption, some though that this should be tackled instead through taxation, which would have the benefit of contributing to public finances, although would have to be levied by Westminster.
At the end of the debate, the vote reflected the unresolved opinion of Parliament on this issue. Although none of the Opposition parties voted with the Government, none of the individual parties’ amendments were agreed to either. The Conservative motion was also defeated despite support from the Liberal Democrats, because Labour and the SNP voted against it. Although the vote was inconclusive, the the debate was successful at elucidating the complex issues and arguments around the problem of alcohol in Scotland, and how to address it. The arguments were well considered and for the most part not partisan or populist. What was revealed was a strong desire to do something, but uncertainty both as to what this should be and what role the Parliament should have in addressing it.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Statement on Sex Offenders
Later that afternoon, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice made a statement to the Chamber about the recent trial which convicted six men for a range of offences relating to child sex abuse.
He said that he made this speech with ‘both pride and sorrow’: sorrow for the fact that these horrendous crimes had occurred, and pride for success of the police operation which had carried out the investigation. He said that ‘operation algebra’ was an historic case and a landmark for the criminal justice system, because it involved the first ever convictions in Scotland for conspiracy to commit abuse against children. He said that he had seen a copy of a report written by Lothian and Borders Police, the City of Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian into their handling of one of the convicted men, who had already been on the sex offenders registered at the time of the offences. The review is confidential, but the Cabinet Secretary said there were no recommendations for the Government regarding legislation or further guidance, rather the recommendations which were made were for local agencies to consider.
He reiterated that although every effort would be made to bring offenders such as those involved in this trial to justice, these type of offenders were often the most devious and manipulative and therefore the most difficult for the criminal justice system to deal with. He spoke about the ‘limited information disclosure project’ which is running in Tayside, which allows parents to request information on named individuals if they have regular and unsupervised contact with children. The Secretary said that, although the disclosure of information about sex offenders living in communities is a sensitive one, very careful consideration of the rights of everyone involved had to be weighed up, and he thanked all the Opposition parties for supporting this pilot as well.
During questions that followed, Richard Baker wanted to know why the report into the man who was already on the sex offenders register could not be made public, and he argued that there was a continuing need for a specialist unit in Peterhead to treat sex offenders. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the report did not belong to the Scottish Government so it was therefore not his decision whether or not it could be made public, and that the reason it was private was in order to preserve the confidentiality of the victims involved. However, he disclosed that four recommendations had been made in the report including police procedures in the investigation of domestic violence between lesbian or gay partners; consistency in the use of risk assessment tools by the police and other agencies; operational improvements around sexual offences prevention order applications; and the identification of increased risk when an offender admits to fantasising about children. He also said that the MAPPA arrangements were only coming into affect at the time the crimes occurred, therefore there were stricter procedures already in place to reduce these sorts of offences.
Bill Aitken wanted to know whether the Government would consider any further measures, such as satellite tracking people on the sex offenders register, or the requirement for them to take a lie detector test if they caused concern amongst relavent agencies. The Secretary replied that the Scottish Government were monitoring developments in England and Wales where they are trialling polygraph testing, and if these yielded positive results, he would not rule out developing them further in Scotland. However, he ruled out the possibility of Satellite tracking, saying that although technology can be useful it also has it limitations.
Robert Brown (LD) also raised the issue of available places in prison for treatment for sex offenders. He said that there were currently very few places for treatment available, and that only offenders who admit guilt can be offered a place on programmes, meaning that arguably the most dangerous offenders do not access treatment. He also wanted information about the efficacy of the programmes. The Cabinet Secretary replied that there was an evaluation currently underway into sex offender treatment which he would be happy to share with Parliament once it was published, and he shared Mr Brown’s frustrations about only offenders admitting guilt being admitted to programmes, although he said there were good reasons why this was the case.
During following questions, there were discussion about whether the budget for monitoring sex offenders has been cut or not, and the fact that the reoffending rates for sex offenders are considerably lower than for other offenders was also mentioned.
You can read the full debate on the Official Report or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Questions
Children at Risk and Dungavel Detention Centre
Christine Grahame (SNP) asked the First Minister whether any children who had been referred to the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration had been sent to Dungavel detention centre before investigations have been concluded. Dungavel holds failed asylum seekers before they are deported, and the detention of children there has long been a controversial issue. Ms Grahame urged the First Minister to hold talks with the Home Office to ensure that the detention of these children does not happen, and to convey the “revulsion” that Scots have at the practice of holding children there at all.
The First Minister replied that although no children who had been referred to the SCRA have been held in Dungavel over the past 12 months, there have nonetheless been 103 children detained there over the same time period, which the Scottish Government are also “fundamentally opposed to”. He said that he has recently held meetings with the Home Office to press this issue, and that he will continue to do so.
In a supplementary question, Mike Pringle (LD) said that his party also opposes the retention of children in Dungavel, and he wanted to know how a ‘family return project’ which is piloting in Glasgow is getting on, given that its prototype, a centre in Kent, only dealt with a very small proportion of those it initially intended to. The First Minister also welcomed the service that the project delivers, and he said that given that it has only been open since May, it was too soon to tell whether or not it has been successful. You can read this question in the Official Report.
Draft budget and policing
Richard Baker (Lab) asked the First Minister about the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents’ statement that the draft budget would result in cuts to front-line services and an “an inability to respond appropriately to major civil or criminal contingencies”. The ASPS made this claim in a submission to the Justice Committee as part of their scrutiny into the draft budget, and it was subsequently picked up by the press. Richard Baker argued that forces much be able to retain and recruit new officers and that they should not be doing jobs that were previously carried out by civilian staff.
The First Minister replied that central Government funding of police for the forthcoming year will actually increase by 3.1% and he quoted from the recently published Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland’s annual report, which praised the operation of the police, and their ability to meet current and future challenges. He also chided the Labour party for criticising police funding when the Government were increasing their funding at a time of cuts from the Labour Government in Westminster. He also pointed out that the Scottish Government have managed to fund the extra 1,000 officers despite claims from Richard Baker they would not manage to do so.
In a supplementary question, Bill Aitken (Con) pointed out that the reason there are 1,000 extra police is in fact due to the involvement of the Conservative party in the budget two years ago, and not due to the Govenrment’s priorities. He also sought assurances from the First Minister that front–line policing will remain a priority in future budgets, when finances become even tighter.
In reply, the First Minister urged Bill Aitken to persuade his the Conservative party in Westminster not to carry out spending cuts on public services if they came to power and also to oppose spending money on Trident missiles.
You can read this question in the Official Report and watch of all FMQs on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press about the Government budget and the ASPS’ statement in the CJScotland NewsblogWritten Questions
This week there were several questions about the Government’s minimum pricing policy, how many anti–social behaviour orders have been issued since they were introduced, and how much funding has been given to local authorities for anti-social behaviour strategies. There was a question about the amount of violent crime has taken place in the Lothians and about the age of offenders convicted of handling an offensive weapon, and a question in which the Government refused to name women’s refuges in order to protect the women there. There was a question about whether the police use numberplate recognition technology to monitor protesters, and a question about ensuring the community service does not deprive someone of paid employment, and further questions about community service and employment. There were questions about the funding police receive to police large protests and marches. There was a question which raised an issue which emerged in Justice Committee evidence from the Prison Officers Association concerning numbers of prison officers and their safety, and finally a question about the number of hours of rehabilitation programmes carried out by prisoners.
Posted by KM
on Tue 10th Nov 2009
at 8:34 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Parliament was back in action again this week following the two week autumn break. The main justice business took place in the Justice Committee as it continued to hear evidence on the budget: this week it heard from the Cabinet Secretary, ADSW, CoSLA and Victim Support. In the Chamber there was a question for the First Minister about alcohol minimum pricing policy.
The Justice Committee
Last week’s meeting was much longer than usual, lasting the best part of a day. Most of this took place behind closed doors however, as the Committee continued to work in private on the Stage 1 Report for the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill and to consider their approach to the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.
Draft budget scrutiny
During the public part of their meeting they continued to take evidence as part of their scrutiny of the Government’s draft budget 2010–11, hearing from ADSW, CoSLA, Victim Support and the Cabinet Secretary and his officials.
The spokespeople from ADSW and CoSLA spoke first and they were asked about the effect that no increase in the 2010–11 budget for local authorities would have on their services. CoSLA representatives replied that it was necessary to have the adequate resources to deliver good quality services, but that the real challenge was how to address the problem of the numbers of people in prison. There was a need for the judiciary to consider greater use of community penalties rather than continue to rely on imprisonment. ADSW said that although they were very grateful for the extra funding they had received over the past year, which had helped them to develop services and clear their backlog, they had concerns about future funding not least because of the projected growth in services over the forthcoming years. ADSW’s spokesperson also said that there was a need for a more sophisticated way of allocating resources, rather than the current model which simply divides money by the number of orders made.
Since the Concordat was agreed local authorities now hold the purse strings for a range of services which were previously ring–fenced, a point that came out strongly during the Committee’s last meeting when they heard from police and fire brigade unions. In light of this, the CoSLA spokesperson was refreshingly honest when he said that everyone knew there would be a reduction in the resources that are available to local authorities, which would mean that all partners that receive funding from them will need to ‘look collectively and prioritise key needs’ but that the reality was that some desirable services may have to go.
The witnesses said that there had been a 67% increase in the numbers of criminal justice social workers over the past 10 years, and there was some confusion about whether there has been a drop in the number over the past two years or not. CoSLA also pointed out that providing quality services was not only about numbers of social workers, it was also about co–operating with partners in community planning to construct the best ‘team’ to deliver services.
The spokespeople from Victim Support were also asked about the effect of a budget freeze over the next financial year, and they said that this would have a direct effect on the services they provide, given that their referral numbers have increased over the past year and they are now working with more vulnerable people. When asked whether this would mean cuts in budget or not, the witnesses said they may have to ‘review’ their services which may mean that people would not receive the same support as they had in the past.
The Committee then heard from the Cabinet Secretary and his colleagues. The Secretary first spoke about the funding for policing, which has increased over the past year to help cover the retirement bulge and to help with police pensions. He said that if ring–fenced funding were to be re–introduced, this would make no difference to way that police receive their funding, contrary to some recent claims that have been made. He also refused to say whether he would intervene if local authorities cut their share of police budgets the future, and he refused to comment on whether there should be greater civilianisation in the police force, saying that this should always remain an operational issue.
The Justice Secretary was asked about last week’s evidence from the Prison Officers Association, which said that there had been a 23% reduction in the number of operational staff within the SPS since 2000, and he replied that any cuts in numbers of staff in prisons would be carried out in consultation between unions and the SPS and that the safety of SPS staff must always be paramount.
There was the usual friendly exchange between Paul Martin (Lab) and the Secretary, this time about funding for community service, with Mr Martin wondering where the money saved from the community court in Glasgow will now be spent, now that this it is not proceeding.
You can read the transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can read more about the budget in relation to criminal justice in the CJScotland Newsblog..
The Chamber
Questions
Minimum pricing
The First Minister was asked by his party colleague Stewart Maxwell (SNP) about a recent ruling in the European Court of Justice which stated that minimum pricing on tobacco products was illegal. This story was seized on by the domestic alcohol industry who argued that this should mean that the Scottish Government should rethink their plans for minimum pricing on alcohol.
The First Minister replied that the issue of minimum pricing for tobacco and for alcohol were completely separate and therefore no parallels should be drawn between the two. He said that the EC would not prohibit minimum pricing for alcohol on public health grounds, as long as it was non–discriminatory (i.e. it must apply to all traders within the country, and it must have the same impact on domestic and imported products). Mr Salmond then urged the whole of the Chamber to read the recent research which highlights the public health costs of alcohol abuse in Scotland.
In response to a supplementary question from Jackie Bailie (Lab), the First Minister said that he would do everything he could to make the legal advice the Government have received on this issue, available to the Opposition.
You can read this question in the Official Report, and also read the relevant press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Written Questions
There were several questions about the recently published research about the potential benefits of a minimum pricing alcohol policy, and a related question about whether alcohol consumption has changed over the past six years. There were various questions about the recently published recorded crime statistics, a question about the average sentence for domestic abuse, and a question about the number of needle exchanges operating throughout Scotland. There was a question about the potential SPS bill for human rights claims (see also the press stories in the CJScotland Newsblog), and the number of fiscal fines that remain to be paid. Finally, there were two questions about Government funding for police in this year’s budget.
Posted by KM
on Tue 3rd Nov 2009
at 9:19 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Monday, October 05, 2009
This was another very quiet week in the Parliament, with the only justice debates taking place in questions to the Law and Justice Officers in the Chamber.
The Justice Committee
Once again, most of the Committee’s meeting was spent in private considering their approach to the scrutiny of the draft budget, the remit for the Al-Megrahi inquiry, and their Stage 1 report on the Criminal Justice ad Licensing Bill. Before that they considered two negative instruments which they passed without comment.
You can read the minutes of the meeting in the Committee papers
The Chamber
Questions
Alcohol misuse
There was a question for the Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), who was standing in for the First Minister during FMQs, about the recently published piece of research from the University of Sheffield which supported an alcohol minimum pricing regime. The research, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government, argued that introducing a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol would cut alcohol related deaths, long term illness and incidents of crime. In his question, Michael Matheson (SNP) said that this research joins a growing body of international evidence which also shows that minimum pricing reduces consumption, and he also highlighted the health effects of overconsumption of alcohol, saying it is one of the main risk factors associated with breast cancer.
There were supplementary questions for the three Opposition justice spokespersons. Richard Baker (Lab) said it was important that the fight against alcohol abuse must also include the rigorous enforcement of the existing law; Robert Brown (LD) pointed out that if a minimum pricing regime were to be introduced, it would increase private retailers&’ incomes by £90 million per year and drop public revenues by £4 million, and Bill Aitken (Con) said that a more targeted approach to addressing the problem together with Westminster would be more appropriate. The Deputy First Minister replied that the benefit of minimum pricing would be a reduced amount of alcohol consumption which should rise above other factors, and she urged all the Members in the Chamber to read the report, saying that sometimes the Parliament should be bold and “lead from the front” as they had done with the ban on smoking in public places.
You can read this question in the Official Report . See also the story in the CJScotland Newsblog
Questions to the Law and Justice Officers
Implementation of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009
Bill Aitken (Con) asked about the reported delay in the implementation of the sexual offences Act, calling this “scandalous” and a let down for potential victims. The Cabinet Secretary denied that there was a delay in the Act’s implementation, although he then went on to say that because the legislation is introducing such radical changes, the Crown Office, the Scottish Court Service and the police require around a year to train their staff and make the necessary changes before they are ready for the new legislation. The Justice Secretary also answered a supplementary question from Richard Baker (Lab) about the need to improve the clear up rate for rape and attempted rape, which have fallen.
Assisted suicide
Jeremy Purvis (LD) asked whether or not people who travelled abroad to help a terminally ill person commit suicide should be charged with culpable homicide. Kenny MacAskill replied that the recent developments in England and Wales do not affect Scotland where there is no offence of assisting suicide, and that the Lord Advocate is the one to decides when any prosecution should take place or not.
Extradition requests to the United States of America
John Wilson (SNP) asked a question in which he argued the fact that the extradition arrangements between the UK and the USA are reserved to Westminster, even if they involve a Scottish national, is “against the natural principles of justice”. The Cabinet Secretary replied that extradition arrangements had to be kept under constant review but provided no further comment.
Knife crime in Glasgow
Margaret Curran (Lab) argued in her question that Glasgow has the highest rate of recorded crime nationally and a significant knife crime problem, but the Glasgow Community Justice Authority has recently seen its budget cut, which goes against the Government’s pledge to fund more community sentences. The Justice Secretary said that record amounts had been put into supporting community sentences and he also praised the police in Glasgow and the violence reduction unit.
Licensing Act 2005
Richard Simpson (Lab) highlighted the problems that there have been with the implementation of the Licensing Act, in particular the backlog in processing licenses to retailers who wish to sell alcohol. He said that in some areas, 50 per cent of premises have not received their licence and some individuals have had to wait 15 months for them after due process and payment. The Cabinet Secretary acknowledged that there had been some problems in some areas, but the “millennium meltdown” that many had anticipated on the 1st of September when the Act came into affect had not happened, and he said that all authorities were working hard to clear the backlog.
Rural Policing
In his question, John Lamont (Con) said that it was important that smaller rural communities are not marginalised in police force areas which also contain larger towns and cities. The Justice Secretary naturally agreed, and said that he had met with both Chief Constables and Sheriffs who understand that crime problems affect cities and rural areas differently.
Illegal encampments
Andrew Welsh (SNP) highlighted the case of illegal encampments in his constituency, saying that people have chosen to camp in places with no facilities and commit antisocial behaviour causing nuisance for local communities. The Secretary replied that there are various civil and legal powers available to police and local authorities, and that enforcement ultimately lies with them.
You can read all the questions to the Law and Justice Officers in the Official Report, or watch them on Holyrood.TV
Written questions
There was a question for the Cabinet Secretary about the Government‘s approach to serious and organised crime, the amount of fines issued for vandalism, and the number of arrests for domestic abuse across Scotland. There was a question about the number of drug and alcohol treament centres in Scotland, about comments made by the Lord Advocate about how many years a life sentence should be, and the Government‘s view on this issue. Finally, there were a number of questions about prison including whether they really were “universities of crime”.
Posted by KM
on Mon 5th Oct 2009
at 8:05 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Last week in Parliament a bill which seeks to ban the public display of tobacco cleared its stage 1 debate, and there were also some questions about marches and parades in Glasgow.
The Justice Committee
Once again, most of the Committee’s meeting was spent behind closed doors. There were a number of items of subordinate legislation to consider before they went into private recess which they noted without comment.
The minutes of the meeting reveal what was discussed in private afterwards. The Committee debated whether they should carry out an inquiry into the Government’s decision to release the Lockerbie bomber or not, which came down to a vote with the 3 SNP MSPs voting against and everyone else voting in favour. The Committee will therefore begin this inquiry in the near future. This will be a short inquiry which will focus on the way in which Mr. al-Megrahi’s application for compassionate release (and Libya’s application for prisoner transfer) were handled, rather than the merits of the final decision to release on compassionate grounds.
The minutes also reveal items that the Committee are considering working on in the future, including progress with the implementation of summary justice reforms and training for the judiciary.
You can read the minutes of the meeting in the Meeting Papers
The Chamber
Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill – Stage 1 debate
Last Thursday the Chamber debated Stage 1 of a bill which seeks to ban the public displays of tobacco products in shops. The Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Bill will also ban cigarette vending machines, introduce a registration scheme for some retailers, issue fixed penalty notices for retailers who sell cigarettes to under 18s, and banning orders to prevent retailers selling cigarettes if they continually flout the law. The Bill has been considered by the Health and Sports Committee.
The Chamber voted in favour of Stage 1 of the debate by majority, with only the Conservatives voting against. Their opposition was based on the argument that there was no conclusive evidence that banning Tobacco displays would reduce the number of smokers, and that this would have a serious and detrimental effect on small retail business. Despite this however, the Bill was passed and will now return to the Committee to be discussed further at Stage 2.
You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read more about the Bill on the Official Bill homepage
Questions
Justice of the Peace Court Reform
During general questions, Elaine Murray (Lab) asked the Justice Secretary about the reforms of the Justice of the Peace Courts, which are taking place across the country. These reforms to the administration of summary justice flow from the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, and seek to rationalise the operations of the lower courts in Scotland. They have been criticised by several MSPs for closing district courts their constituencies, and the the previous attempt by the Justice Secretary to close this particular court was voted down in the Justice Committee.
The Scottish Court Service has ‘recommended’ to the Cabinet Secretary that the court in question, which is in Ms Murray’s constituency, should be shut down, but if the Government wishes to do this it has to secure a vote from the Parliament first, either in Committee or by the whole Chamber.
Elaine Murray urged the Cabinet Secretary not to proceed with this closure, reminding him that although the SCS have recommended it, it is unlikely that it would be agreed to by the Committee second time around and neither would it be likely to succeed in a vote in the Parliament.
Kenny MacAskill replied that he had received the recommendation from the SCS and he was still “considering” the options available, saying he was in discussions with the Justice Committee and others about how to proceed.
You can read the question in the Official Report
The Policing of Marches and Parades in Glasgow
There were a series of questions about the policing of marches and parades in Glasgow. Bill Butler (Lab) began by pointing out that although Edinburgh receives extra money which covers events such marches and parades, Glasgow in fact hosts over twice as many marches and parades than Edinburgh does, and should therefore receive additional funding as well.
Kenny MacAskill replied that Edinburgh receives the extra funding for ‘cultural events’ which occur because it is a capital city, which are very different from the sorts of parades, such as Orange marches, that often occur in Glasgow. He said that although he recognised the strain on resources that these parades cause, he trusted local authorities to ensure the correct balance between public safety and people’s rights to parade were met.
In supplementary questions, Bob Doris (SNP) drew the Parliament‘s attention to a proposed demonstration held by the ‘English Defence League’ outside mosques in Glasgow, and he urged the Justice Secretary to ensure that these parades could not take place. Mr MacAskill replied once again that whether these parades went ahead or not was a matter for local authorities only but that the Government would support local authorities “when they act in defence of their communities.”
In another supplementary question, Jack McConnell (Lab) asked whether the Cabinet Secretary would respect a written agreement between the Scottish police forces and marching organisations which was signed under the previous Executive. He said that the Government should continue to support the agreement, by taking an active approach to monitoring its implementation, rather than waiting for police to raise the issue. Kenny MacAskill replied by talking about the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 which allowed local authorities to exercise discretion about deciding which marches were acceptable and which were not. Mr McConnell raised a point of order after the Cabinet Secretary had stopped talking, because he was referring to a written concordat and not the 2006 Act, but there was no more time for questions, so he was instructed to write to the Justice Secretary instead if he wanted more information.You can read this question in the Official Report.
Written Questions
There were a number of written questions about the number of crimes in the Lothian and Borders, the number of beds in drug and alcohol treatment centres and the number of prosecutions for drug possession. There was a question about the number of direct measures which had been issued for charges of assault and a number of questions about prisons, including the numbers held in the open estate and the future of prison visiting committees.
Posted by KM
on Tue 29th Sep 2009
at 9:25 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Thursday, September 24, 2009
This was a very quiet week for justice in the Parliament. There were a number of items of subordinate legislation discussed in the Committee, and the budget was debated in the Chamber, although justice was only mentioned in passing.
The Justice Committee
Subordinate Legislation
Once again, most of this week’s meeting took place in private with the Committee writing their draft report for the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. However, before that they dealt with a number of pieces of subordinate legislation.
Mutual Recognition of Criminal Financial Penalties in the European Union (Scotland) Order 2009 (Draft)
This order will enable Scottish fines to be enforced elsewhere in the European Union, and it will enable other member states to seek enforcement in Scotland. The Committee were joined by the Cabinet Secretary who spoke in favour of the Order, and he answered questions relating to why there is a minimal level of Euro 70 which is recoverable. He also used this opportunity to bemoan the fact that Westminster has competence over penalties for traffic violations, which he argued are often committed by foreign nationals who then leave the country.
The Committee were content to note this Order and a number of items of negative legislation without further comment.
You can read the transcripts of this short meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV
The Chamber
Budget Statement
On Thursday the Government announced its draft budget. Criminal justice did not feature that widely in John Swinney’s speech or in questions that followed, although he mentioned capital investment for the SPS and continuing investment into visible policing in passing.
Most of the information relating to justice can be found on the Government’s press release which states the Government’s budget priorities for justice in the year 2010/11 as follows:
•£136.8m for capital investment to support the ongoing development and modernisation of the Scottish Prison Service - this includes HMP Grampian which will replace HMP Peterhead and HMP Aberdeen; a new prison at Bishopbriggs; and replacement of prisons and facilities which are unfit for purpose;
•Substantial investment in the improvement of immediacy and visibility of community service in preparation for the introduction of the Community Payback Order through the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill;
•£7.4m to provide for the annual service fee costs in relation to the Firelink project. Firelink is a single wide–area digital communications platform for the Scottish Fire & Rescue Service and replaced 8 outdated systems with one highly resilient system allowing for multi–agency interoperability;
•Funds to the courts to create fit-for-purpose facilities for court users, improve service delivery and increase access to justice;
•Making an additional 1,000 police officers available in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment
•£32.3m to deliver better drug treatment and support services to promote recovery from drug addiction;
•£170.5m for legal aid ensuring appropriate access to justice;
•£208.3m for centrally funded police costs such as the Scottish Police Services Authority, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, and other police support services.Once again, the Government will have to secure the support from Opposition parties if they wish to pass this legislation, so we wait to see if concessions are made over any of the proposals affecting justice.
You can read the full statement and ensuing questions in the Official Report, but for more justice specific information, see the CJScotland Newsblog
Questions
Drugs in prison
Nigel Don asked the Minister for Community Safety about mobile tracing machines which are used to find drugs in prison. They have so far been deployed in HMP Schotts and Barlinnie, and Mr Don wanted to know if there were any plans to introduce them into other prisons as well. The Minister replied that these machines are purchased by the SPS and are a national resource which can be moved about, and he praised the work that has been undertaken by the SPS staff into tackling drug abuse in prisons.
You can read this question in the Official Report
Written Questions
Questions about the al-Megrahi releaserumbled on this week, but there was also a range of detailed questions about the numbers of people treated for drug and alcohol addiction, about the number of beds available for drug and alcohol treatment, and about campaigns against drug driving. There was another question about the al-Megrahi release, and a range of justice questions including more about compassionate release and the number of homicides in Scotland. Most questions still about the Lockerbie bomber’s release. Finally, a question about police pensions and about police injury pension.
Posted by KM
on Thu 24th Sep 2009
at 4:03 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Monday, September 21, 2009
Many apologies for the delay with the Parliamentary Report for last week.
Most of the justice debate to take place in the Parliament during this week revolved around Government proposals to introduce lawyers to Children’s Hearings. The Government were firstly defeated in Committee and then won the debate in the Chamber thanks to support from the Conservatives.
The Justice Committee
Most of the Justice Committee&’squo;s meeting was spent in private last Tuesday considering the Stage 1 report of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. Before that however, they considered a number of items of subordinate legislation.
Subordinate Legislation
Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2009 (Draft)
The first was an affirmative order which contained four technical amendments that had to be made to other relevant Acts a consequence of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. The Committee were joined by the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, who said the Order would make changes to the judicial oaths taken by part-time Sheriffs, arrangements about the travelling expenses of Sheriffs, and some other minor technical amendments to the wording of existing legislation. The Committee were happy to note the order and will write a report to the Parliament about it next week.
Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2009This Order extends the time that licensed premises have to appoint a ‘premises manager’ who holds a Personal License to authorise the sale of alcohol, which is required under the Licensing Act which came into effect on the 1st of September. This Order extends the deadline for Personal Licensing to be approved by licensing boards from 1st September to 1st November, which is required due to the backlog that licensing boards are currently working through. The Committee noted the Order, but they also expressed concern about the transition of arrangements for this Act, and agreed to seek a written update from the Minister before the expiry date of the Order.
You can read the transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV.
The Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee
Children’s Hearings (Legal Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2009
The key justice debate revolved around the Education Committee last week, with the Government having to defend changes it sought to make to the Children’s Hearings System. These changes are separate from the proposals contained in the draft Children‘s Hearings Bill, which were much criticised during consultation and subsequently withdrawn, and which will now be reintroduced in the new year. The proposals under debate in this meeting concerned the Government’s plans to provide parents with learning disabilities with a lawyer if they cannot afford one, when their child is involved with a hearing. These proposals were drawn up in response to a legal challenge in the Court of Session which involved an adult with the language ability of a six year old, whose rights under the European convention on human rights are said to be breached because of the absence of provision for state–funded legal representation in Children’s Hearings. The Court of Sessions has yet to rule on this case, but the Government claimed they had to act hastily to introduce this provision in order to comply with ECHR, otherwise they were leaving themselves open to compensation claims similar to those made for slopping out.
Concerns had also been raised to the Committee by the Chair of the Children’s Panel Chairman’s Group, who argued that the Government’s plans could make the hearings too adversarial, and that these plans ought to be subject to full consultation and then included in the forthcoming Bill, and not ‘slipped in’ by way of subordinate legislation. These concerns spurred Committee member Ken Macintosh (Lab) to lodge a motion to annual the Government’s Order.
These proposals have been made by subordinate legislation by way of a Scottish Statutory Instrument (SSI), which means they will be debated by the relevant subject Committee, in this case the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. Last week the Committee questioned the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, about the legislation. You can read the transcripts from this meeting in the Official Report.
The Committee were once again joined by the Minister, this time to debate Mr Macintosh’s motion to annul. Mr Macintosh emphasised that his concerns sprang out of a desire to protect the principles that the Hearings operate on, namely that they are child centred and non–adversarial. He said that although he supported the principle that everyone should be able to participate at Hearings, and that occasionally adults also require assistance to help them do so, the introduction of a lawyer may shift the focus away from the child whose needs the Hearing should be centred around, and could also make the Hearings legalistic and adversarial. He questioned why the Government were in such a hurry to introduce the SSI when primary legislation was imminent, and he called on them to consult more widely, not least given the fact that the court has yet to reach a decision on this case.
In response, the Minister emphasised that this Instrument would not shift the focus away from the children involved in hearings, because the best interests of the child can only be achieved if the parents are able to participate in the panel as well. He pointed out that lawyers are already involved in the hearings but only if the family involved are able to afford one, and he estimated that this would affect around 250 cases a year.
Committee members who spoke during this debate rebuked the Minister’s assertion that they were playing politics with this issue, despite the fact that they all argued their case along party lines. Two of the strongest contributions came from Christina McKelvie (SNP) and Committee convener, Karen Whitefield (Lab). Ms McKelvie argued strongly in favour of the Instrument, saying that Children’s panels only work when everyone is included, and that rather than wait until after something has happened, the Government were correct to pre–empt the Court’s decision and introduce these changes. Ms Whitefield said that the Government had handled this situation badly by not having more of an idea of how many cases it would affect, or by not investigating whether there were other ways of securing ECHR compliance.
The Minister failed to convince everyone however, and at the end of the meeting the Government were defeated 4 – 3 (Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, with 1 Conservative abstention)
You can read the transcripts in the Official Report and watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV. Read also the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
The Chamber
There was another chance for the Government to convince its opponents about this issue the next morning in Chamber, because even if a Committee votes against an SSI, it can still be brought to the Parliament and passed if it secures enough votes.
For those who did not sit on the Committee, it was a chance to debate the issue for the first time, although it was mainly Committee members who spoke in the debate. The Minister, Adam Ingram, spoke again in favour of the SSI, reiterating the points about ECHR compliance and his view that this would not interfere with the principle of a child centred hearing. He also said that the SSI could be a temporary measure which could be revised if necessary in the forthcoming Children’s Hearing Bill if it were found to not be working properly. He put on record his “deep disappointment” that the Committee had voted in the way it did, and he emphasised points already made that lawyers currently already play a part in the system but only if the parties are able to afford one.
Karen Whitefield again spoke for Labour, and she reiterated her points made the previous day that the Government had not allowed more time for consultation, and she quoted from concerns that had been raised to her by panel members across the country about the effect of these changes, claiming that this showed that she was not playing politics with this issue.
Elizabeth Smith for the Conservatives who also sat on the Committee emphasised that no-one can know at this stage what the legal ruling of the Court of Sessions will be, and she therefore queried why the Government had chosen to make these changes now.
Margaret Smith for the Liberal Democrats, also a Committee member, also spoke against the Instrument. She said that it was drawn up to include many more people than would be necessary simply to avoid ECHR rulings, and she also questioned whether this really was an ‘emergency’ and therefore did not need to be consulted on, as the Government claim.
There were also contributions from Ken Macintosh, who had sought to annual the Instrument in the Committee the day before, and other Committee members reiterated the points they had raised in the Meeting. Robin Harper (Green) spoke as a previous panel member, and he said that although he regretted not having more time to consider this complex issue, he would vote with the Government on this issue.
Despite well argued and well considered contributions from Members who all argued their stance was informed by principle and not by party politics, at the closing vote everyone voted along party lines. The Government won by a narrow margin of 65 to 60 due to the co-operation of the Conservatives. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members voted against, and Margo MacDonald (Ind) abstained.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Questions
Firearms legislation
During general questions, Angela Constance (SNP) gave the Cabinet Secretary an opportunity to express his frustration at Westminster’s refusal to devolve the responsibility for firearms legislation to the Scottish Parliament. He said that the Calman committee had recommended that this legislation be devolved and that there was “something quite bizarre” in the fact that he was able to make decisions like the one concerning the Al-Megrahi release, but not over issues which affected communities in Scotland.
Read the question in the Official Report.
Home Detention Curfew
Bill Aitken (Con) asked the Cabinet Secretary how many prisoners were released from custodial sentences after serving only a quarter of their sentences, and how many of those released on tags reoffended during the unexpired period of their sentence. The Cabinet Secretary replied that since Home Detention Curfew was introduced in 2006, 6,248 offenders sentenced to less than four years had been released on the scheme, of which 841 of them had served a quarter of their sentence. And he said that 23% of those released were returned to custody for committing a further offence whilst on license.
And you can read this question in the Official Report.
Written Questions
There were questions this week about the amount of prosecutions for selling alcohol to anyone under the age of 18, about the refuges for victims of domestic abuse and about guidelines forrisk assessment for serious and sexual offenders. There were some questions about the al-Megrahi release, and a range of justice questions including on the developement of ViSOR and more about the information given to the Government as part of the al-Megrahi release. There was a question about the Government’s meeting with the Chief Constable of Strathclyde police, and about the number of weapons seized as a result of stop and searches by police. Finally, a further question about the arrangements in place for the monitoring of violent offenders, and about the training and employment facilities available at HMP Cornton Vale
Posted by KM
on Mon 21st Sep 2009
at 4:09 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Parliament debated the decision to release Mr al–Megrahi this week and again during questions the next day. Away from the headlines however, the Justice Secretary gave the last oral evidence to the Justice Committee as part of their scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, and the First Minister also announced next year’s legislation programme including two justice Bills.
The Justice Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The Committee was joined by the Cabinet Secretary for the last day of Stage 1 oral evidence prior to the writing of the Committee Report, which will either recommend or not, the general principles of the Bill to the Parliament, and will provide the first opportunity for the Parliament to have its say on this important legislation.
In the last session before the summer recess, the Committee questioned the Cabinet Secretary about the parts of the Bill relating to sentencing, community penalties, serious and organised crime and retention of DNA. They began the new session by asking about the outstanding issues: primarily those concerned with licensing and the disclosure of evidence.
Because the more controversial alcohol licensing parts of this Bill have been taken out to be included in the forthcoming Alcohol Bill, most of the questioning about licensing reform concerned issues such as the need for national consistency whilst still allowing for local flexibility in licensing authorities, and there were several questions about whether charitable bodies should be brought under various licensing provisions of the Bill. There was a disagreement between the Justice Secretary and Bill Butler (Lab) about how much discretion local authorities should have, with Kenny MacAskill saying it was up to local authorities to ‘use their common sense’ when making decisions and it was not up to St Andrew’s House (one of the Scottish Government offices) to dictate to local government about how they should fulfil all parts of their job.
Paul Martin (Lab) also wanted to know why the Government were not including ‘antisocial behaviour reports’ in the licensing provisions of the Bill, which were introduced under the previous Administration, and which oblige authorities to find out from the police if there have been any reports made against the applicant when considering a new license. The Cabinet Secretary said that the licensing standard officers should be trusted to get on with their job and that the police‘s view was that these reports were particularly burdensome and did not provide a great deal of information.
The Committee then turned its attention to the disclosure provisions in the Bill, and the Cabinet Secretary spoke about the need to keep detail written into the legislation despite the fact that there have been complaints that it is overly complicated in parts. He said that although disclosure may be simple in theory, in practice it can provide a great deal of complexity.
He also defended the provisions which will make defence statements mandatory in solemn cases. Robert Brown (LD) reiterated concerns that had been raised to the Committee that these statements do not readily fit with the Scottish system which already provides for the use of alibis and special defences, and that they will not work because of the attitude of judges and the legal profession to the rights of the defence in Scots law. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the Crown had provided examples of situations which would not be covered by the defence of alibi or impeachment and that the Crown must have some idea of what the likely defence will be before it can fulfil its duty to provide the necessary information under law.
Finally, he answered questions about the provisions in the Bill relating to a special defence in criminal trials for those with mental disorders. Angela Constance (SNP) raised concerns that had been expressed to the Committee about those who have a diagnosed mental disorder and who know that their actions are wrong but who are unable to stop themselves offending because of their condition. Kenny MacAskill replied that this section of the Bill was written based on the Law Commission’s work, but that he would be open to hearing the Committee’s views if they thought it should be amended.
That concluded this session of evidence and indeed the Committee’s oral evidence as part of stage 1 consideration of the Bill. Next week they begin the considerable task of collating all the information received during evidence sessions and composing their Stage 1 report.
You can read all the transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV. You can also read all the material related to the Bill on the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill‘s Homepage
The Chamber
Parliamentary debate on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al–Megrahi
Following last week’s statement to the house, this week the Parliament got its chance to discuss the Lockerbie bomber release in debate. This story has continued to dominate the headlines, with much written in England and Scotland about the motivations and possible deals that lay behind the decision, and this was reflected in the Parliamentary debate, which concerned itself as much with international diplomacy as with issues of Scottish justice.
The Cabinet Secretary began by arguing that the Government’s decision to publish all the correspondence relating to the release, including the medical advice and correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments, showed that there had been no deal, and he argued that his decision had been based on the evidence that was presented to him and his consideration of the rules of due process under Scots Law.
He reiterated why he did not proceed with the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and why, after hearing the medical advice and following the rules of the SPS, he had granted compassionate release. He said that the option of freeing the prisoner in Scotland was also ruled out because it would be utterly inappropriate to have 48 police officers guarding Mr al–Megrahi in a residential area or a hospice for the dying. Throughout his statement, he referred to the documents which the Government had made public, which he said supported his decision and showed that they were committed to transparency and that there were no dirty deals. The Cabinet Secretary then tabled a motion which ended with ‘notes that the decision on compassionate release is in accordance with the recommendations from the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board for Scotland, and endorses the decision as being consistent with the principles of Scottish justice’
Richard Baker (Labour) was immediately interrupted by the First Minister who pointed out the inconsistency between the positions taken Scottish Labour and the Labour Government in Westminster. Mr Baker went on to argue however, that the decision had not been taken with regard to ‘due process’, but rather that the Cabinet Secretary had made his decision and then compiled the evidence together to support it. He also queried why Mr al–Megrahi had to be met in person, and he argued that the police were only consulted about the option of keeping him in Scotland after the decision to release him had been taken. Mr Baker wanted to know why the Lockerbie bomber’s clothes had apparently been flown home before the release decision had been announced, and he pointed out that the PTA could not have been agreed to anyway because the Crown appeal against the leniency of Mr al–Megrahi’s sentence was still outstanding. He also criticised the way that the decision had subsequently been handled, querying how this story appeared in the press a week before it was announced officially. His speech was interrupted by interventions several times by SNP Members who pointed to the UK Government’s involvement in this decision, which overshadowed many of the legitimate questions that Richard Baker was asking.
Bill Aitken (Conservatives) also argued that due consideration of the option of keeping Mr al–Megrahi in Scotland had not been taken. He also wanted to implicate the UK Government in the decision, pointing out that it had now emerged that the Prime Minister ‘did not want Mr al–Megrahi to die in jail.’ He also said that the Government had handled this in a ‘cack–handed amateurish manner’, saying that it should have been left to the First Minister to take the decision and announce it rather than leaving the Justice Secretary ‘out to dry’. Mr Aitken highlighted the less than clear party allegiances in this issues, saying that a SNP back bencher has insisted that pressure was put on al–Megrahi by senior Scottish officials to drop his appeal. He argued that not only had the Cabinet Secretary not sought the correct information, he had also handled the release badly, and he argued that the decision to release on compassionate grounds should never have been considered for someone who had been convicted of murdering 270 people.
Robert Brown (Liberal Democrats) used more measured language, and he said it was the Parliament’s task to decide whether the both the decision and the manner it had been made in, was right. He quoted from the official SPS guidance about compassionate release, pointing out that ‘compassion’ was not the only thing to be taken into account in the decision: it also said that ‘type of offence and prisoner’s supervision level’, and ‘the length of the sentence outstanding, the effect on the overall sentence if early release is granted and any comments that the trial judge made on sentencing which may have a bearing on the question of early release’. He went on to say that although the Justice Secretary was required to make this decision in a quasi–judicial capacity, a judge would never have leaked the release to the press a week in advance, nor would they have met with the prisoner in his cell before making the decision. He said that the correspondence and the minutes of the meeting that took place in Greenock prison made it clear that Mr al–Megrahi had dropped his appeal in return for his release and that this meant that the Cabinet Secretary‘s job to deliver justice and be seen to be delivering justice was in doubt. He concluded by saying that the dropped appeal now means that it is less likely that any new evidence associated with it will now be heard, and that the victims of Lockerbie have not been served by this decision.
There then followed a open debate and a number of good contributions were made from other Members. Elaine Murray (Lab) in whose constituency the Lockerbie atrocity occurred, spoke movingly about the experience of locals who witnessed and were affected by the bombing at the time, and Ian McKee (SNP) spoke from his perspective as a retired GP about the medical prognosis that was given to al–Megrahi. He praised the treatment that the SPS doctor had given to him the procedures and advice that he received, and explained to the Chamber how difficult it is to give an accurate prognosis in the latter stages of cancer. Richard Simpson (Lab), also a GP, took a different take on the medical diagnoses, arguing that the Cabinet Secretary ought to have sought further advice from a cancer specialist.
Mr McConnell (Lab) spoke as the man who was the First Minister when the decision had been taken to transfer Mr al–Megrahi to a Scottish prison, and he said he spoke out about both the decision and the way it was handled. Patrick Harvie (Green) urged the Chamber to rise above party politics for this issue, saying that everyone was aware there were MSPs on all parties who disagreed with their party line but who would still vote with their party, and he said that neither the victim’s relatives nor a man faced with the prospect of dying in a foreign prison whilst protesting his innocence, would be served by retribution.
Although Malcolm Chisholm (Lab) again spoke in support of the Government, all other members who spoke did so along party lines.
This was an elucidating and thorough debate, although perhaps hampered by the fact that the Justice Secretary did not have to answer any of the specific points that Members had made in their contributions. The Government were no doubt aided by the fact that Labour were compromised by Westminster’s stance, which divided and therefore weakened the opposition. The Government motion was nonetheless defeated at the end of the debate, with everyone apart from the two Green MSPs and Malcolm Chisolm (Lab) voting against them, and Margo McDonald (Ind) abstaining.
You can read all the transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the considerable press coverage on the CJScotland Newsblog.
Scottish Government’s Legislative Programme
On Thursday the Government announced its programme for the forthcoming year, including a bill to tackle alcohol misuse, and a bill to reform the children’s hearing system.
The First Minister said that the Alcohol Misuse Bill would be based on international best practice and evidence including advice from the World Health Organisation. He confirmed that minimum pricing schemes would be the cornerstone of the approach although it will be only one of a range of other measures to tackle alcohol misuse. Regarding the plans for the Children’s Hearings, he acknowledged that strong views had been expressed during the consultation, and he said that the Government would listen to those views.
You can read the whole statement in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the CJScotland Newsblog
Questions
Draft Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Bill
During a question from James Kelly (Lab), the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, confirmed that the draft children’s hearings bill which had been published in June, has been put to one side to allow further discussions with stakeholders. He said that given the wide range of commentsthat were received about the proposals, it was clear that the reforms must be right and not rushed. He refused to comment on whether the original plan to introduce a single body to replace the existing 32 local children’s panels would be scrapped or not, saying instead that he looked forward to working with those who are committed to the welfare of vulnerable children.
You can read the question in the Official Report
First Minister’s Questions
The al–Megrahi Release
The Parliament clearly felt as though it had not exhausted the al–Megrahi affair yet on Thursday, as all three questions from Opposition Leaders concerned this issue during FMQs.
Iain Gray (Lab) wanted to know why the Cabinet Secretary’s meeting with the convicted bomber had been leaked to the press, and why he had not flown over to meet the American victim families face to face given that he had met Mr al–Megrahi face to face. He called on the Government to acknowlege their defeat in the Parliament the day before, and he called on the First Minister to set up an enquiry handled by the Justice Committee to examine the Government’s handling of the whole affair.
Annabel Goldie (Con) wanted to know whether the Scottish Government had been involved in what she called any ‘nudge-and-wink’ diplomacy, specifically whether the First Minister had received any monies from Arab States when they had held discussions with them about the Scottish Futures Trust. She said that the First Minister had held meetings with the Qatari Government about receiving funding for the Trust, and that correspondence had shown that the al–Megrahi case had been discussed by them, and that shortly after this the release decision had been taken.
The First Minster replied that all the documentation relating to the release had been published and that that they all vindicate the Government’s assertion that they have made their decision on the basis of matters of justice and upholding the integrity of Scotland’s legal system.
Finally for the Liberal Democrats, Tavish Scott took a slightly different angle on the story, wanting to know whether the Government were going to do anything to uncover the true facts of Lockerbie given that the appeal has now been droped. He asked whether, given the special circumstances of the case, evidence that had been gathered for the appeal could be made public, and he said that if this required a change in the law then the Liberal Democrats would support it.
The First Minister replied that if a ‘legitimate authority’ were to carry out an inquiry into the case, then the Scottish Government would co–operate, and he also disclosed that he had already been in discussions with Law Officers about the possibility of disclosing as much information about the appeal as possible.
You can read all these questions in the Official Report. Once again, you can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Short prison sentences and reconviction ratesNext there was a planted question from Stewart Stephenson (SNP) to the First Minister about the recently published figures on reoffending which the Government have used in support of their plans to abolish short custodial sentences. The figures showed that 74% of those who served a sentence of 6 months or less in custody, re–offended within two years. Mr Stephenson quoted from the English Prison Commission report, chaired by Cherie Booth, which had praised the direction that Scotland was moving in, and he said that it was clear that the Scottish Government were taking justice policy in the right direction. The First Minister naturally agreed with Mr Stevenson, adding that he hoped the rest of the Chamber would agree with him too. This hope was short–lived, as both Richard Baker (Lab) and Bill Aiken (Con) used supplementary questions to attack the plans to abolish short custodial sentences.
You can read this question in the Official Report. See also the CJScotland Newsblog
Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
Robert Brown (LD) accused the Government of changing legislation brought in under the previous Executive ‘by the back door.’ He said that under the Licensing Act 2005, the guidance stated that the restrictions on the sale of alcohol were only supposed to apply only to on–sales, and not to off–sales as well. He agreed that there was a good argument for restricting the sale of off–sales alcohol, but he argued that this should not be done without full Parliamentary scrutiny. The First Minister replied that the 2005 Act was botched and had many deficiencies, and that this would be rectified with the Government’s upcoming Bill aimed at tackling alcohol abuse.
You can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV
Questions to the Law and Justice Officers
District Courts Reform
Cathy Jamieson asked the Justice Secretary about the Government’s decision to proceed with district court reform only four months after the same proposals were overturned in the Justice Committee. Kenny MacAskill replied that he had received no submissions from the Scottish Court Service who make the decisions about court reform, and therefore that no decision has yet been taken on the district court in question. You can read this question in the Official Report.
Police funding
There was a question from George Foulkes (Lab) about how the Government intends to provide police forces with enough money whilst at the same time continuing to freeze council tax. Then, when the Cabinet Secretary replied that funding for the council tax and the extra police numbers had been agreed with CoSLA as part of the concordat and that last year’s promise of an extra 1,000 officers had been exceeded, Mr Foulkes wanted to know why any of these extra police could not have been called upon to guard Mr al–Megrahi. Kenny MacAskill reiterated the reasons why in his opinion it would have been inappropriate to keep the released prisoner in Scotland. In supplementary questions, Bill Kidd (SNP) pointed out that Strathclyde police are currently funding an additional 60 new officers on top of the officers that the Scottish Government are funding, which he says proves that this police force cannot be that strapped for cash. Bill Aitken (Con) wanted to take some credit on behalf of his partyfor it’s role in securing the extra 1,000 police officers as part of last year’s budget deal with the Government. You can read this question in the Official Report
Eligibility Criteria for Legal Aid
Elaine Murray (Lab) raised the case of the convicted rapist who has claimed large amounts of money in legal aid in order to fund several failed appeals. The Cabinet Secretary said he had recently met with the chief executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to discuss this case, and that he would be happy to review this issue, although the possibility that that this would require primary legislation to be amended should be borne in mind, as should the fact that Scotland must continue to adhere to its obligations under the ECHR. You can read this question in the Official Report
Quasi–judicial matters
Alison McInnes (LD) brought up the Government’s handling of the al–Megrahi release again, calling for the Justice Committee to hold an inquiry into the issue. The Cabinet Secretary replied that if members wanted an inquiry then the Government were prepared to consider one. You can read this question in the Official Report
Knife Sales
Wendy Alexander (Lab) asked why the Government had decided not to proceed with a ban on the public display of knives, and the Minister for Community Safety replied that it was better to allow local forces to have discretion about how they enforce the relevant laws, as what is suitable for the centre of Glasgow may not be suitable for a rural part of Scotland. You can read this question in the Official Report
Police Numbers
Bob Doris (SNP) asked a question which allowed the Cabinet Secretary to talk about the recently published statistics which showed the Government had met its pledge to fund an extra 1,000 police officers in the past year. In a supplementary question, Richard Baker (Lab), wanted confirmation from the Cabinet Secretary that the Government would be able to help Strathclyde police force with their budget deficit so that the extra police officers could be retained now that they have been recruited. The Secretary replied that the Scottish Government have to contend with a £500 million budget cut from Westminster this year, which will impact on Scotland. Official Report.
Policing terminally ill prisoners
Alex Johnstone (Con) asked the Cabinet Secretary once again why he could not have arranged for Mr al–Megrahi to be held in a secure hospice, given that police had been able to guard one of the men who attempted to bomb Glasgow airport in 2007. The Cabinet Secretary made the points that he has made several times in the previous days about why he decided it would inappropriate to police a terminally ill man in a hospital or hospice.
You can read this question in the Official Report
You can also watch all the questions to the Law and Justice Officers on Holyrood.TV.
Written Questions
There were written questions this week about: the funding for tackling human trafficking and a range of justice questions including about direct measures and many about the al–Megrahi release. There were a number of questions about drug abuse, a question about numbers of people recalled to custody, and a number of justice questions including the number of crimes and offences committed in the past 20 years and the numbers convicted of handling a weapon. There were questions about the help given to prisoners post release and about the prisoner to prison officer ratio in each prison.
Posted by KM
on Wed 9th Sep 2009
at 12:27 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Parliament was recalled a week early to hear the Cabinet Secretary for Justice make a statement about the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
No Committee business
Statement to the Chamber about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al–Megrahi
Following the unprecedented events of the previous week, the Parliament was recalled back a week early from summer recess in order to hear the Cabinet Secretary’s statement to the Chamber regarding his decision to release the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. As the Presiding Officer said as he welcomed the Chamber, “the eyes of many people around the globe are on the Parliament today” and MSPs must have been aware that never before has their Parliament been subject to such exposure. This may explain the slightly hushed atmosphere in the Chamber during the statement and the questions afterwards. As Margot MacDonald put it “The Scottish Parliament was on its best behaviour on Monday when MSPs sat up straight, didn’t talk to the person sitting next to them and listened in silence… .”
The Cabinet Secretary began his statement by reiterating many of the facts he had made when he announced the release, as well and providing clarity on a number of issues. He said that he had been “duty bound” to visit Mr al–Megrahi in prison given that it was his right to make representations in person to the Governmen. He went over the reasons why he rejected the option of prisoner transfer, saying this was because many of the American victims’ families had been led to believe that such a transfer would not take place, and when he sought the views of the UK Government who had signed the Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya, they offered no representations about what had been promised and what had not, which he said he found ‘highly regrettable’. Turning to the decision about compassionate release he reiterated the advice he had received from doctors and police about the progression of the prisoner’s cancer and about the security implications should he be released into secure accommodation in Scotland. He said that the decision was based on the law of Scotland and on the values that he believed we sought to uphold. He said that it was a matter of great regret that Mr al–Megrahi was received in such an inappropriate manner, which showed no compassion or sensitivity to the families of the 270 victims of Lockerbie however, that did not change the fact that his decision had been made following due process and the values of Scotland.
Iain Gray for the Labour party acknowledged that it had been a difficult decision for the Cabinet Secretary to make, but he argued that it had been the wrong decision, made in the wrong way, and with the wrong consequences. He also questioned why Mr al–Megrahi had to make representations in person rather than in writing, and he sought further clarification about the connection between Mr al’Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal and the decision to release him. Mr MacAskill reiterated his points that he had made his decision on judicial grounds alone and that no deal had been struck with Mr al’Megrahi.
Annabel Goldie for the Conservatives wanted to know why the prisoner could not have been freed into a secure house or hospice or hospital, rather than to release him back home, saying that if Scottish police could managed to deal with security for the G8 then they could surely have protected a dying man for a number of months. Ms Goldie brought in Westminster for criticism as well, asking why the Prime Minister had up until that point remained silent. The Cabinet Secretary said that it was ‘ludicrous’ to claim that Mr al–Megrahi could have been kept in a hospice, saying this would turn it into a ‘travelling circus.’ He also quoted Archbishop Mario Conti who praised the Government’s decision, saying that ‘the showing of mercy in any situation is not a sign of weakness.’
Tavish Scott for the Liberal Democrats wanted to know why the decision had been made without the involvement of the Parliament, arguing that the biggest decision to have been made by Scotland in the past 10 years should have been made with greater discussion and more accountability. He also wanted clarification on why Mr al–Megrahi was visited in person and he questioned whether this decision would mean that no prisoner, however bad their crime, will ever have a request turned down again. Mr MacAskill responded that he would publish the notes that were made after his visit to Greenock prison, and he quoted a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Steel who had said that the decision to release on compassionate grounds was the right one.
During open questions that followed, MSPs wanted to know how and why the story was apparently leaked to the press a week before the decision was made, and more questions were asked about deals between Libya and the UK Government. Only Malcolm Chisholm (Labour) crossed Party divisions when he commended MacAskill for his ‘courageous decision’. Throughout all the questions, the Cabinet Secretary replied that the decision he had taken was ‘his and his alone’ and he said that he would ‘stand by it and face the consequences of it.’ With a full Parliamentary debate on the issue scheduled for next Wednesday, and revelations about communications between Libya and the UK still emerging in the press, we await to see what these consequences will be.
You can read the full statements and questions in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog .
Posted by MM
on Tue 1st Sep 2009
at 12:23 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
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
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
This was a quieter week in the Parliament, with brief evidence in the Equal Opportunities Committee about female offenders in the justice system, and evidence on licensing being heard as part of Stage 1 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill in the Justice Committee. In the Chamber the Parliament passed emergency legislation which would close the loophole in relation to potential slopping out compensation claims, and there were a number of relevant oral questions.
Equal Opportunities Committee
Inquiry into females in the justice system
Today the Committee heard from Community Justice Authorities (CJAs) as part of their inquiry into females in the justice system. Chris Hawkes and Anne Pinkman from the Lothian and Borders, and Fife and Forth valley CJAs respectively, joined the Committee, and began by outlining why the CJAs were created, saying that they sprang from the understanding that no one criminal justice agency can be solely responsible for reducing reoffending; each CJA is a single location where a range of different agencies come together to draw up plans aimed at reducing reoffending for particular area, which are then signed off by the Cabinet Secretary.
They said that each CJA has been encouraged to develop services for particular priority groups of offenders, and in the case of the Lothian and Borders CJA, they chose to prioritise services for female offenders. Chris Hawkes said that before the CJAs were created there were no plans in place that were specifically orientated towards the needs of female offenders, and he said that one of the first things his Authority did was commission research into the particular needs of this group which resulted in the creation of the ‘Willow Project’ which is geared towards helping women who are release from prison and go are likely to go straight back into street prostitution.
The Fife and Forth Valley CJA said that they have chosen to prioritise the improvement of throughcare for all groups of offenders, even though they have Cornton Vale in their geographical area, because their area has Polmont and Glenochil prisons as well. Ms Pinkman said that although Cornton Vale was in their area, only 18% of the prisoners in that prison actually come from there, and she spoke about the work that is being done to help other CJAs from further a field liaise with this prison to help the prisoners when they are released.
The witnesses also mused with the Committee about some of the complex reasons behind the very significant rise in the numbers of female offenders being sent to custody over recent years, with the witnesses saying that Sheriffs often regard Cornton Vale as a place of sanctuary for female offenders. There were also some interesting discussions about the prosecution process, specifically the Fiscal’s new obligation to have regard to the Equality Act 2006, and about whether equality means the same treatment for everyone, or whether it means that everyone should be treated according to their own individual needs.
You can read all their evidence in the Official Report, and also read the written evidence submitted by the Lothian and Borders CJA in pages 4- 8 of the meeting papers. You can also watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV.
The Justice Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill: Stage 1
The Committee continued taking evidence on this Bill hearing from four panels of witnesses in relation to the licensing provisions, which have so far received little attention during Stage 1.
The first panel were two witnesses from the Law Society Scotland. They spoke about the appeals process for Licensing Boards and for the requirements for Boards to review taxi fares every 18 months, which the witnesses thought would be problematic. They also spoke about the suspension of licences and about possible unintended consequences of the exemption to the requirement to hold a market operator’s licence by a number of charitable organisations. They also spoke about the application for licenses to sell alcohol, and they suggested that a fast track system be put in place for certain applications if they are satisfied there is a sufficient need.
The next panel were two members from ACPOS, who were asked questions about the policing of larger public events and how this might tie into local authorities’ decision about when licenses are required to hold public events or not. They also said that the existing requirements that the police compile an ‘anti-social behaviour report’ for each premises that is applying for a license, are ‘unnecessarily onerous’. They said that such reports may often be difficult to produce given that licensed premises often tend to cluster together, and attributing behaviour to individual premises could therefore be difficult. And they spoke about the various ways in which police could provide information to Boards about premises which caused nuisance, in a more practical and efficient way.
The third panel of witnesses were representatives from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association; Noctis (an organisation representing business from the late night economy); the Scottish Late Night Operators Association; and the Scottish Beer and Pub Association. Several witnesses spoke about the ‘creative circumventing’ that is already taking place around the 2005 Licensing Act, which makes requirements on traders to sell alcohol responsibly, and they argued that at a time of economic downturn it was not sensible to introduce measures which seek to limit trade. The spokesperson from Noctis also spoke about the merits of creating the post of a ‘night-time economy co-ordinator’ which would liaise between the police, the local licensees and the council, saying that Governments and agencies often call for a legislative solution, when everything could be addressed by means of a conversation. The witnesses also spoke about their belief that a number of Boards are using unreasonably high licensing fees as a way to supplement the local authority income, and the problem of whether Boards should charge according to the price of administrating a license, or the volume of alcohol that the premises is likely to sell.
The fourth and final panel comprised of spokespeople from the Edinburgh and Glasgow cities licensing boards, Fife Council and CoSLA. The witnesses were able to respond to some of the points that had been raised by earlier panels, in relation to the licensing of events for charities and dealing with license appeals. There were discussions about how best to allow communities the chance to have a say on license applications in their area, and they reiterated points made earlier that the anti–social behaviour reports were not the most effective way of getting information to boards about complaints made about individual premises.
You can read all the transcripts from the meeting in the Official Report or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the written evidence from these witnesses in pages 4 - 47of the meeting papers
The Chamber
Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill – emergency legislation procedure debate
On Thursday morning, the Scottish Government made the final steps towards closing the loophole in human rights legislation which means that prisoners are able to claim compensation for slopping out beyond the usual one–year time bar that exists for most cases of this kind. This has been an on–going saga for the Scottish Government who have been unable to legislate for themselves because of reserved powers: however, following negotiations with the UK Parliament a joint agreement on how to proceed was published in March 2009.
The Cabinet Secretary said the Scottish Government wished to close this loophole as soon as possible, give that at present it has had to put aside tens of millions of pounds to meet possible compensation claims which could be put back into the public purse which was ‘being bled dry.’ In light of this, the Government wished to get this amendment through Parliament as emergency legislation, which the Parliament agreed to before the main debate begun. Opening up the main debate, the Cabinet Secretary said that this legislation would only take Scotland in line with provisions that apply in England and Wales and that the Crown would continue to have discretion about the ability to apply for allow a compensation case to be brought out with the one year time ban, if they thought this would be appropriate.
Richard Baker for Labour welcomed the Bill and said that although the emergency procedures mean that the normal degree of scrutiny have been passed by in this instance, he was pleased the Law Society of Scotland have examined the proposals and he was satisfied with the Cabinet Secretary’s replies to the points he raised. He also mentioned the Community Court in Glasgow as a possible venture which may now be possible given the freeing of money that this Bill will achieve.
Bill Aitken (Con) also welcomed the Bill, saying that although emergency procedures should be used sparingly, this was an appropriate occasion for them to come into play. Patrick Harvie (Green) pointed out to Bill Aitken that a prisoner who is awarded compensation is not ‘benefiting’, rather they are being compensated for a wrong that was done to them, to which Mr Aitken replied with somewhat inconsistent logic that, although he did not approve of slopping out or ‘Dickensian’ prison conditions, the solution was for a prisoner to not commit the crime in the first place and then they would not have to suffer them.
Robert Brown (LD) also welcomed the Bill, although he said that he wished for more time to examine the fine print of it than had been made possible, and he wished clarification on a number of the more technical aspects of the Bill in Stage 3, which would take place later that afternoon.
Other members spoke about where the newly available money should now be spent and Angela Constance (SNP) also spoke about her experience working in a prison in which slopping out was still a reality.
You can read this part of the debate in the Official Report.
Stage 3 of the debate continued in the afternoon, and the Cabinet Secretary thanked the Parliament for their forbearance and for the questions and points that were raised in the morning. He answered some of the points that were made by Robert Brown and Patrick Harvie in respect of the phased introduction of the time–bar and he also said that the Government remained committed to the principle of human rights pay–outs, but that it was important to bring Scotland in line with the rest of the UK to ensure that the public purse could be put to better ends.
At the end of the debate, the Chamber agreed to the Bill, which means that the new time–bar will come into effect by November this year.
You can read the latter part of this debate in the Official Report and watch both parts on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage of this story in the CJScotland Newsblog
Questions
Antisocial behaviour (holiday flats)
The issue the use of anti–social behaviour legislation to deal with rowdy parties in holiday flats, arose once again during question time. Sarah Boyack (Lab) urged the Government to amend the Anti–social Behaviour Act 2004 in order to make the owners of holiday lets obliged to register with their council, because as the legislation currently stands cannot be used to address this problem because the landlords cannot be traced. The Justice Secretary replied that conversations were currently underway with local authorities to measure the range of this problem and how it can best be addressed. He also counselled against the view that amending the legislation in this way would bring an end to this problem however, saying that the short nature of the tenancies mean that it would be difficult for the legislation to be used effectively even if it were amended.
You can read this question in the Official Report
Prison sentences – time spent in custody
During questions for the First Minister, Bill Aitken asked about the average amount of time that is actually spent in custody for those who are sentenced to six months or less. He said that many offenders who are sentenced to six months serve only six weeks or a quarter of their sentence because of the Government’s early release policies, which he said was ‘an affront to justice.’ He argued further that the Government’s claims that short sentences were ineffective because they left no time for any meaningful work to be carried out with them, could easily be addressed by simply ensuring that offenders served the full amount of their sentence in custody.
The First Minister replied that the rate of reoffending for prison sentences remained higher than for community sentences, and he reminded the Chamber that under this Administration, sentences for knife crime have increased, and the number of absconds from the open estate had decreased.
You can read this question in the Official Report.
Written Questions
This week’s written questions asked about how the Government was intending to ensure the availability of drug and alcohol rehabilitation services across Scotland, and there were some more questions about the Government’s drug policies, including what their approach to methadone is. There were some questions about direct measures, and about the rehabilitation available for those convicted of religiously aggravated offences . There was a question about sentences for carrying a knife, about the guidance given to police in relation to advice to police about deploying armed response units, and about the social demographics of new police recruits. There were a number of questions about the cost of telephone calls from prison, and finally about the provision for mental health treatment for prisoners.
Posted by KM
on Tue 23rd Jun 2009
at 7:52 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Justice Committee continued hearing evidence as part of their scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, this week hearing from the Chief Executive of the SPS, the Convenor of CoSLA, and the Lord Advocate. In the Chamber the Sexual Offences Bill was debated and agreed to at Stage 3.
The Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill Stage 1
The Committee continued its consideration of the Bill at Stage 1.
Mike Ewart and Rona Sweeney from the Scottish Prison Service were the first panel. They were asked about the presumption for under six month custodial sentence, and Mr Ewart said that there was a “strong consensus” that six months was the appropriate cut off point for custodial sentences. He refused to criticise sentencing decisions that are made by the judiciary, but he said that he would question some of the assertions that Sheriffs make about the value of short sentences, such as that they give respite to the community. The witnesses were queried about whether short term imprisonment will do more harm than good in every case, and they replied that there is a consensus that this is likely to be case, with Mr Ewart saying that, no matter what an individual&’squo;s circumstances, they will be made more difficult with imprisonment. Both witnesses said that there was a pressing need to reduce the prison population rather than increase capacity.
Committee member Paul Martin tried to get the witnesses to admit that if sentences of six months or under would be scrapped, this would result in significant financial savings for the Government, but they said that this was not necessarily the case, because even if the number of short prison sentences were reduced by 50%, prisons would still be operating over their design capacity. The witnesses said that that the extra resources required for additional community penalties could therefore not be easily transferred from the SPS budget, and Mr Ewart said that the biggest obstacle in encouraging the greater use of community penalties was in managing the transition.
Mr Ewart gave a personal view that someone from the SPS should be represented on the sentencing council, although he admitted this may not be appropriate because firstly they are the agency which is required to discharge the sentence that is handed out by judiciary, and secondly because they are an arm of Government.
The next panel of witnesses were the Convenor and the policy officer for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Councillor Harry McGuigan and Mike Callaghan. They were asked about how the community payback orders (CPOs) might work, including who the ‘responsible officer’ for each order would be. Councillor McGuigan said that if community penalties were adequately resourced and the staff properly trained and supported, he firmly believed that CPOs would deliver benefits to offenders and communities. The witnesses were asked why they believed that CPOs should be any more successful than the current community sentences, and Councillor McGuigan said that CPOs will require input from a range of agencies who will be required to co–operate to a much larger extent than is currently the case, and that this will be aided by the greater involvement of the CJAs who will also be tasked with ensuring that agencies are delivering their single outcome agreements in their area. He said that he was confident that the new CPOs would be an improvement on the current arrangements, but he refused to say that there would be a massive reduction in numbers of breaches with CPOs. They also put on record their view that resources were absolutely critical if these reforms were to be successful or not.
The final panel of witnesses was the Lord Advocate the Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC; the Solicitor General for Scotland, Frank Mulholland QC; and John Logue who is the head of policy division at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
The Lord Advocate was asked about the sentencing council, and she said that the creation of the council would be a ‘huge benefit to the justice system’. She said that in her view such a council would not impede judicial independence, because judges would not be bound to follow the guidance, provided they stated in open court their reasons for diverting from them. She also said that guidelines from a council could be beneficial for the judiciary given that at the current time they do not have access to any information which can help them, and that the council would also help provide some clarity to the public about the sentencing process. She also said that there is currently no mechanism for judges to be aware of the public mood or attitude towards sentencing. Currently they are only guided by newspaper editors, and she argued that a council would provide a much more systematic way for them to have regard to how sentencing could be carried out in the public interest.
She also said that she supported the provisions in the Bill which would enshrine in statute that alcohol cannot be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Although most judges do not consider this as a mitigating factor, she said that many defence lawyers, often in cases of domestic abuse, still seek to use this as a mitigating factor, and she said that it is important that it be put on statute that this cannot be the case.
The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General both also spoke positively about the provisions in the Bill which relate to organised crime, saying that there was a need for further offences to be created in this area, given that the current laws do not allow the prosecution of many people who operate on the fringes of organised crime, but who facilitate its operation.
You can read all the evidence from this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and you can also read the witnesses‘ written evidence to the Committee in pages 4 - 12 of the meeting papers.
Subordinate Legislation – Licensing (Mandatory Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (Draft)
Following this evidence, the Committee were joined by the Cabinet Secretary to move an item of subordinate legislation which would exempt particular premises from the law which limits the ways that alcohol can be displayed in shops. The intention behind the law was change the way that alcohol was displayed ‘as if it was an ordinary commodity like any other’, and it forbid shops from practices such as cross–merchandising whereby cans of beer were displayed next to packets of crisps. However, as a result of successful lobbying from distilleries and the tourism trade, the Government has decided to introduce an amendment which would remove gift shops in distillery visitor centres from having to follow these laws. After a long and technical debate about the wording of the amendment and whether it was appropriate to amend primary legislation in this manner, the Committee agreed the regulations, with the Convenor, Bill Aitken, saying that no–one disagreed with the intentions of the Order.
You can read this part of the meeting in the Official Report in read more about the regulations in pages 16 – 22 of the meeting papers.
You can also watch the whole meeting on Holyrood.TV.
The Chamber
Sexual Offences Bill (Stage 3)
Last Wednesday marked the conclusion of the Parliamentary process of the Sexual Offences Bill, which makes widespread changes to the law around sexual offences. The Chamber began by debating the final stage 3 amendments.
Arguably the most important amendment to be debated was put forward by Margaret Curran (Lab) and it sought to close what she called a significant loophole in the wording in the part of the Bill which lists a set of occasions in which consent to sexual activity is absent, for example if the individual is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs. Ms Curran amendment would remove the principle of ‘prior consent’ from this list, which prohibits a defence that consent was given at an earlier stage to the time when sexual activity occurs. The issue of prior consent had also caused difficulty for the Justice Committee, which recommended it be removed in their Stage 1 report. Robert Brown (LD) and Bill Aitken (Con) said their parties both had reservations with said this amendment although they supported the spirit in which it was lodged. They argued that here were already other safeguards built into the Bill to protect those who are incapacitated at the time of sexual activity, and that this amendment may simply provide more problems than it solves. The Cabinet Secretary said that the Government were happy to support Ms Curran’s amendment, and that this amendment would provide a belt and braces approach to protect those who may be so incapable as to be able to provide consent at the time of sexual activity. The amendment was duly agreed to.
The other group of amendments which attracted debate were a group put forward by Robert Brown (LD) on penalties for sexual offences. He said that his amendments intended to deal with a loophole which was inadvertently created at Stage 2, when the Committee agreed to change the Bill so that a fine could never be given for any sexual offence. However, upon reflection and further discussions, it was realised that there are in fact many more minor sexual offences for which a fine would be appropriate, for example for kissing someone against their will. Mr Brown argued that in those situations a custodial sentence would clearly be inappropriate. Only the Labour Members, particularly Paul Martin (Lab) argued that the existing situation should remain, and the group of amendments were agreed to at the vote (with only Labour voting against them), meaning that the option of a fine for non–serious sexual assaults remained in the Bill.
You can read all the transcripts which dealt with the amendments in the Bill in this part of the Official Report.
Following the completion of the amendments, the Chamber voted on the final amended version of the Bill. Kenny MacAskill opened the debate, and he welcomed the Bill for modernising and clarifying what has been a ‘complex patchwork of common law and statutory provisions.’ He said that the Bill would abolish the use of outmoded terminology and for the first time put a whole area of law on statutory footing, which he also said was a major step forward for the Parliament, given that ‘the primacy of Parliament in determining the law of the land is one of the hallmarks of democracy.’ He welcomed the new definition of consent as free agreement which he said will be easy to understand by everyone, and said that this Bill would ensure that victims are protected and offenders are punished. However, he cautioned against the belief that this Bill would provide the silver bullet to address the prosecution of sexual offending, saying there was still a need to challenge public misconceptions and change public attitudes, and that this piece of legislation is only the beginning of what will be a long road.
Paul Martin (Lab) praised the work carried out by the Lord Advocate in reforming this area of the law, and he also highlighted the importance of consulting young people when it comes to drafting legislation which will affect them, which was an issue which was highlighted in the Committee process.
Bill Aitken (Con) said he welcomed the widening of the definition of rape, saying that these were necessary for the times we live in. He said that it was now up to the courts to define what ‘free agreement’ and ‘incapable’ mean, and he said that this has been a ‘good piece of work’ by the Parliament.
Robert Brown (LD) thanked the Cabinet Secretary and his staff and he also paid tribute to the Committee system which he said has meant that this Bill will command wide consent. He also spoke about one of the most controversial areas of the Bill during the Committee Stage, that of the legal age of consent. The Bill retains it at 16, despite the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendations that it be lowered to 13. He said that this was the correct approach which would send out a clear message to young people and also hopefully act as a deterrent.
During the speeches which followed, Members spoke about the importance of this Bill, with many female members especially underlining the urgent need to reform the laws in this area to protect women who suffer sexual violence. At the end of the debate the Bill was agreed to unanimously.
You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV . You can also read the press and access the Bill documents in the CJScotland Weblog
Questions
Domestic Abuse risk assessmenttJohann Lamont (Lab) asked the Cabinet Secretary if when he last met with the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, they discussed supporting the ASSIST (advice, support, safety and information services) process, which ensures the proper risk assessment to inform the domestic abuse courts. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the Chief Constable takes domestic abuse very seriously, and he views it as part of the culture of violence which must be tackled. And you can read this question in the Official Report
Unpaid court fines
Bill Aitken (Con) asked the Cabinet Secretary how many court fines have been issued over the past three years, and how many remain unpaid. Mr MacAskill replied that the total figure for fines from the High Courts and Sheriff Courts not including civil court fines, was £55 million. 83 per cent of offenders have paid the fines handed out by Sheriff courts over the past three years, and that of the total figure, including civil diligence, 77 per cent has already been collected for fines imposed since 2005. He also said that 6 per cent is in the process of being collected in instalments; 10 per cent was discharged by a sheriff through alternative sentences such as supervised attendance orders or imprisonment; and 7 per cent is in arrears and will be the focus of targeted sanctions by the newly brought–in fines enforcement officers, who have a range of powers to ensure that fines imposed are paid. You can read this question in the Official Report.
This issue was pursued further by Annabel Goldie (Con) during FMQs. Illustrating how statistics can back up any argument, she said that there are currently ‘almost 12,500’ people in Scotland who have ‘not paid one penny’ of their fines, and that there is currently £8 million owed by fine defaulters in total. She said that the problem is escalating to the extent that by the end of this session of Parliament (2 years time), this figure will be around £30 million. She said that sending out warning letters and court citations is not addressing the problem and that it would be much more sensible to introduce a system whereby fines were deducted at source.
The First Minister replied with although the current rates for fine enforcement are not satisfactory, enforcement sanctions are working and that their use is being accelerated. He said that more than 45,000 enforcement orders, more than 3,000 benefit deduction orders, and almost 600 earnings arrestment orders, have been granted or issued by the courts. And you can read this question in the Official Report.
Written questions
There was a written question about unpaid court fines broken down by individual Sheriffdoms, and about the Government’s response to calls for mandatory drug testing for everyone who is arrested by the police. There was a question about the views of the Lockerbie victims with respect to the repatriation of Mr Abdelbaset Al Mohamed Al Megrahi. There was a question about services for those with mental health problems in prison, and a number of questions about the procedures surrounding the most recent escape from the open estate, and finally about provisions for young offenders in secure custody.
Posted by KM
on Mon 15th Jun 2009
at 9:38 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
At Holyrood the Justice Committee held another interesting evidence session as part of its scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, and the Equal Opportunities Committee heard from more witnesses as part of its inquiry into females in the justice system. In the Chamber, the issue of the First Minister’s handling of the information surrounding the latest escape from the open escape, continued to dominate FMQs, and there were also questions to the Law and Justice Officers. Finally, Parliament debated and voted through the Offences (Aggravated by Hatred) Bill.
The Justice Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill: Stage 1
The Committee took further evidence as part of its Stage 1 scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill.
The first panel of witnesses represented the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. They were asked about the proposed sentencing council, and they agreed with many of the points which had been made by the Lord Justice General and the Lord Justice Clerk previously, namely that such a council was not necessary and would seriously impinge on the independence of the judiciary. Mr Daguid from the Faculty of Advocates argued that Sheriffs must be able to retain their discretion whilst issuing penalties which are fair and equal, and Bill McVicar from the Law Society argued that there may be cases in which it was necessary ‘in the interest of deterrence’ to hand out a more severe sentence for the same crime. They also answered questions about the parts of the Bill relating to serious and organised crime, saying they had concerns about the way that the Bill is drafted, and that the Bill as it stands may create more problems than it is seeking to solve. They also said that the definition of ‘serious and organised crime’ was so vague that it could potentially be used to prosecute many activities which were not intended to be brought within the scope of the provision.
There were also questions about the provisions in the Bill dealing with disclosure: a framework for the disclosure of evidence from the prosecution to the accused in criminal cases. They said the proposals in the Bill were unnecessarily complicated and had been more or less lifted wholesale from the law in England and Wales, which did not sit easily with the system under Scottish legal procedure. They were also against the proposals in the Bill for witnesses to be able to refer to written statements that they made before the trial, and they said that the definition of ‘insanity’ when it comes to deciding ‘unfitness for trial’ should be broadened.
The next panel of witnesses comprised of Professor Jim Fraser, Director of the Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Strathclyde, who carried out a review last year for the Scottish Government on the system of acquiring and retaining DNA and fingerprint data; and Tom Nelson, Director of Forensic Services with the Scottish Police Services Authority. The current Scottish law in this area allows for the DNA and fingerprints of someone to be kept indefinitely if they are found guilty of an offence, and for the DNA of someone accused of violent or sexual offences to be kept for three years, even if they are not subsequently found guilty. The Bill proposes to extend these existing provisions so that the fingerprints of those accused of violent and sexual offences can be retained for three years (bringing the provision for fingerprints in line with DNA); and also seeks to extend the powers of retention of fingerprint and DNA data obtained from children who have been referred to the Children’s Hearings System for committing sexual or violent offences.
The witnesses were asked about the recent European Court judgement which ruled that the indefinite retention of DNA from suspects in England and Wales contravened human rights legislation, and they said that the issue with this judgement was not so much the retention of DNA from people who were not found guilty, rather it was that this data was held indefinitely. They confirmed that in their view the proposals in the Bill did not contravene this judgement, and they also viewed them as reasonable and proportionate, given that a considerable number of violent or sexual offenders reoffend within a three year period. They also said that the provisions in the Bill in which a sheriff can extend the period of retention for two years is fair, given that this would be decided on the basis of further evidence provided, and it would be subject to legal processes. Tom Nelson said that he would like the DNA and fingerprint data of people who are subject to a direct measure, as opposed to a criminal proceeding, to be retained, saying that not only would this increase detections, but that catching offenders earlier in their criminal career would also help them to be diverted from that path, before offending became a way of life for them.
Regarding the proposals around the retention of DNA from those children and young people who had been referred to the CHS on offence grounds related to serious violent or sexual offences, the witnesses both said that they supported these measures and they considered them proportionate to the benefits that would come with them.
The Committee then heard from Lord Coulsfield, who had reviewed the law surrounding the disclosure of evidence for the Scottish Executive in early 2007. He was asked to carry out this review because of uncertainty about the requirements of the prosecution’s duty to disclose evidence to the defence, and his report recommended introducing a statutory framework for disclosure, replacing the current common law system. In his evidence to the Committee, he said that he did not criticise the general approach of the Bill, but he said that he was ‘extremely concerned’ about the way in which it had been drafted, saying that it obscured the simple duty of what is already currently expected. He said that many of the proposals that are currently contained in the Bill, especially regarding what the police are expected to do, should be removed and put into a written code of practice instead.
The final panel of witnesses comprised of a number of academics who are all specialists in areas relating to sentencing. They were asked firstly about the criticisms that have been heard from the judiciary that plans for a Sentencing Council would impede judicial independence and all disagreed with this view. Dr Cyrus Tata argued that a Council could actually help to reinforce judicial independence, because it would shield sentencing from the heat of politics, or from a case which caused particular public concern, and Dr James Chalmers said that, given that the Bill makes clear that the final decision on sentencing is still left to the judges, judicial independence cannot be undermined.
The witnesses were also asked about the vexed issue of consistency in sentencing, which has caused so much disagreement so far in evidence. Dr Tata and Professor Neil Hutton are two of the few people to have carried out any research into consistency in sentencing in Scotland, so they were able to furnish the Committee with evidence of their own research and research from abroad. They said that ‘consistency’ as an aim of sentencing should be treated with caution, given that no two cases will be exactly alike. Dr Tata said that that uniformity is not consistency, and that consistency does not mean that every case of house breaking should be treated alike. It was suggested that what should be aimed for is a coherence to sentencing, in which the decisions that are taken are based on shared principles which both the judiciary and the public can understand. Dr Chalmers that it was very difficult to have a debate about consistency without guidelines, except at the level of individual cases, and it would therefore be helpful if there were a means whereby a debate could take place at a more general, abstract level.
Dr Sarah Armstrong also said that at present there were no ways for sentencers to keep abreast of research on sentencing or consider the efficacy of certain disposals, and she argued that a Council could provide a forum for these discussions to take place. Dr Tata suggested the Council could carry out other tasks, such as look at both the ‘front and the back door of sentencing’, i.e. the release arrangements, saying that there is a need for them to both be considered as a whole in order to get a coherent policy, and it could also look at specific issues such as the imprisonment of women.
The witnesses were asked about the parts of the Bill which seek to make a presumption against custodial sentences of six months or under, and the point was made that it would be much more sensible to begin with the question of what sort of cases, broadly speaking, should attract custodial sentences, and which should not, rather than to say that all sentences of six months or under should automatically be converted into a community penalty. The importance of making sure that the offenders serving the sentences were fully aware of the conditions attached to them was emphasised by several of the witnesses, given that research has shown that many people who break their conditions of bail do so simply because they have not understood them properly.
You can read all the evidence from the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read all the written submissions from today’s witnesses on pages 34 – 82 of the Meeting Papers,and read more about the Bill in general on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill Committee page. Follow the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill on the CjScotland news pages: Justice Committee: Criminal Justice Bill Stage 1 evidence proceedings.
The Equal Opportunities Committee
Inquiry into female offenders in the Justice System
The Committee continued its inquiry into women in the justice system, and focused on assessing the availability and effectiveness of support for ex’prisoners. The first witnesses were representatives from SACRO and APEX who spoke about the possibilities of encouraging more Community Justice Authroities to include specific proposals for female offenders in their area plans, and of encouraging the Scottish Prison Service to work in collaboration with CJAs to a greater extent to carry out research on what factors help female offenders stop offending once they have been released from prison. They also spoke about the factors that will help an offender to not breach their conditions of bail, and they spoke favourably about the proposed Community Payback Orders in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The SACRO representative spoke about the value of a mentoring scheme for ex prisoners, and said that there are currently very few resources available for new criminal justice schemes to get off the ground: the APEX representative spoke about the challenges of helping female ex prisoners into employment or developing life skills.
The next panel comprised of spokespeople from the Association of Directors of Social Work, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, and a consultant psychiatrist from NHS Grampian. They said that although there are examples of good schemes for female offenders that operate throughout Scotland such as the 218 Centre in Glasgow, it would be inappropriate for one model to apply to every local area, and the task should be to encourage schemes which are suitable for each geographical and social area. The need of local services which will also help reintegration, versus the economic and logistical benefits of having a centralised set of services for women in Cornton Vale, for example, was also spoken about. The difficulty of treating women with ‘borderline personality disorder’ was spoken about, and how early intervention can be achieved without drawing more people into the system.
The final panel of witnesses was comprised of an ex–offender and two support workers from the Circle family support project, which provides community based support to marginalised children and families. They spoke about the need for intensive support for women who have just been released from prison, which includes accompanying them to every appointment they have, helping them with parenting skills, and ensuring their housing needs are met. The speakers said that it is often when the women are on remand that they are most committed to change, and the Circle client spoke about her differing experiences of both a community and a custodial sentence. She also spoke about maintaining her relationship with her son during her time in prison, and significant level of numeracy and literacy problems that exist in Cornton Vale.
You can read all the evidence from this part of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the particularly good briefings of the evidence received so far as part of this inquiry in pages 7 – 8 of the official Meeting Papers.
Chamber
First Minister’s Questions
Parliamentary notification about prison escape
The issue of the First Minister’s handling of the open prison escape during First Minister’s Questions the previous week, arose again. Iain Gray (Lab) said that during the exchange about open prisons last week in which the First Minister was asked seven times about recent escapes from the open estate, not once did he mention that another prisoner had escaped just the day before, despite the fact that both he and the Justice Secretary had been alerted to this by the police by this point. He said that the First Minister was not being open and transparent with the Parliament reiterated his argument that this failure to disclose the escape meant that the FM had no regard for truth or respect for the Parliament.
The First Minister replied that the reason he had not disclosed the escape to the Parliament at that time, was because the police had operational independence from the Government, and he quoted from the head of ACPOS who said in a statement that it would be ‘entirely inappropriate’ for the First Minister to announce an escape before the police had decided to do so. He also pointed out that Cathy Jamieson, the Labour Justice Minister in the previous administration, had not once announced an escape to the Chamber, and he said that the Chamber should wait for the results of the review he has established into whether he misled the Parliament.
Annabel Goldie (Con) used her question to go over the same ground as Iain Gray, accusing the First Minister of a lack of clarity and withholding information from the Parliament. The First Minister gave the same justifications as earlier in response, reiterating that the matter was one of operational independence and that the Chamber should await the results of the review.
You can read these question in the Official Report. See also the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Binge drinking
Christine Grahame (SNP) spoke about a recent television programme in which a pop star was asked to binge drink for four weeks in order to highlight the dangers of excessive drinking to young people. Ms Grahame said that this programme was a shocking expose of binge drinking which should be shown in schools throughout Scotland. The First Minister replied by listing the various initiatives and planned legislation aimed at tackling excessive drinking in young people, including plans for minimum pricing and targeting retailers who sell alcohol to those who are underage. However, he acknowledged that education played an important role as well, and he said he would write to Ms Grahame to consider if her suggestion could be included in the existing measures for schools.
You can read this question in the Official Report.
Drug Addiction Treatment
Mary Scanlon (Con) asked the First Minister about recent reports that the Government was going to introduce a target of 21 days between referral to treatment for drug treatment services, and she wanted to know whether equal emphasis would be given to people’s underlying mental health needs as to their drug problems. The First Minister replied that the target was currently being discussed by the Government and the NHS, but had not yet been finalised, and he also said that he was unable to comment more specifically on whether the measures will also focus on mental heath at this state
You can read this question in the Official Report.
You can also watch all the First Minister’s questions on Holyrood.TV.
Questions to the Law and Justice Officers
Fine defaulters and custodial sentences
Bill Wilson (SNP) asked the Cabinet Secretary about the numbers of people in prison for fine defaulting, who would otherwise not have received a custodial sentence. The Cabinet Secretary replied that this number now stood at 29% of the daily prison population, which is a significant reduction from 46% in the previous year, a decrease that he put down to the introduction of mandatory supervised attendance orders (SAOs) for offenders who have defaulted for a fine of £500 or below. In reply to supplementary questions from Richard Baker (Lab) and Bill Aitken (Con), he underlined support for the use of SAOs, and said that their breach rate of 87% represents a ‘good result’.
Domestic Abuse
Tom McCabe (Lab) highlighted the connection between large football matches and incidents of domestic abuse in his question for the Justice Secretary, and both he and Sandra White (SNP) wanted to know what measures the Government were taking on this issues. Mr MacAskill quoted research carried out by Strathclyde Police, which showed that domestic violence increased by more than 40% on the day of an Old Firm match, and he welcomed the approach taken by that police force, which worked together with partner agencies both before, during and after the match, in order to deter and prevent violent behaviour. He said that the solution to tackling domestic violence had to involve education and cultural beliefs, with a specific focus on tackling the relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse.
Antisocial behaviour
Alex Johnstone (Con) asked the Minister for Community Safety about how the Government intends to tackle anti’social behaviour, saying that he is receiving an increasing number of complaints about increased antisocial behaviour in towns in the north east, and that a system whereby a range of different agencies can work together unfettered by bureaucracy, to fight antisocial behaviour should be allowed to develop. The Minister replied that an interagency approach is indeed required, and that the extra police the SNP has provided was also helping. In supplementary questions, he agreed with Nigel Don (SNP) that any money spent tackling drugs would also help to decrease anti–social behaviour, and he also chastised Paul Martin (Lab) who criticised Strathclyde police’s contact centre, saying it was entirely inappropriate for a member to criticise the police in such a specific way in the Chamber
Rehabilitation of offenders sentenced to religiously aggravated offences
Bill Butler (Lab) wanted to know if there was a nationwide rehabilitation programme for offenders sentenced for a religiously aggravated offence, and he urged the Government to roll out a resource pack aimed at this rehabilitation which had been piloted in Polmont. The Minister for Community Safety replied that although there was not custom made rehabilitation programme for these type of offences, there were a range of initiatives in place throughout Scotland to tackle sectarianism, and he said that he would be happy to meet with Mr Butler and discuss how these could be developed further if he wished.
Community sentences funding
Cathie Craigie (Lab) brought up evidence heard in the Justice Committee, which argued that if the proposed community payback orders are to be an effective alternative to short terms in custody, there will need to be a marked increase in spending for community sentences. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the Government has pledged an extra £2 million for community sentences, but that the issue is not one of providing extra resources, but also about improving the system so that those who commit less serious crimes are put to work rather than being provided ‘free bed and board’ at the expense of the taxpayer.
Rates of violent crime
The Cabinet Secretary joined Tricia Marwick (SNP) in congratulating Fife Constabulary’s recently announced reduction in recorded crime and increase in conviction rates, although he did not join his colleague in publicly criticising Claire Baker (Lab) who recently publicly announced that crime in Fife had increased. Ms Baker rebutted these accusations in the supplementary question, by pointing out that it was levels of violent crime, rather than overall crime, which had increased in specific areas of Fife.
You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or watch them on Holyrood.TV.
Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) Bill Stage 3 Debate
Later in the afternoon Parliament debated the final stage 3 of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) Bill. This is a ‘handout bill’, a Member’s Bill supported by the Government. It was introduced to the Parliament by Patrick Harvie (Green), who wanted the law to recognise crimes aggravated by hatred of a person’s actual or presumed sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability, in the same way as it already recognises aggravations that exist to protect individuals and groups targeted on racial and religious ground. Normal practice for stage three debates are that the Chamber first debates and votes on any stage 3 amendments, and then debates and votes on the final version of the Bill. However, this Bill was in the unique position of not having any amendments lodged against it in Stage 2, meaning that the Chamber moved immediately to the Stage 3 debate.
Patrick Harvey opened sayomh that this Bill was a small, but very necessary step, towards making Scotland a fairer place. He spoke about his experience growing up when homophobic language was accepted as par for the course, and he said that his experience supporting young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people also alerted him to the very distressing abuse that they often suffer. The legislation also creates an aggravation based on hatred against those with disabilities, which he welcomed as including those infected with HIV. He said that the Bill will allow the appropriate sentence to be handed out (although emphasised that this did not necessarily mean tougher), and he said that as well as sending out the very clear message that such hatred is not tolerated in modern day Scotland, it will also allow better data to be gathered about this prejudice, because police and prosecutors will now be obliged to record all aggravations. Finally he said that he was aware that this Bill was not a silver bullet that will end all hatred and discrimination, but it was nonetheless a necessary step in the right direction.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice spoke next, and he paid warm tribute to Patrick Harvie’s work on this legislation, saying that the Government were happy to support this Bill given that there was ‘no place for hate crime in modern Scotland’. He also said that, although the Government and Parliament have put the law on statute books, it was now up to the police, the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that they are used.
The other speakers also paid tribute to the work of Patrick Harvie, and reiterated the need to protect vulnerable groups who may be subject to forms of discrimination in legislation. At the end of the speeches, the legislation was passed without opposition.
You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, and you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press and access all the official Bill documents, on the CJScotland Newsblog.
Written Questions
There were a number of questions about the Children’s Hearing System, about a Government review of CCTV, and the procedures for chasing up non’payment of fines. There were some questions about serious and organised crime, about deaths from drugs, and about convictions for dealing drugs. There were questions about compensation paid to victims of crime, a range of justice questions including data about crimes involving offensive weapons, fines imposed by courts, and the escape from open prison. There were more justice questions, this time about police training, custodial sentences, and prosecutions for offensive weapons. Finally, there were a number of questions about what the Government is doing to tackle sectarianism.
Posted by KM
on Wed 10th Jun 2009
at 8:50 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Thursday, June 04, 2009
This was another busy week for justice in the Parliament. The Justice Committee continued its scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, this week hearing from ACPOS, Victim Support, and several children’s organisations. And in the Chamber, the Justice Secretary made a statement to Parliament about the escape from the open estate, which was pursued further by Opposition parties during First Minister’s Questions. The Chamber also held a debate praising the Cashback to Communities scheme.
The Justice Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill at Stage 1
After last week’s lengthy and interesting meeting in Alloa, this week the Committee were back in the Parliament again to continue with their scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The Committee have so far focused on Part 1 of the Bill only, which relates to proposals for the sentencing council, minimum sentences and community payback orders. Today’s meeting focused on other criminal law and procedural provisions in the bill.
The first panel was comprised of Chief Constable Stephen House of Strathclyde Police and Chief Constable David Strang of Lothian and Borders Police, who were both representing ACPOS, and Gordon Meldrum, director general of the SCDEA.
They spoke about the provisions in the Bill relating to serious and organised crime, saying that they will enable the targeting of so called ‘Mr and Mrs Bigs’ who are involved in orchestrating large scale criminal activities such as people or drugs trafficking. Mr Meldrum said that it was traditionally difficult to prosecute these figures and that when a prosecution did take place it was usually for a conspiracy charge rather than anything more serious. He said that the provisions in the bill which would create the specific offences of ‘being involved in and directing serious organised crime’, would make prosecutions easier.
The witnesses were also asked about the definition of ‘serious and organised crime’ contained in the Bill, which is a “crime involving two or more persons acting together for the principal purpose of committing or conspiring to commit a serious offence or a series of serious offences”. The Committee considered this definition too broad, and pointed out that by classifying a ‘serious offence’ as an indictable offence, a large number of not very serious offences could be prosecuted as well under this legislation.
The witnesses said that to have a tighter definition may be counter productive, because serious and organised crime is varied and always evolves, and criminals may exploit the situation to ensure that their activity does not fall within the strict definition in statute.
They also spoke in favour of the parts of the Bill which would make it an offence to ‘have knowledge’ about organised crime, saying this was different to ‘being involved’ in organised crime. They rejected suggestions from the Committee that these provisions would give the State extensive powers to pursue those who the legislation was not intended for, saying that there is a need for these powers given that there is a difficulty prosecuting those who facilitate the business side of organised crime.
The witnesses also spoke about the Bill’s provisions on DNA data retention, and ACPOS said they would prefer for these provisions to include the ability to take DNA from those issued with fixed penalty notices as well. The Committee entered into a debate about the philosophical rationales for and against blanket DNA retention, with the police favouring such an approach, and many of the Committee members expressing concerns
The next panel of witnesses comprised of witnesses from Victim Support Scotland. They spoke favourably about a proposed sentencing council, saying there was an urgent need for public confidence and transparency in sentencing. They argued that if this could be achieved, it would make people more willing to participate in the criminal justice system and greatly improve the experience for witnesses. They also said that what victims want is not necessary for a harsher sentence to be handed out, rather they want for the crime to not be committed again.
They also spoke in favour of the Community Payback Orders (CPOs) which the Bill would create as the new single community sentence, and they said that, although the option to sentence to six months or less should be retained, a greater use of CPOs should be encouraged as long as a suitable alternative disposals were available. The witnesses said that victims often assume that prisoners will receive support to tackle offending behaviour when serving short sentences, and will then often feel let down once they realise this is not the case, and that many victims would be in favour of some sort of payback work to be carried out by the prisoner.
They proposed an interesting suggestion that when the court was handing out a CPO, the sentencer could at the same time say what the custodial equivalent was, and they also said that community sentences should not begin before the treatment or activity attached to them was available. They said there was a need for community orders to be ‘sold’ to the public, so they could see what was in it for them, and that there was a great opportunity to link them to work identified by community planning partnerships in their area
The final panel of witnesses were from Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, Children 1st, and Children in Scotland. They were asked about the provisions in the Bill relating to children and young people, which retains the criminalisation of children under between 8 and 12, although it now provides that they will not be prosecuted. The witnesses roundly criticised the fact the Bill did not go further and raise both the age of criminal responsibility and the age of criminal prosecution to at least 12. One of the witnesses urged raising the age of responsibility to 16, not 12, pointing out that the UN still state that the age of 12 is “not considered to be internationally acceptable”.
The witnesses were keen to emphasise that they were not advocating that nothing be done with children who exhibit offending behaviour, rather that the response must be non-criminal, and they advocated creating a new non-offence grounds of referral to the Children’s Hearings System.
They also spoke about the provisions in the Bill which will allow the DNA of children dealt with by the CHS to be retained. The witnesses all disagreed with this provision, saying that children should be treated differently from adults, and that the connection with juvenile and adult offending is not straightforward or inevitable. One witness said that in some exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to retain DNA from a child, but that this should only be done following an order from a Sheriff.
You can read all the evidence from this Committee meeting in the Official Report and watch it on Holyrood.TV
You can also read all the accompanying written evidence from today’s witnesses, in pages 4 – 41 of the meeting papers
The Chamber
Statement on open prison abscond
Last Wednesday, Kenny MacAskill appeared before a Parliament which was baying for blood following rumours of votes of no confidence in the Justice Secretary in the wake of the second escape from an open prison in as many weeks. Both absconders had been returned to custody, but the political knives were out for the Mr MacAskill as the Opposition attempt to tarnish in his legitimacy as the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill makes its way through Parliament.
No doubt aware of this, Mr MacAskill said he was making this speech due to ‘considerable public concern’ over the case, however, he reminded the Chamber that the changes that were made to open prisons in the wake of the Robert Foye case have significantly reduced the number of escapes in the past year. He nonetheless was forced to admitted that one of the new procedures created as part of that review, (that if a prisoner had previously absconded from an open prison they should not be eligible for return to the open estate), had not been followed by the SPS in this instance, because the prisoner in question had previously absconded, albeit 22 years ago. He said this appeared to be due to a “failure in its information-sharing processes”.
He said that he has appointed Professor Alex Spencer to conduct an independent review of the circumstances surrounding this case, and he reiterated that there was a need for a well run open prison estate within the Scottish penal system.
During the questions that followed, Richard Baker (Lab) said that it should be unacceptable for the Cabinet Secretary to blame his civil servants for a mistake of this kind, and that if Professor Spencer’s report does uncover failings in the SPS, Mr MacAskill ought to take responsibility for them. Bill Aitken (Con), urged him to take a more ‘hands-on approach’ to the running of prisons in general and in the transfer to the open estate in particular, and he argued that the buck for this escape must ultimately stop with the Cabinet Secretary. Robert Brown (LD) acknowledged the role that the open estate plays within the prison system, but wanted reassurances that the “wrong people” are not sent there. In reply to all these questions, the Cabinet Secretary reiterated that the Government awaited the independent report into the matter, and would take on board any issues that it raised.
You can read this statement and the questions that followed in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the considerable press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Cashback to communities debate
The next day, the Cabinet Secretary was up once again before the Parliament, although this time in the more comfortable position of talking about the Cashback to Communities scheme. This scheme was set up in January 2008, with the aim of reinvesting the money seized from the Proceeds of Crime Act back into projects and activities for young people, who the Government have said need more ‘choices and chances’ to ‘help them keep away from crime and the antisocial behaviour of those who stray’.
The Cabinet Secretary said that the majority of young people do not stray, but simply require more activities to keep them out of trouble, and he said that £13 million has so far been committed to the scheme which has set up sports and arts activities across Scotland, as well as a range of other youth work. He also spoke about the process of recovering the funds from criminals, and he paid tribute to the work carried out by the Crown Office in this regard, and he said that funding is being distributed in a way that encourages community participation and networks to be developed. He outlined the various sporting projects that have been established and he announced additional funding to YouthLink Scotland to continue to fund and create projects for young people.
Richard Baker (Lab) emphasised the fact that the Proceeds of Crime Act had been established under the previous Administration, and he urged the Government to not take full credit for it, pointing out the numerous press releases they have issued in the past 18 months which celebrate its success. He nonetheless also praised the scheme, although he said that the funding should be more keenly focused on the communities who are the victims of crime. He also queried the introduction of an incentivisation for police, whereby they would be able to keep a proportion of the money that is seized, saying that it was important the amount they claimed was not too large and that money continue to be invested in the communities who need it.
Robert Brown (LD) suggested that if there was money ‘left over’ from seizures under the Act, then this could perhaps be used to fund the community court in Glasgow, over which there has been so much political disagreement and debate. He spoke about the value of diversionary approaches to crime and antisocial behaviour, saying that these approaches were far and away more successful than other measures such as short prison sentences or policies aimed at deterrence. He called for the money seized to be spent more specifically on projects which will divert young people from crime, and also for it to be distributed evenly throughout Scotland.
Bill Aitken for the Conservatives agreed with Robert Brown that young people often get into trouble when they have nothing to do, and he said there was a need to ensure there were enough activities for young people, given that these have decreased over the years. Although he very much welcomed the Proceeds of Crime Act, he said that efforts had to be made to ‘step up the game’ in order to increase seizures. He also said that a particular effort had to be made to target drug dealers, which set a bad example to young people who often look up to them as folk heroes.
During the open speeches that followed, members from across the Chamber welcomed the Cashback scheme and the legislation which made it possible. Labour members were eager to highlight the fact it was created under their watch, and many members either highlighted projects in their area which have benefited from funding, or highlighted cases in which schemes had tried to secure funding but not been successful. The Minister for Community Safety managed to ruffle some feathers in his closing speech, by praising a scheme which provides football for boys and jewellery making and sexual health advice for girls, who come along to watch the boys play football. All in all however, it was a good natured debate, and if you want to read the full transcripts you can do so in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.
Questions
Victims Commissioner
Margaret Curren (Lab) asked the Cabinet Secretary whether he would support her colleague David Stewart’s proposal for a victim’s commissioner. She said that despite the reforms brought in under the Vulnerable Witnesses Act 2004, the Sexual Offences (Procedures and Evidence Act 2002, and a range of other initiatives, many victims continued to believe that the court system did not work in their favour. The Justice Secretary replied that he was prepared to consider the issue and he was due to have a meeting with Mr Stewart to discuss it further. He said that it would require resources however, and that it was ultimately up to the Parliament to decide if money should be spent on a commissioner or on frontline services
You can read this question in the Official Report.
Open Prison Escape
The Chamber was in an unruly mood for FMQs, when the issue of the open prison escape arose again. This follows the Justice Secretary’s statement to the house on the matter the previous day, in which he explained that the prisoner in question should not have been transferred to the open estate in the first place (see above for more details)
Iain Gray led the pack, saying the issue was not so much that a prisoner had absconded, rather it was ‘the manner’ in which the Justice Secretary had handled the issue, which he said ‘reeked of complacency’. He said that Mr MacAskill‘s claim the prisoner transfer to the open escape was due to a ‘glitch’ n the system was unacceptable. He said this was just another in a long list of failures of the Secretary, and that the First Minister should sack him now. Alex Salmon reiterated that the point that the number of escapes from the open escape have fallen considerably under this Administration, and he mocked an interview that Iain Gray had conducted in which he ‘welcomed’ this decrease. This was a particularly unruly exchange, with the Presiding Officer having to step in and tell the rest of the Chamber to be quiet, showing that politics in Scotland is not finished with the Justice Secretary just yet. You can read this question in the Official Report
Automatic Early Release
Annabel Goldie for the Conservatives was next up to attack the SNP’s justice policies, this time her focus was on automatic early release. She said that the prisoner who escaped from open prison was sentenced to ten years in custody, but was moved to an open prison after three years. She also reiterated the points that Iain Gray had made about the Justice Secretary and called on the First Minister to reshuffle the cabinet and ‘put an end to soft touch Scotland’. The First Minister reminded the Chamber that it has been the Conservatives who had introduced automatic early release (ignoring Ms Goldie’s point that they have since attempted to repeal it on several occasions, only be defeated by Labour and the SNP), and he also reminded the Chamber that the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill plans to end automatic early release. You can read this question in the Official Report, and also watch both these questions, along with all the other FMQs, on Holyrood.TV
Point of order – Parliamentary notice about open prison escape
At the very end of the day, news of a further escape from open prison had been released to the press and hence also to the opposition. It had also emerged that the Cabinet Secretary and therefore the First Minister must have been aware of this escape during the exchanges at First Minister’s questions (see above). This point was raised by both Iain Gray and Bill Aitken at the end of the day during a ‘point of order’. The Presiding Officer told them both that he was unable to rule on the veracity of what members say, and that if they wanted a statement from Government on the matter, they would have to make this request via the Parliamentary Bureau which organises the Parliamentary schedule. The First Minister told the Chamber that the release of this sort of information was an operational matter for Tayside police, and that it would be ‘extraordinary’ if any politician were to over ride that.
You can read this brief exchange in the Official Report
Written Questions
There was a question about the anti-social behaviour legislation, in relation to making it applicable to holiday lets, and a question about the number of times the Lord Advocate has exercised the right of appeal against unduly lenient sentences. There was a question about how many arrests for drug-related offences have been made in the Lothian and Borders police force area in the last 10 years, and a range of justice questions about diversion from prosecution figures and treatment for HIV prisoners. There was a question about sentences for drug dealing, about the procedures and figures for recruiting police, and about the operational capacity of young offenders institutions. There was a question about the numbers of young people in custody, and further questions about the number of young people proceeded against in court
Posted by KM
on Thu 4th Jun 2009
at 10:32 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Friday, May 29, 2009
This was an exceptionally busy week for the Parliament, with the Justice Committee hearing very interesting evidence from the chair of the Prison Commission and others, as part of its scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The Equal Opportunities Committee also continued to take evidence in relation to its Inquiry into Female Offenders. There were a number of questions in the Chamber, chiefly aimed at attacking the Justice Secretary in relation to the community court and the absconded prisoner. There was also a private members debate about a rehabilitation programme in Strathclyde, and the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is UK legislation, was also finally passed by the Chamber.
Justice Committee
The Justice Committee met in Alloa this week, with the intention of having a meeting away from the Holyrood in order to allow the community to contribute to the Parliamentary process.
Subordinate Legislation
The Committee began their long meeting with consideration of several pieces of subordinate legislation. They related to forms of mutual legal assistance in certain European countries which were not in the EU, and to consequential change resulting from legislation passed in 2007. The Committee passed them without opposition or question. You can read this part of the meeting in the Official Report
Stage 1 Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill
The majority of the Committee’s meeting was however, spent in consideration of Stage 1 of the of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. Much of this week’s evidence was in response to last week’s evidence from the judiciary, who were critical of the proposals in the Bill relating to plans for a sentencing council. The first witness before the Committee was the Chair of the Prison Commission, the Right Honourable Henry McLeish. Many of the Prison Commission‘s recommendations have been reflected in the Bill, albeit in a watered down form, most notably in relation to the need to reduce short prison sentences and reform community penalties. The Bill also proposes to create a sentencing council, whose role should be both to provide sentencing guidance for the judiciary, and also to provide clarity for the public.
One of the issues the proposed sentencing council seeks to address is inconsistent sentencing, and Mr McLeish was asked about last week‘s evidence from senior judges which argued there was no statistical proof that such inconsistency existed. He was forced to admit that the Commission did not commission any new research about sentencing inconsistency, but he argued that there was an array of official court data which showed that such inconsistencies did exist. He also cautioned against dwelling on the issue of a sentencing council too closely, saying that the sentencing council was not the most important part of the Commission‘s report, indeed, if he were to drop any one of the report‘s 23 recommendations, it would be the one relating to the Council. However, he said that the most important function of any sentencing council, were it to be created, was to ensure that there was greater transparency for the public. He also said that the hostile reaction from the bench was understandable given their traditional view that Parliament attempts to interfere with their work, and that it was therefore important that the sentencing council should not appear as an ‘ultra-quasi-legal body’ that looks like it is imposing its individual judgements on the work of the courts. He argued that the whole debate about judicial independence was too emotional, and he pointed out that these debates are marked with inconsistency: for example, calls from some MSPs for mandatory custodial sentences for carrying a knife also go against judicial independence.
He also spoke about the recommendations in the report relating to short prison sentences, speaking about the profile of the prison population and his view that the majority of those serving six months or less should not be in custody. He said that new resources are absolutely critical if these plans were to be successful. He was asked about evidence received from Sheriffs who said that everyone who is sent to prison is done so as a last resort, and replied that under the Bill‘s proposals, sentencers would retain the right to sentence for six months or less if they thought it was appropriate. He said there was a need for a massive mind shift in relation to prison and community sentences: prison is a relatively easy concept for the public to understand and has existed for 100 years, but community justice is a more complex and difficult alternative for the public to support, and work needs to be done to convince the them that they are comparable. He also said that although short prison sentences may give the public some respite, they do not provide a longer term solution.
He spoke about the provisions in the Bill for Community Payback Orders, saying these were ‘very much what we had in mind’ when drafting the recommendations about community penalties in the Commission‘s report. He said that community sentences had to be immediate and dramatic in the same way that handing out a custodial sentences is, and he also spoke about the need for a ‘progress court’ for those on community service, which would reduce the number of recalls to custody for those who break the conditions of their sentence.
Mr McLeish was asked his opinion about the Government‘s decision on community courts, and he said that, while he was very much in favour of the community court model, it would be better for reform to take place throughout all the courts in Scotland rather than created a limited number of ‘special’ courts to cater for specific problems.
You can read Mr McLeish‘s evidence in this part of the Official Report
The next panel comprised of officials from three different Community Justice Authorities (CJAs) and from the Association of Directors of Social Work. The representative from the CJAs said they supported the intentions of the Bill, and they said that a sentencing council would both provide much needed clarity to the public and also help to iron out some of the inconsistencies in sentencing which they said the annual Government statistics of each Sheriff court in Scotland highlight. The speakers said that it did not matter whether the Sentencing council was comprised of a judicial majority or not, as long as it contained some lay members.
The witnesses poke about the difficulty of ensuring consistent provision between prison and community, and they said that the CJAs have gone a long way in improving the continuity of care of an offender from the time they are in prison until after they are released. The witnesses from the ADSW said that they would prefer to see a reduction in those serving short custodial sentences than to further increase the co-operation between the SPS and the community, although more co-operation was naturally a good thing.
They also welcomed the new single community sentence, the Community Payback Orders, saying there would be little merit in maintaining the three existing community sentences, although they questioned the value in keeping the DTTO, given that a community payback order could have conditions for drug rehabilitation attached to them. The speaker from one of the CJAs spoke about a survey which they had commissioned into the public‘s perception of a short-term community service visibility project which ran for six months. She said that the CJA were able to raise awareness of community justice by 50% over that period of time, most of which was achieved through newspaper articles. The survey also found that around half the respondents thought that community service was ‘an easy option’, but she also said that over 60% did considered it as an alternative to custody.
The witnesses from the CJAs said they try to involve the whole community to help offenders reintegrate, and they gave a number of examples from their Authorities how they do this. They also spoke of their concern that the funding provided in the Bill for the proposed increase in community sentences, was not sufficient. And their opinion was that, as long as the Bill retained the option of a six month custodial sentence, it would be suitable to have a presumption against their use.
You can read the evidence from CJAs and the ADSW in this part of the Official Report
The final panel of witnesses were academics and the chair of the Howard League, all representing the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice. Professor Fergus McNeil began by saying that the part of the Bill which list the different purposes of sentencing does not in fact provide much clarity or help to sentencers or to the public, because it does not provide any guidance about which rationales should take priority in particular circumstances. He also called for the Bill to include a commitment to the principle of parsimony in its text, arguing that States should always seek to impose the least intrusive sanction that is consistency with justice. He said there was merit in the approach taken by several European countries whereby the system of sentencing begins by stating its aims are to achieve justice and fairness, and then to think about the specific outcomes that can be achieved under that banner through proportionate sentences.
There were different opinions from the witnesses about the merits of a sentencing council, with Professor Spencer saying that before any such council was to be created, there needs to be a political decision to decrease the numbers of people in prison, and then sentencers work together and decide how they are going to achieve this. John Scott from the Howard League also agreed that the sentencing council would be imperfect although he thought it could have a valuable role in communicating sentencing to the public, and possibly also to the judiciary, given that they repeatedly claim to not be aware why the prison population is rising. Professor McNeil was in favour of a sentencing council, but was unsure whether the proposals in the Bill were the best way of creating it, and he argued it was important to ensure that a council was free from political interference, querying whether the Cabinet Secretary should have a role in appointing members. The Consortium was also asked about inconsistency in sentencing, which has proved such a vexed issue so far in evidence for this Bill, and Professor McNeil was able to furnish the Committee with examples of research which showed that sentencing practices do vary beyond what was ‘reasonable and defensible’ given that variation will always exist because no two cases are exactly the same. He also said that so called ‘judge shopping’, where those involved in the courts are aware of different sentencing practices of different sentencers, is common knowledge, and to call such evidence ‘anecdotal’ does give sufficient credence to the fact that inconsistent sentencing exists.
The witnesses spoke about how these proposals were going to be resourced, and one witness said that if the operation of local prisons was handed over to CJAs, the resources for short custodial sentences and community sentences could be merged, which would allow resources to flow more easily between them. Another witness spoke of the massive cost of implementing the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, which is estimated at around £47 million, which is between half and a third of the total current budget for criminal justice social work.
The Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill will amend the custody provisions in the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, which is yet to be implemented by the current Administration. The witnesses spoke about the Custodial Sentences Act, calling it ‘dreadful‘ and saying it would have ‘very negative consequences for the operation of the prison service and criminal justice social work’, and another witnesses said that if this legislation were to be implemented, Scotland would be less safe.
You can read the final panel of witnesses‘ evidence in the Official Report. You can also read all the written evidence submitted to the Committee as part of their scrutiny of the legislation, on the Bill‘s Committee page
The Equal Opportunities Committee
Inquiry into female offenders
At the same time as the Justice Committee‘s meeting, the Equal Opportunities Committee were continuing their inquiry into female offenders in the justice system. The remit of their inquiry is to:
“assess the prison experience for, and background of, female offenders, particularly the extent to which prison helps to prevent women from re-offending.”
The Committee heard firstly from Baroness Corston, who conducted a review of females in the justice system for the Home Office in 2007. She wrote “The Corston Report: a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system” which concluded that there needed to be a ‘radical’ change in the way that women are treated throughout the whole of the CJS, including those at the risk of offending as well as those who have already offended. She told the Committee that there was a powerful argument for a ‘women’s centred’ approach to be taken in the CJS, because historically, prisons have been built by men and designed for men, and they therefore do little to take into account of the differing needs that women display.
One of the recommendations of her report was for small, multifunctional and geographically dispersed prisons, which would hold around 70 – 80 prisoners, which would allow women to maintain their ties with their families and local communities.
She spoke about the mental health difficulties that feature so prominently amongst the female prison population, and she said that there is growing awareness that so called ‘personality disorders’ which relate to a person‘s inability to understand others‘ emotions, can be addressed, whereas in the past they were considered untreatable. She also gave her understanding of why the prison population has increased, saying that women often get harsher sentences than men do for the same crime, and also that more women are being sent to custody because there is no faith in community penalties.
The final panel of witnesses comprised of a spokesperson from the 218 Centre, which is designed to provide a community-based alternative to sending women to prison for short periods, and a spokesperson from the Glasgow City Council social work department. They answered questions about whether alternatives to custody are appropriate to deal with the specific profiles of female offenders, and whether they are used effectively throughout Scotland. They spoke about the innovative work that is carried out in the drugs court, and a the difficulty of sharing best practice throughout Scotland.
The speaker from the 218 Centre said that women who are sent there do not view it as an easy or soft option, it requires more work and is a tougher process for them to go through than spending time in Cornton Vale. She said that many of the women who come to the Centre may be vulnerable and lead chaotic lives, but they can also be incredibly resourceful. She also said that there was no reason the model of the 218 centre could not be introduced throughout the rest of Scotland and that there has already been interest from other local authorities in this regard.
You can read the full transcripts from this meeting in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also access all the evidence received so far as part of this inquiry, on the Committee’s Inquiry page
The Chamber
Questions
Community Court
The issue of the community court continued to occupy Parliament last week. During general questions, Margaret Curren (Lab) claimed that the Government‘s decision not to proceed with the community court in Glasgow undermined the Cabinet Secretary‘s credibility, and she argued that the SNP Government ought to heed the will of the Parliament and reverse their decision. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the decision on the Community Court was taken by the project board, which was comprised of representatives from other organisations as well as the Government. He reiterated the Government‘s commitment to community justice, outlining the increase in funding that it has received. In response to a supplementary question from fellow SNP Member Anne McLaughlin, he agreed that the recent reduction in crime reported in the south side of Glasgow shows that the increase in community policing in Scotland is having a beneficial effect.
You can read this question in the Official Report. You can also read the press stories about the community courts in the CJScotland Newsblog
Registered Sex Offenders
Paul Martin (Lab) asked how many recommendations of the Justice 2 Sub-Committee‘s report into the management of child sex offenders, which reported in December 2006, have been implemented. This Committee was set up in the previous session of Parliament with the sole remit of examining the management of child sex offenders. Mr Martin, who sat on the Sub-Committee along with Mr MacAskill, complained that he had submitted a written question in March to which he was still awaiting reply. The Cabinet Secretary replied that he too was committed to implementing all of the sub-committee‘s recommendations. He confirmed that 29 out of the 33 recommendations had so far been implemented, and assured the Member that he will receive an official answer shortly.
You can read this question in the Official Report. See also “MacAskill reports on implementation of Justice 2 Sub-committee report on sex offender management 17.03.08” CJScotland Newsblog
You can watch both of these questions, along with all other general questions on Holyrood.TV
Absconded prisoner and the Cabinet Secretary
The leader of the Opposition, Iain Gray (Lab), used his question at FMQs to argue that the case of the prisoner who absconded from the open estate showed that this Government had not done enough to protect the public. He said that lessons had not been learned from the Robert Foye case (in which a prisoner escaped from open prison and raped a teenager), and he argued that the escaped prisoner, who was 3 years into a 10 year firearms offence, should not have been moved to an open prison in the first place. The First Minister replied that the whole Parliament had voted in favour of the changes to the open estate that the Cabinet Secretary announced in the wake of the Robert Foye case, and furthermore that Iain Gray is in no position to criticise the Government about escapes from open prisons given that the numbers of absconders as a percentage of the open prison population, has decreased by 23% under the SNP Administration.You can read the question in the Official Report, and read the press about this story in the CJScotland Newsblog You can watch this, along with all other FMQs, on Holyrood.TV
Coroners and Justice Bill – UK Legislation
Later in the Chamber, the Justice Secretary moved to pass a piece of UK Legislation, which required a Parliamentary vote in Holyrood given that it impinges on three areas of devolved Government. This Bill has already been through the Justice Committee on several occasions, because they rejected a major part of its original content, which related to plans for data sharing.
The Cabinet Secretary outlined the three areas of the Bill which will affect Scotland, saying the legislation will enable any profits that are made from writing and selling criminal memoirs to be recovered from the author, which he said will act as a ‘powerful deterrent’ against the writing of books which glamorise criminal activity and allow profit to be made as a result of it. The Bill also makes changes to the law surrounding the deaths abroad of Scottish service personnel regarding inquests and fatal accident enquiries held in the UK, and also makes some changes to legislation as a result of the EU Services Directive.
The Opposition parties were quick to point out their role in vetoing a former version of the Bill because of the concerns over data sharing, and they denounced the Scottish Government‘s attempts to pass such a significant piece of legislation through the Justice Committee, meaning it would receive minimal Parliamentary scrutiny. However, there was consensus from all parties regarding the amended version Bill, and it was passed without opposition.
You can read the Official Report, and read the information about the Bill on its Ministry of Justice Homepage . You can also watch the debate on Holyrood.TV
Private Members Debate on the Strathclyde Police Prolific Offender Programme
At the end of the day, there was a debate led by John Wilson (SNP) on a programme run by Strathclyde police which is aimed at offenders whose offending is connected to alcohol and drug addiction. He said that he has taken a particular interest in this programme, which has resulted in a 30% reduction in offending rates, particularly in crimes such as shop lifting, housebreaking and prostitution. The project provides intensive support including counselling, education and housing, alongside addiction treatment, though community based outreach work. He said that given the success of the initiative, it was vital that funding for such schemes continues.
The Members that spoke after Mr Wilson also welcomed the programme, and spoke about the importance of a multi-agency approach to dealing with this group of offenders. Robin Harper (Green) argued there was a need for a new type of ‘social accounting’ which looks to the longer term and more dispersed benefits that can be achieved if these sorts of projects are funded upfront.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV.
Written Questions
There was a question about fine enforcement in court, and about numbers of violent crime in the Edinburgh and Lothians area. There was a question about how police record reports of domestic abuse, and about the number of DTTOs issued to under 18 years olds. There was a question about the feasibility study of the Glasgow community court, and about whether the Government intends to reverse its decision on the courts or not, and whether it considers the vote by the Parliament on the issue to be binding or not. There were a number of questions about police, including recruitment numbers and assaults on police officers. There were more questions about the police, this time on police retirement and the costing of major events. Finally, there were several questions about the new prison at Low Moss
Posted by KM
on Fri 29th May 2009
at 10:53 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
This week in Parliament, the Justice Secretary made a statement about community courts to the Chamber following on from last week’s debate on the issue in which the Government were defeated. There were also several question to the First Minister about mandatory sentences for possession of knives. The Justice Committee began its Stage 1 consideration of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill by taking evidence from the members of the judiciary.
The Justice Committee
Stage 1 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill: evidence from the Judiciary
The Committee began its Stage 1 scrutiny of this important piece of legislation by questioning members of the judiciary about the proposals in the Bill relating to sentencing, including the creation of a Scottish Sentencing Council. The Council will consist of a combination of judicial and non–judicial members and will be chaired by the Lord Justice Clerk, one of the most senior judges in the High Court. One of the main functions of the Council will be to prepare and publish sentencing guidelines for the courts on the sentencing of offenders, but it will also be required to promote consistency in sentencing practice, assist the development of policy in relation to sentencing, and to promote greater awareness and understanding of sentencing policy and practice.
The first panel of witnesses was comprised of the two most senior judges in Scotland, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, and the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill. In their evidence, they were critical of the plans for the sentencing council, saying there is no empirical evidence to support the view that there is inconsistency in sentencing, and Lord Hamilton said that he was happy for court records to be made available for this possibility to be examined. He also said that the Bill’s proposals would impinge on the independence of the judiciary, given that the Sentencing Council was comprised of a majority of non–judicial office holders and would be able to lay down guidelines. They also commented that even though the wording of the Bill states that courts should ‘have regard to’ sentencing guidelines, in reality it was likely that they would be prescriptive.
The next panel of witnesses was comprised of members of the Sheriffs Association and the Scottish Justices Association, who spoke on behalf of members of the Sheriff Courts and the Justice of the Peace Courts in Scotland. They spoke about the possibility of having the principles of sentencing outlined in the Bill, and they said that it was unlikely that members of the public would refer to the legislation to find out what the principles are, and that sentencers are aware of them anyway, but one of the witnesses said there may be no harm in including them in the legislation. They also spoke about the Scottish Sentencing Council, and they said that their main concern with this body, was that it would not have a judicial majority, and they also thought that that the phrase ‘have regard to’ would be too binding and would therefore be inappropriate, perhaps even contravening European law.
The final panel comprised of two members of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which is self defined itself as ‘Scotland’s academy of science and letters’. Amongst other matters they also respond to Government consultations, and the Royal Society’s response to this Bill was chaired by Lord Cullen, a former Lord President. They reiterated many of the points that had been made by earlier witnesses, specifically comments made about consistency in sentencing, and whether that is something that ought to be striven for given that every case is unique. Lord Cullen was also supportive of the idea of giving the public more information about the sentencing of offenders, saying this might address some of the concerns laid out in the consultation paper and which could even be provided in public information leaflets.
For a fuller reading of the evidence given, you can read the transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, and you can also read the witnesses written submissions in pages 4 – 69 of the Committee papers. You can also watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV, and read the press coverage of the judicial responses to the Bill in the CJScotland Newsblog. For more information about the Bill, you can find all the relevant documents on the Bill’s Homepage
If that is not enough, you can also watch an interview with the Convenor of the Committee, Bill Aitken, in which he gives his opinions on the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, on Holyrood Highlights Weekly
The Chamber
Statement on Community Courts
On Thursday, Kenny MacAskill made a statement to the Chamber about community courts. This follows on from the Conservative led debate the previous week which condemned the Government’s decision to not proceed with the pilot community court in Glasgow (see last week’s Parliament Report for more information). The Opposition have rallied together in their criticism of this decision, all voting against the Government in last weeks debate. This has lead to criticism of the Justice Secretary personally, and criticisms of the SNP’s justice policies in the round. In response, the Justice Secretary clearly felt he had no choice but to make a statement and to answer questions in the Chamber, not least because of the need for political support as the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill begins its Stage 1 scrutiny in Parliament.
His statement on community courts outlined the position of the Government, saying that the decision had been taken by the community court project board, and subsequently supported by the Government, because of financial reasons alone; the projected costs would be considerably higher than anticipated which could not be justified in ‘the current financial climate’, not least because the court would only be dealing with around 2000 people each year. He said that there were plans to incorporate the principles of the court into mainstream services in Glasgow, and that the Government had not abandoned their commitment to better justice system delivery. He emphasised that he too believed in the model of the community court in New York, which the members spoke of last week, and he hinted that in better economic times, the issues could be reviewed once again.He also defend the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill relating to tougher and more flexible community sentences, and outlined the additional money the Government is spending on front–line services at the current time
In questions that followed, the Opposition were unanimous in their criticism of the Government’s position. Richard Baker (Lab) said his statement was “an insult to Parliament”, Bill Aitken said that the Conservatives have lost faith with the Cabinet Secretary on a number of issues and argued that this statement raised “real doubts over his ability to satisfy the Parliament as to his competence and suitability for office”; and Robert Brown (LD) said Mr MacAskill was coming before the Chamber with “weasel words.” During the open questions that followed, Opposition Members followed in the same vein as the leaders of the Opposition, and they were interspersed by questions from SNP Members which allowed him to talk about the Government’s justice strategy and reiterate the points already made in support of their decision about the community courts.
This was not one of the prettiest debates in the Parliament, with bad tempered exchanges and interruptions throughout. This marks the beginning of a difficult time for the Justice Secretary who must gain the support of at least some of the opposition if the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill is to succeed in its passage through Parliament.
You can read the transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
First Minister’s Questions
Justice Secretary’s trip to Canada and Mandatory Sentences for Knife possession
Labour continued with its strategy of attack on the Justice Secretary with Iain Gray’s question to the First Minister in FMQs. Under a freedom of information request, Labout had uncovered an email from a civil servant involved with the Cabinet Secretary’s trip to Canada in January to promote Scotland’s Homecoming. This trip coincided with a ‘summit on knife crime’ which was attended by the Minister for Community Safety instead. Mr Gray argued that this said the fact that the Cabinet Secretary did not attend the summit and sent his deputy instead, showed that they did not care about knife crime, and he promoted his party’s proposals for a mandatory sentence for those caught carrying a blade.
The First Minister emphasised that the Minister for Community Safety is the Minister who was responsible for this policy area, and that this Government do take this issue seriously, which is why they held the summit which was a great success. He also pointed out that Labour support a mandatory sentence for carrying a knife in Scotland where they are in Opposition, but they do not implement this policy where they are in Government in Westminster. He also quoted from the head of the violence reduction unit, who said that mandatory sentences would not help tackle knife crime.
This theme continued with a question from Annabel Goldie, for the Conservatives, who firstly attacked Labour’s sudden adoption of support for mandatory sentences for knife carrying, accusing them of jumping on the Conservative bandwagon. She said that the Government should send out a clear message to “bullies and hooligans”, to “take the blade outside and you will be going inside.” The First Minister mocked this sound bite and pointed to the record high numbers of people in prison and the record low levels of recorded crime, arguing that we do not need more people in custody at this point in time.
You can read these questions in the Official Report, and also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Rehabilitation and retraining of prisoners
Richard Baker continued the assault on the Justice Secretary by quoting an interview he had given to a newspaper in which he called prison “a skoosh”. The First Minister replied that a short custodial sentence was a skoosh in comparison with tough community sentences, and he also indicated that Cathy Jamieson took the same view when she was the Justice Minister. He also quoted from an article in the press in which an anonymous Labour MSP was quoted as saying the Party’s approach to criminal justice policies was ‘depressing‘. You can read this question in the Official Report, and read the story to which Richard Baker was referring in the CJScotland Newsblog. You can also watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV.
Written Questions
There was a question about the effect of Glasgow community service worker’s strike on the backlog of community service orders, and about the figures for crimes of violence and indecency in the Edinburgh and Lothians region. There was a question about male victims of domestic abuse, and about the gender breakdown of victims and offenders in reported cases of domestic abuse. There were a number of questions about deaths related to drug abuse , about the recent mandatory drug testing of arestees pilot, and about the current drugs evidence review the Government is carrying out. There were a number of questions about prosecutions for human trafficking, and a number of justice questions, including the numbers of people on bail who have broken their conditions, and the number of firearm offences in the Edinburgh and Lothians region. There was a question about how many alleged offenders have entered the system for the first time over the past ten years, and a question about the report into the abuse at the Karelaw Residential School. There was a question about test purchasing and for various offences relating to the illegal selling or buying of alcohol. There was a question about how many absconded prisoners there have been in the past two years, and the number of prisoners with mental health problems in custody.
Posted by KM
on Wed 20th May 2009
at 8:08 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
This was a busy week for Justice business in Parliament. The Equal Opportunities Committee continued with their inquiry into Females in the Criminal Justice System, and the Justice Committee heard from the Judicial Appointments Board, and also discussed subordinate legislation concerning court reform and the Somerville judgement with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. In the Chamber, there was a Conservative led debate about Community Courts, and there were also questions for the Law and Justice Officers.
The Equal Opportunities Committee
Female offenders in the Justice System Inquiry
Last week the Equal Opportunities Committee held its third session of oral evidence in relation to its inquiry into female offenders in the justice system. This inquiry was established to: “assess the prison experience for, and background of, female offenders, particularly the extent to which prison helps to prevent women from re–offending.”.
Previous meetings have examined the social characteristics of female prisoners, and the sorts of facilities and programmes available to them in the justice system. This meeting was focusing on whether the support available in prison to help prevent re–entry into the criminal justice system was adequate and effective, and whether specific groups of female prisoners require different interventions
The first panel before the Committee comprised of the outgoing Chief Inspector of Prisons, Andrew McLellan, and Sue Brookes, who is in charge of Offender Strategy in the SPS.
The witnesses spoke about the difficulty of providing throughcare to prisoners serving short sentences, because it can be difficult to collect information during their brief time in custody, and they are not entitled to statutory supervision following release. Dr McLellan spoke very favourably about the Routes Out Of Prison programme, saying this was by far the most successful programme he had seen for supporting prisoners after release, although still in its early days. Ms Brookes said that the effect of overcrowding on female offenders is more damaging even than it is for the male prison population, chiefly because of the amount of support that the female prisoners require from staff, and she said that conditions in Cornton Vale have eroded due to the population increase over recent years.
Dr McLellan was also critical of the recent decision by the SPS to house all female offenders in Cornton Vale, no longer allowing any prisoners to be located in wings attached to other prisons throughout the country. He said that the majority of these prisoners were serving very short sentences or were on remand, meaning they would not access the programmes that are available in Cornton Vale anyway, and the closure of the old units has lead to further overcrowding in Cornton Vale. There were also some interesting discussions about what causes female offending, and the witnesses commented on previous evidence submitted to the Committee which said that it was important to recognise women’s agency in their offending and not to see them only as victims. Ms Brookes said that it was important to treat female prisoners as adults who made choices whilst at the same time recognising that their offending often arises out of difficulties in relationships stemming from experience of abuse. Dr McLellan said that one hardly ever meets a prisoner who is not poor, a woman prisoner who is not an addict, a woman prisoner who is not afraid, or a prisoner who has been loved and cherished. They also answered questions about the sorts of rehabilitation programmes that would best benefit female prisoners, and how much emphasise should be put on parenting and relationship skills.
The next panel of witnesses was comprised of Provost Pat Reid, from Cornton Vale over–21s visiting committee; Jim Scott, chairman of Cornton Vale under–21s visiting committee; Dr Nancy Loucks, chief executive of Families Outside; and Dr Willie Black, who is a consultant forensic psychiatrist with the Forensic Network.
The speakers from the Cornton Vale visiting committee spoke of the need for different approaches for younger and older prisoners, saying that the younger prisoners are less likely to pursue help that is available to them than older ones are, and they said that many of the younger prisoner especially require much more basic life skills such as how to cook and look after themselves.
Dr Loucks spoke about the difficulty of maintaining contact with family members, especially for female prisoners who are held in a central prison, often far away from their families. She said that around half of all prisoners loose touch with their families when they are in custody, which is bound to impact on rates of reoffending, given that, for women especially, keeping the family together is a big motivation to stay out of prison. She was also very critical of the visiting facilities in Cornton Vale, and she said that the prison visitor centres, which are purpose built facilities which make the visiting experience for families much easier and helps them to access resources, should be expanded to every prison. She also spoke about the need for the impact on prisoner’s children to be taken into account during the sentencing process, and she said her organisation were examining how such a scheme could operate, perhaps running alongside the existing social inquiry reports.
Dr Black spoke about the difficulty of gathering information from health boards across Scotland for prisoners in Cornton Vale, and he also said that given that these women’s lives are often erratic and they are likely to miss medical appointments following release, it would be desirable if the ‘one missed appointment and you are out’ rule could be relaxed for ex prisoners, though he thought this would be unlikely to happen.
There were also some interesting discussions about the value of short prison sentences, and whether community sentences could deal with the range of issues that female offenders present.
You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report or watch it on Holyrood.TV You can also access all the material so far received on the Inquiry Homepage
The Justice Committee
Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland
The Committee were joined by the chairman and the secretary of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and two Board members, to give evidence on the Board’s work over the past year.
The main areas of questioning related to how their work is expected to change with the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008, now that they have become a statutory body. They said that the Act has ‘crisped up’ the things that they have already been doing, including the duty to appoint on the basis of merit and character; the duty to examine candidates’ knowledge, skills and competence; and the duty to take account of and promote diversity. A Committee member noted previous criticisms of the Board that they did not gather information from further enough a field, and he wanted to know how the Board were working towards creating an objective system for making appointments that was not based on who the candidate happened to know.
The chairman of the Board said that they seek examples of evidence of a candidate’s work and comments from people who have worked with them, so they are able to understand how they would tackle certain issues. They said this approach was not so much about asking exam questions which have a right or wrong answer, so much as finding out how a candidate’s mind works, what sources of information they use, and what thinking processes they employ. They will also look at written work and gather information from people who engaged with the candidate, and on occasion they may also have a process in which they are asked to comment on a case study in a discussion–type interview with the Board.
The Board said they made 20 recommendations to the all–Scotland floating sheriff slate last year, for which they had received over 100 applicants.
They witnesses also spoke about encouraging diversity amongst the judiciary, and it was noted from the outset that they are not starting from the best position, given that there are only 2 female members on their Board of 10. Notwithstanding this, the witnesses spoke about what they are doing to encourage more women, and they said that they have recently issued a questionnaire to the senior legal profession in Scotland, so they are better able to make sure they are communicating well with potential candidates and making sure their processes do not deter any groups from considering making an application.
You can read all the evidence relating to this part of the meeting in the Official Report. You can also read the helpful SPICe briefing about the Judicial Appointments Board in pages 4 – 12 of the Committee Papers
Subordinate Legislation
Scotland Act 1998 modification in response to Somerville case loophole
The Committee were next joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice who spoke in relation to the issues highlighted by the prisoner compensation claims and the Somerville case. He sought to move an order which would amend the Scotland Act 1998 which would enable the Scottish Government to legislate to establish a one–year time bar for bringing human rights claims under the Human Rights Act 1998. This is the normal time bar that applies to the Human Rights Act, but due to an anomaly in the drafting of the Scotland Act, the Scottish Parliament has been so far unable to do so, meaning they have been paying compensation for cases of slopping out which precede the usual one year prior to application. Agreement was secured between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in March this year to rectify this situation, but the Scottish Government requires an order to be passed by the Committee before the they can legislate.
The Committee had received correspondence from the Law Society of Scotland prior to this meeting, in which they said it was ‘unfortunate’ the Scottish Government had not consulted more widely on this issues, given that it will ‘limit the capacity of people who may have had their human rights infringed from being able to claim compensation for having their rights violated’. They also questioned whether the one year time bar was appropriate for compensation cases of this kind.
In response to this criticism, the Cabinet Secretary replied that the Government had to act expeditiously, and that once they had agreement with the UK Government, they chose to act immediately rather than ‘compound the agony that is caused in many communities by people receiving money while they are serving sentences’. He said that, although it was not be the norm to act without further consultation, the Government felt they had the right to protect the broader public interest. Regarding the one year time bar, he said this was applied simply because it is the period that usually applies in the Human Rights Act 1998, and is considered the norm in such matters.
After further discussions, the Committee agreed the Order, which will now clear the way for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to establish a one year time bar.
You can read the transcripts of this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and you can also read the SPICe briefing relating to the Somerville judgement in pages 14 – 18 of the Committee Papers You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
The Justice of the Peace Courts (Sheriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway) Order 2009
The final item of business for the Committee related to provisions in relation to the establishment of justice of the peace courts. These reforms to the administration of summary justice flow from the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, and seek to rationalise the operations of the lower courts in Scotland. They have been criticised by several MSPs for closing district courts their constituencies, and the Committee were today joined by another two such MSPs, Elaine Murray (Lab) and Cathy Jamieson (Lab), who opposed the closures of the Annan and Cumnock district courts.
The Justice Minister remained with the Committee to speak in favour of these closures, and he justified these reforms together with his officials, saying that the decision to close these courts and move their business to other court houses were based not only on financial grounds, but also account of the facilities in existing court houses such as custody arrangements, secure access, interview room and places for witnesses. Both Elaine Murray and Cathy Jamieson summed up their positions at the end of questions, arguing that this move towards centralisation is not necessary and defeats one of the principles of justice which is that it should be accessible to all, and that justice should be seen to be done in the communities in which offences were alleged to have been committed. The Committee were convinced by their arguments, and at the end of the meeting, the Government were defeated.
You can read this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and read Elaine Murray’s letter against the court closures in pages 19 – 25 of the Committee Papers
You can also watch the whole meeting on Holyrood.TV
The Chamber
Community Courts Debate
On Thursday, Bill Aitken (Con) led a debate in the Chamber about Community Courts, prompted by the recent decision not proceed with the pilot community court in Glasgow on cost grounds.
Bill Aitken declared that his party was in favour of fewer people in prisons, although this should be achieved by reducing crime, not by sentencing proportionally fewer people to custody. He spoke about the Community Courts that operate in New York, which he has visited twice and admires. He said that these courts were predicated on speedy and effective justice, so offenders will come before the courts within 24 hours, and then if a guilty plea is tendered the sentence is immediate. He said that in New York community service was not seen as a soft option and that this court system had been copied across the world.
He went on to argue that it was therefore a matter of profound regret that the decision had been taken to not proceed with the Community Court in Glasgow, and he argued that the Government could very easily decide to afford the court if it wished. He compared this situation with what currently occurs in Scotland, saying that fines are not paid, direct measures are ignored, and the level of breaches of probation orders and community services is unacceptable, and he urged the Government to reconsider its decision on the Glasgow Community Court.
The Minister for Community Safety spoke next for the Government, and he argued that the point was not so much the physical building of a Community Court but how the services work together. He agreed that beginning a community sentence swiftly after sentence is to be aimed for, but he argued that setting up a project which would cost around £3.73 million at the outset followed by around £750 000 a year, was neither justified nor necessary for meeting this aim.
Richard Baker spoke for Labour and he also spoke favourably about the New York courts and lamented the decision to abandon the court in Glasgow, an idea which he said had begun under the previous Executive. He decried the Government’s work on community service, saying that at a time when they are seeking to increase the numbers of prisoners servicing community sentences three fold, they are only increasing the funding for these by 20 %, and at the same time also cutting funding to agencies such as SACRO. He echoed points made by Bill Aitken that money could be found, saying for example that the SPS has made around £4 million worth of VAT savings in the past year that could be used.
For the Liberal Democrats, Robert Brown said this issues goes to the heart of whether the Government were serious about their criminal justice reform, which the Liberal Democrats broadly support. He said that if the Glasgow community court pilot went ahead, it would slash crime rates dramatically, along with improving the quality of life for communities and helping to salvage the lives of many offenders whose lives are currently wasted. He called the decision to reverse the court deplorable and he also said that the Government has kept an ‘independent business plan in favour of the court, out of the public domain, and he called for it to be made public.
During the open debate claims about projected costs, budgets and the current economic climate were aired, and the responsibility for the decision not proceed with the court, was also discussed.
At the end of the debate, the Government were roundly defeated, with no other parties joining them in the final vote. This vote was non–binding however, meaning it carries no real implications other to publicly raise the issue, and to embarrass the Government.
You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the stories surrounding the Community Court in Glasgow on the CJScotland Newsblog
First Minister’s Questions
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi
Elaine Murray (Lab) asked the First Minister to comment the recent developments surrounding the potential return of the man convicted for the Lockerbie by bombing to Libya. The First Minister replied that the decision on whether or not to grant Libya’s request would be taken on judicial grounds alone and not economic or political grounds.
You can read this question in the Official Report, and read the stories in the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Questions to the Law and Justice Officers
The Road to Recovery
John Lamont asked what the Government were doing to incorporate their ‘Road to Recovery’ drugs strategy into prisons drugs strategy, and in particular whether the Government had any plans to create drugs free wings in prisons. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, replied that he had recently visited HMP Edinburgh where an addiction support area had been developed in which treatment and support are offered to prisoners who are motivated to change. During a supplementary question from Dr Simpson, he also praised the Bath Street initiative in Glasgow, which diverts female offenders from custody whose main offence or problem involves drugs.
Policing Tactics
There was a question from Patrick Harvie about the tactics used for policing large public events. Mr Harvie said that recent weeks had shown that police frequently deploy ‘‘pretty shoddy tactics’ which have been going on for years, but which are only now being picked up because of the proliferation of recording technology amongst the public. Kenny MacAskill replied that the Scottish Police strike the right balance between protecting the right to non–violent protest and the right of the public to go about their daily lives without disruption.
Paid Police Informants
Ross Finnie (LD) asked whether the Government welcomed the Scottish Information Commissioner’s decision to compel Strathclyde Police and Lothian and Borders Police to release information on how much they spend on covert human intelligence sources. This comes in light of the stories in the press about Strathclyde Police’s attempt to recruit informants from the protest group Plane Stupid. The Cabinet Secretary replied that paid informants play an important part in addressing crime and public disorder, and it was appropriate that funding be given to enable the police to continue these activities. Read the related stories in the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and short–term holiday lets
Sarah Boyack (Lab) asked a question about anti–social behaviour orders given to those who are staying in short–term holiday homes. She said there was an urgent need to review the legislation to ensure that it applied to these sorts of accommodation, given the strain that is being put on local residents and is also resulting in serious health and safety concerns. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, replied that the current legislation is probably sufficient to deal with what is a comparatively small problem. He said that most of these complaints stem from hen or stag parties, and that Edinburgh City Council were also of the view that the existing legislation was sufficient.
Drug Addiction Services
Jamie McGrigor (Con) asked the Government about recent data which shows that 25% of addicts who want treatment have to wait for more than a year until they are assessed, and more than 30% have to wait for more than a year until they are actually treated. The Minister replied that this was indeed too long, and that was why the Government had substantially increased the funding for drug addiction services
You can read all the questions to the Law and Justice Officers in the Official Report, and watch them on Holyrood.TV
Written Questions
This week there were questions about the sale of alcohol to underage customers, whether changes to legal aid will affect whether historic cases of child abuse or not, and about moneys seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act. There were a series of questions relating to prosecuting domestic abuse, and questions about arresting people who have consumed drugs, and about research into whether the mandatory drug testing of arrestees should be rolled out. There was a question about the number of prosecutions for drug trafficking over the past five years, and a number of Justice questions including the topics of the community court, the right to protest, and funding for community service orders. There were a number of questions about services available to victims of crime. There were a number of questions about armed response units, about racist incidents in prison, and about the correct response to youth crime
Posted by KM
on Wed 13th May 2009
at 7:11 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
This was a very quiet week for justice debate in the Parliament. The Justice Committee considered a new draft of the Coroners and Justice Bill (UK legislation), and there were also a number of questions in the Chamber.
The Justice Committee
Coroners and Justice Bill (UK Parliament legislation)
The Committee was joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to give evidence on the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is UK legislation that requires consent from the Scottish Parliament because some areas impact on devolved issues. This was the second time the Committee considered this legislation, and this ‘revised’ draft excluded the more controversial elements relating to data sharing which required the first draft to be redrawn. The parts of the Bill which had not yet been considered by the Committee at earlier stages relate to the Scottish system of investigating deaths and fatal accident inquiries into deaths abroad of members of the armed forces. The Cabinet Secretary answered questions about how the new procedures would come into affect, explaining that the new provisions in the Bill would allow for inquiries to be held in Scotland into the deaths of Scottish service personnel while abroad on active service. Following a request for more information about how cases in line for consideration before the new procedures came into force would be treated, he agreed to come back to the Committee with that information.
Amendments to the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) Bill
The Committee then moved on to consider Stage 2 of the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill, in which there was no amendments lodged whatsoever (an occurrence described as ‘unique’ by Bill Aitken). Therefore, the Committee only had to agree a new, longer title, and the Bill will now go back to the Chamber for the final Stage 3 debate.
Subordinate Legislation
Finally, the Committee considered an item of subordinate legislation relating to civil justice, and some negative instruments, which the Committee passed without debate
You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the briefings relating to the Coroners and Justice Bill in the Committee Papers
The Chamber
General Questions
Implementation of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups Act
During general questions this week, Johann Lamont (Lab) asked the Government about the proposed timetable for the Protection of Vulnerable Groups Act, arguing that it needed to come into force as soon as possible, given that the current situation places many voluntary organisations in a difficult position because they are no longer able to receive enhanced checks from Disclosure Scotland, many of which are required before contracts can be drawn up with new employees. The Minister for Children and Young Years, Adam Ingram, said that the Government would introduce a legislative amendment shortly to close this loophole.
During a follow on question, Karen Gillon (Lab) said that a response to an official question had shown that ‘only 5%’ of responses from enhanced disclosures provide any additional material, which she said missed the point entirely, as the purpose of enhanced disclosure was surely to pick up this 5%.
You can read this question in the Official Report
Violence Reduction Unit
Stewart Maxwell (SNP) asked the Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing), about the injury surveillance pilot at Glasgow Royal Infirmary which has been set up by the national violence reduction unit. This scheme was based on a project in Cardiff, which resulted in a 40 per cent reduction in the level of violence as a result of the co–operation between medical staff and police. Mr Maxell wanted to know when the results of the pilot will be made available and if there were any plans to roll the scheme out across more parts of Scotland. The Minister replied that early results from the pilot in the Glasgow Infirmary showed that the approach can be labour intensive and divert staff away from their main duties, and that the Government are therefore supporting a fully electronic system in the NHS Lanarkshire area, and he hinted that this will be rolled out in Scotland ‘in due course’. You can read this question in the Official Report
Written Questions
There was a question about the different laws surrounding underage buying of tobacco and alcohol , a question about tackling alcohol misuse amongst the 15 to 18 age group, and a question about the number of hospital admissions related to alcohol abuse. There was also a question about the progress of the consultation into the Children’s Hearing System and about the number of deaths caused by drugs misuse in the Scottish Borders. There was a question about reports that some Local Authorities have requested courts to revoke community service orders because there is such a large backlog, and more questions about the funding given to local authorities to deliver effective community orders. There were a number of questions about community courts, and about the number of special constables in Scotland over the past 10 years. There were a series of questions about prisons including the number of positive drug tests, the number of prisoners who self–harm, and the number of prisoner on staff assaults in prison. And in a separate question, the number of prisoner on prisoner assaults was also revealed.
Posted by KM
on Tue 5th May 2009
at 9:00 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Monday, April 27, 2009
It was back to business this week following the Easter recess. The main justice interest took place in Committee, with the inquiry into women in the justice system continuing in the Equal Opportunities Committee, and the scrutiny into the financial aspects of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, beginning in the Finance Committee.
The Equal Opportunities Committee
Inquiry Into Female Offenders
Last Tuesday, the Equal Opportunity Committee continued with its inquiry into female offenders in the justice system. This is a ‘short and focused’ inquiry, whose remit is to “assess the prison experience for, and background of, female offenders, particularly the extent to which prison helps to prevent women from re–offending.”
The Committee has already heard from the Lord Advocate, the Governor of Cornton Vale prison, and other officials from the SPS including the Chief Executive. Their evidence so far, both oral and written, has described the social profile of prisoners, the needs they have, and the challenges that they pose for the prison system. This week‘s evidence session was concerned with finding out the support that is available to female prisoners and how effective it is.
The first panel of witnesses were representatives from the health and care services in the SPS. They said that they started their work from the premise that unless women‘s primary problems, which usually revolve around drugs and mental health issues, are not addressed once they come into the system, then the women will be unable to engage with programmes that are more specifically designed to address their offending behaviour. One of the witnesses spoke of the difficulty of addressing mental health problems, given that the women present many other more immediate needs which are easier for the women to express and for staff to identify. The witnesses also spoke about the different types of mental health problems that female prisoners exhibit, and some of the reasons that female prisoners are more likely to have greater needs than the male prison population. They also spoke about whether prisoners are required to attend programmes or not, and about how they measure the effectiveness of programmes. They said that although they are proud of the success they have achieved in Cornton Vale by international standards, the co–ordination of care between prison and the Community was an area that they still wished to improve on. The difficulties of helping prisoners on very short sentences was also mentioned and they answered questions about treating mental health problems in the prison setting. They also spoke about the pattern of drug abuse amongst female prisoners entering the prison versus when they leave, and they said that although the rate of drug abuse in prison is still relatively high, it tends to be restricted to cannabis and other less harmful drugs than the class A drugs which are in prisoners’ systems on arrival in the prison.
The next panel of witnesses were comprised of professionals from the SPS and the voluntary sector, who all worked with female prisoners who had experienced sexual abuse, domestic abuse, prostitution and addiction. They also answered questions about the difficulties of measuring the efficacy of their interventions, with one witness saying that it was difficult to quantify what are essentially qualitative outcomes, such as increased self–confidence or believing that they do not deserve to be in an abusive relationship any more, and so forth. The voluntary agencies said that one of the biggest obstacles they faced was not having a national capacity, so women may fall through the gaps depending on which part of Scotland they go to following release. The head of care in Cornton Vale said that on occasion, prisoners manage to brew their own alcohol whilst in custody using potatoes and sugar taken from the prison kitchens. However, given that the process is relatively lengthy, the hooch is usually discovered before it can be consumed. The witnesses were also asked about community prisons, given that at present the vast majority of prisoners are housed in a single prison, often away from their families. One of the witnesses said that some of the female prisoners expressed the view that it was actually easier for them to address their problems whilst they were further away from their families, although this was obviously not felt universally by prisoners. The witnesses were also keen to emphasise that the needs of the prisoners’ children while their mothers where in custody, should be paramount, and it was clearly in their interests to be able to maintain contact with their mothers whilst they are locked up.
You can read all the oral evidence in the Official Report, or watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV. You can also access the Inquiry’s homepage, which has links to all the evidence taken so far
The Finance Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill Financial Memorandum
On Tuesday afternoon, the Finance Committee continued its scrutiny into the Financial Memorandum of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The Committee have agreed that this process will require a level three scrutiny, which means it will collect oral as well as written evidence from the relevant agencies. Today they heard from three panels, the first comprised of local authorities, the second of professionals from the Crown Office, the Scottish Court Service, the Scottish Prison Service, and the Scottish Police Services Authority, and the third of officials from the Scottish Government.
The first panel from local authorities expressed concern about the increased workload for criminal justice social work that will be resultant if this Bill is to be passed, and fears were expressed that, although the financial memorandum does provide extra resources, it does not go far enough. They also answered a range of questions about the cost of community payback orders, increased social inquiry reports, and the need for extra professionals to work with offenders in the community.
The second panel indicated that they were all broadly content with the assumption of costs made in the Financial Memorandum. The speaker from the Crown Office said that the largest impact on his organisation was likely to be the new requirements for disclosure, and the spokesperson from the SPSA said this would also have a considerable impact on the forensic services in his organisation. The SCS said that additional shrieval time would be required to deal with the review hearings which will be required as a result of more community payback orders, as well as the extra time for sheriffs if they will have to begin explaining their reasoning in court every time they issue a sentence of six months and under.
The last panel comprised of five Government officials, responsible for different parts of the Bill. They answered some of the concerns that had been raised by earlier witnesses, and they made the point that, although it was extremely difficult to estimate costs based on future sentencing behaviour, they were currently working around an estimation of an increased 10% – 20% in community payback orders, which will be attributable to a down–tariffing in short sentences. There were several questions about this estimate and the different variables which may affect it, and whether the provisions in the financial memorandum were sufficient to meet the policy intentions.
Another witnesses answered questions about the cost of setting up the new Sentencing Council, saying that the present plan was to graft this body onto the newly reformed Scottish Court Service, which would mean the cost of establishing a new body would be foregone, but that this may have to be reconsidered if the Lord President, who is now in charge of the SCS, decides this would not be possible. There were also a number of questions about licensing, despite the fact that many of the licensing provisions initially intended for the Bill will now be moved to a separate distinct piece of legislation.
You can read all the evidence received by the Committee in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read all the evidence taken so far on this Bill on it’s Official Homepage.
Questions
Wrongful Death Legislation
During General Questions, Bill Butler (Lab) asked about a report from the Scottish Law Commission, into damages for wrongful deaths. He said that the approach the report advocated would remove the need for some cases to go to court, which would allow the victims and their relatives to access compensation more swiftly and without having to undergo a stressful court process, and he announced that he intended to introduce a member’s bill shortly which would reflect these parts of the Scottish Law Commission’s report.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice replied that the terms of the report had to be considered to make sure they would fit into a legislative framework, and that although he accepted that the law on damages had to be changed, it still had to be decided which approach would be most suitable to take at this stage. And you can read this question in the Official Report
Drug and Alcohol Services in Scotland
Later, during questions for the First Minister, Stuart McMillan (SNP) asked about the response to the recently published Audit Scotland report about drug and alcohol services in Scotland, and in his question he included the fact that the former Labour MSP and recent Prison Commission chair, Henry McLeish had gone on record in support of the Government’s policy of minimum pricing for alcohol.
In reply, the First Minister praised the summit held the previous day, in which Government together with COSLA launched a new ‘framework for action on alcohol and drugs’, which he said seeks to addresses the problems that the Auditor General’s report recently highlighted. You can read this question in the Official Report and read the stories about the launch of the framework in the CJScotland Newsblog
Written questions
There were a number of questions about alcohol policy, about alcohol’s harm to health, and about the number of children affected by parents with drug misuse problems, and how they arrived at their estimation. There was a question about whether the Government were interested in a ‘knife–crime text hotline’ currently operated by Crimestoppers UK, and Richard Baker (Lab) asked a number of questions in relation to the report ‘Alcohol and Violence among Young Male Offenders in Scotland (1979–2009)’.
Posted by KM
on Mon 27th Apr 2009
at 3:22 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
This week Parliament debated the Government’s recently announced antisocial behaviour framework, and the Chamber heard a statement from the Government in response to the Audit Scotland report on drug and alcohol misuse. The Justice Committee concluded its consideration of amendments at Stage 2 of the Sexual Offences Bill.
The Justice Committee
Sexual Offences Bill Stage 2 amendments
The Committee was joined by the Cabinet Secretary for the third week running, to continue working through the amendments to Stage 2 of the Sexual Offences Bill. One of the first amendments under consideration wanted to impose on the Government a duty to consult directly with young people before implementing part 4 of the Bill, which deals with the sexual behaviour between people below the age of 18. This springs from part of the Committee’s Stage 1 report which was critical about the lack of consultation with children in the process of formulating the legislation. In response to this amendment, the Cabinet Secretary replied that the Government had already promised to carry out a information and publicity campaign, as well as to consult young people on the best methods of communicating messages to them. After hearing what the Cabinet Secretary had to say, Robert Brown (LD), who put forward the amendment, was happy to withdraw it. There were also a grouping of amendments concerning the definition of a ‘position of trust’, and an amendment was also agreed which would ensure that the sentence of a fine would never be allowed to be the sole penalty for any offence of rape, or serious sexual assault.
There were some interesting debates around an amendment put forward by Patrick Harvie (Green), who joined the Committee to put forward his case. His amendment was essentially an invitation for the Government to put on record its decision to leave out a recommendation from the Law Commission’s report that sado–masochistic practices should be legalised. He said that there were two possible reasons for the Government’s decision: the first one was that the inclusion of this in the Bill may open the door for this to be used as a defence for genuinely abusive behaviour such as domestic abuse, and the second was that the Government perhaps believed that it was inherently wrong that adults engage in sado–masochistic activity; and he invited the Cabinet Secretary to comment.
The rest of the Committee firstly gave their opinion, which was unanimous that as well intentioned as this amendment was, there would be no protection against accused people using it as a defence for violent behaviour, if it were included in the Bill, and that it was best left up to the discretion of the Crown Office to decide on a case by case basis when to prosecute a case or not. The Cabinet Secretary took the same view, saying that the widespread response to the consultation on the Bill also raised these concerns, and therefore it would be irresponsible and dangerous to include them at this time. Patrick Harvie accepted the Committee’s response and was happy to withdraw the amendment, however he welcomed the opportunity to raise these issues within Parliament, and he suggested this was a potential area that the Committee might like to consider in the future.
The Committee also considered an amendment put forward by Robert Brown (LD), which sought to give the Government power to make separate sex offender notification requirements for people who are under the age of 16 when they commit the offence. Mr Brown argued that someone convicted of a relatively minor matter when they were young could have that hang over them for the rest of their lives. Speaking in response to this, Mr MacAskill said that as well intentioned as the amendment was, it was also unnecessary, because the current arrangements already make clear provision for children to be treated differently, and there are separate arrangements for sex offender notification for offenders under 18. Once finding out that all cases that are referred to the Children’s Hearing System as opposed to the courts do not result in the usual notification requirements for the sex offenders register, Mr Brown was happy to withdraw this amendment.
By the end of the meeting, the Committee had concluded all Stage 2 amendments in relation to this Bill. It will now go on for a final round of amendments in the Chamber and a full Parliamentary debate for its final Stage 3.
You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, and watch it all on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the Bill and all accompanying documents on the Bill’s Official Homepage.
Drug and alcohol services in Scotland debate
On Thursday morning the Government made a statement in response to the Audit Scotland report on drug and alcohol misuse, which was published the previous week. The report acknowledged that it made grim reading, highlighting a social and economic cost to Scotland of more than £5 billion a year, death rates from alcohol and drugs among the highest in Europe, and more than 40,000 hospital admissions due to alcohol related illness.
The Minister for Community Safety made the statement on the behalf of the Government, and he said it was because the Government made this issue such a priority that it had asked the Auditor General to carry out this full analysis of the current situation regarding alcohol and drug treatment. He spoke about the Government’s drugs strategy, “The Road To Recovery” which was developed together with COSLA and published last year, and their alcohol strategy, which was published last week (see last week’s report for more information). He acknowledged that as well as setting a strategic direction, it was also Government’s role to ensure delivery, and he announced that later this month a new framework for local action on alcohol and drugs would be announced which would replace the current model of alcohol and drug action teams. He promised this would outline and clarify the roles of local partners as well as central Government, and would go some way to addressing some of the problems outlined by the Audit Scotland report relating to the delivery and consistency of services. The Minister was keen to emphasise Government intentions to maximise consensus as much as possible on their approach to tackling drugs and alcohol, and he finished by saying the Government would hold a national event to raise awareness on the 20th April, and tie in with the announcement of the new framework for action.
During the questions that followed, the Minister spoke about issues such as how the new framework would increase accountability through the Single Outcome Agreements; the problem of distributing money effectively to match the different levels of need throughout Scotland; and supporting children whose parents have problems with drugs and alcohol.
You can read the full report in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the CJScotland Newsblog about the Audit Scotland report
Anti–Social Behaviour Framework Debate
The Minister for Community Safety was back in action again later that day, this time debating the Government’s new Antisocial Behaviour Framework, which had been launched two weeks ago together with COSLA. He said the new approach differed from that taken by the previous administration, in that it began from the belief that what is best for communities is not having to experience antisocial behaviour in the first place and that prevention through meaningful community engagement offers the best hope of success. The new framework is called “Promoting Positive Outcomes”, and he said it has been drawn up not by ‘armchair experts’, but by organisations in the field such as the police, local councils, and fire brigades. Mr Ewing said that “Promoting Positive Outcomes” was notable for three reasons: firstly, the Government was promoting not dictating, which means no micro–management, and the removal of ring–fenced funding streams. He said that secondly, this approach focused on the positive and not the negative, and that thirdly, success will be judged by outcomes for communities and not on how many antisocial behaviour orders are served. In practice, this meant a focus on prevention and early intervention which would seek to divert young people away from activities which might lead to antisocial behaviour, and to engage them in other activities such as sports and physical activity.
He said that the Government was not seeking to dismantle any of the antisocial behaviour legislation, rather this legislation should be viewed as providing tools in the box that local authorities can use if they deem appropriate, there will be no more demands from central government that they should be used one way or the other. The Minister enjoyed reminding the Labour members about the involvement and endorsement from the leader of COSLA, Councillor Harry McGuigan, who, although being a senior member of the Scottish Labour Party, has criticised the former Executive’s management of local government, and Mr Ewing was also eager to highlight the widespread endorsement the new approach has received from criminal justice agencies.
Paul Martin (Lab), one of the antisocial behaviour agenda’s most fervent supporters, spoke for the Labour party, and did not mince his words, saying he was dismayed that the Government have not provided clearer vision or leadership on how to tackle antisocial behaviour. He defended Labour’s approach in this field, saying that they did not hide behind a so called historic concordat, but instead took a direct interest in making sure that projects and initiatives were being delivered. He said it was all very well for people to speak about prevention from the comfort of the Chamber, when they did not know what it was like to live in places that experienced problematic behaviour, and that they should be unapologetic in saying that sometimes legal remedies are required. He said that the Labour party were proposing to introduce ‘direct antisocial behaviour orders’ which would empower local communities and reassure them that when they wanted action to be taken this would occur.
Bill Aitken (Conservative) declared at the outset that, just like the Minister, he was in a conciliatory mood, (although he then went on to list the parts of the Government’s justice policies he disagreed with that he was not going to touch on during his speech). He continued in much the same vein, saying that the Promoting Positive Outcomes document was ‘95 pages of pycho–babble and social work speak’, which, when translated, will come to actually mean very little, but that nobody could disagree with the main arguments in the document of prevention being better than cure. He agreed with Paul Martin that sometimes legal remedies must be used, and he also criticised the implicit argument of the document that communities were somehow over reacting to antisocial behaviour, saying that this was real and should be taken seriously. He said that certain parts of the document were certainly worthy of support, but that much of the 2004 Act has not been implemented properly, and that the good practice that has developed in parts of Scotland should be replicated throughout the rest of the country as much as possible.
Robert Brown (Liberal Democrats) opened his speech by accurately observing that ‘is something about debates on crime and law and order that brings out the real nature of political parties’. He commended the Government’s approach, saying that it struck just the right balance on what are challenging and complex issues. He said that since the beginning of the Parliament, the Labour party have succeeded in positioning itself to the right of the other parties with regard to law and order policies, and he noted the irony of his belief in the limits of law enforcement to bring about social change, speaking from the perspective of a former lawyer, in comparison with Paul Martin, who has a non–legal background, who has a touching belief in the power of the law to change behaviour. He commended the use of acceptable behaviour contracts and said that community involvement was crucial if antisocial behaviour was to be meaningfully tackled.
In the speeches that followed, Members stuck to their party lines, with Labour keen to defend their legacy, and the SNP eager to quote from the organizations who have supported the new framework. Members also spoke about their constituents’’ experiences of antisocial behaviour, and examples of good practice from the police and other local initiatives. Most members were eager to emphasise that they too believed in the value of early intervention and prevention and the use of legal remedies in certain rarer cases, and the dividing lines were drawn in the balance between the two. In the vote at the end of the debate, the Labour amendment which proposed the ‘direct antisocial behaviour orders’ was defeated by the rest of the parties, and the SNP voted together with the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat amendments.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage of the framework in the CJScotland Newsblog
Written questions
There was a question about how many offences have been recorded for selling alcohol to people under the age of 18, about alcohol related football violence, and there were also several questions about internet fraud. There was a lengthy answer in reply to a question about identifying alcohol problems and domestic abuse during pregrancy, and a question about the extent of drug use by students. THere was a question about the number of prisoners given early release , and about the recently resolved slopping out compensation cases. There was a question about the length of sentences for those handling offensive weapons , and about the availability of drug and alcohol support to prisoners after their release.
Posted by KM
on Tue 7th Apr 2009
at 7:20 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Monday, March 30, 2009
During an Opposition led debate, parties staked out their approaches to reforming the law on alcohol, and later in the Chamber there were also questions to the Law and Justice Officers. And the Justice Committee continued with Stage 2 amendments to the Sexual Offences Bill.
The Justice Committee
Subordinate Legislation
The Committee firstly noted three items of subordinate legislation. There was some discussion relating to legislation which would widen the list of exemptions of those who need to pay certain court fees to take into account recent welfare reform legislation, but the Committee were nonetheless happy to note all three Orders.
Stage 2 of the Sexual Offences etc Bill
The Committee then continued its consideration of amendments to Stage 2 of the Sexual Offences Bill. This week the Committee were joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to work through the next grouping of amendments.
The first amendment they discussed concerned the controversial issue of ‘prior consent’ which had attracted much criticism from witnesses who gave evidence during Stage 1 consideration. The provisions for prior consent meant that it would be legal for someone to have sex with someone else if they were asleep or incapacitated, as long as that person had given prior consent to the act. This provision was defended on the grounds that if this were not included, the Bill would criminalise couples who have consensual intercourse when one of the parties is asleep when it begins because they have given prior consent to do so. However, many of the witnesses to the Committee argued that this provision would open the doors to allow suspects accused of rape to use prior consent as a defence in cases where the victim was incapacitated at the time of the act. The Committee also recommended that this be changed in their Stage 1 report.
The Cabinet Secretary agreed that this part of the Bill was problematic, and he put forward an amendment which would remove the issues of sleep and unconsciousness from the section of the report which dealt with prior consent, and deal with them in another section of the Bill. Under the new proposals, it would be up to the court to decide under which circumstances it could be assumed that a reasonable belief of consent on the part of the accused had been given in this particular case. The Committee agreed this amendment.
Another amendment dealt with by the Committee sought to widen the definition of ‘threats of violence’ to include behaviour such as ‘credible coercion’, which relates to the part of the Bill which states that if sexual activity takes place because threats have been made, free agreement and therefore consent, cannot be said to be present. Robert Brown (LD) put forward the amendment because it had been argued during evidence that people with learning difficulties may be more easily threatened than others. However, after some discussion between himself and the Cabinet Secretary, Mr. Brown, greed to withdraw this amendment for the present time.
There were also several amendments which related to the sexual misconduct of children, including the amendment which widened the definition of sexual activity which was illegal between older children to include oral sex, as recommended by the Committee. All these amendments were agreed to.
You can read the transcripts of this part of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it all on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the Bill and all accompanying documents on the Bill’’s Official Homepage.
The Chamber
Alcohol Strategy Debate
On Thursday there was a Conservative led debate about the Government’s alcohol strategy. This was an opportunity to debate the fact that the Government announced on Tuesday that it was going to launch a new Health Bill at the end of the year, which will be the new vehicle for all alcohol policies, many of which had previously been included in the recently introduced Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The Government said that this will mean that provisions which would have been dealt with either through subordinate legislation or as part of a much wider range of legislation, will now be afforded a greater degree of Parliamentary scrutiny.
Opening the debate, Bill Aitken said that the Government have undergone a ‘Damascene Conversion’ by introducing this Bill, rather than continue with their previous approach which had been to rail road provisions through the Parliament. Although acknowledging that alcohol and the way Scotland drinks, is a problem, he said that the Government’s scattergun approach was not the answer, and that before any new legislation is introduced, it was first necessary to make sure that existing legislation is being used as it should. He argued that the Government decision to let local authorities decide on whether to implement an under 21 ban on selling alcohol was their way of attempting to save face when everyone knew that no local authorities will apply to use these laws. He said that the Government should work with Westminster to seek to increase the taxes on certain problematic alcohol drinks, rather than introduce a blanket price per unit law, and that the licensing trade should be encouraged to act more responsibly.
Nicola Sturgeon spoke for the Government, and she thanked the Conservatives for giving her the opportunity to tell the Parliament about the new Bill which she said reflects the high priority that the Government gives to tackling alcohol abuse, not least in light of the recent Audit Scotland report which quantifies the problem that Scotland faces with alcohol. She spoke out against the critics of minimum pricing, saying that moderate drinkers will hardly be affected, and she said that as a minority Government, her party were willing to work with others, and that that meant that Opposition parties must also be willing to co–operate as well. However, she signalled there were certain red lines that she would be unwilling to budge on, saying that sometimes governments had to lead public opinion, and not follow it.
For the Liberal Democrats, Robert Brown also welcomed the decision to include all the measures in one bill, and he criticised their previous over reliance on subordinate legislation to try and make radical changes. He said that proposed policies including minimum pricing, will only produce a greater financial burden on people at times of economic hardship, as well as greatly increased bureaucracy. He said that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has been effectively demoted, with a key part of his portfolio now being handled by the Health Secretary, and he said the Government’s justice policies were now awry. He said that the Government should scrap the policies which are certain not to attract Parliamentary support at this stage and concentrate instead on those areas which will receive support such as a youth commission on alcohol.
The Labour health spokesperson, Cathy Jamieson was on familiar ground leading for her party on justice related issues. She also welcomed the decision to publish the Bill, and she called on the Parliament to reach consensus as much as is possible on this issue. She also queried the fairness of the unit price alcohol scheme, and she said that this would harm the whisky industry as well as those sensible drinkers who benefit from offers on cheaper alcohol. She concluded by saying that there was still a long way to go before a way forward could be reached, arguing that Parliament has not reached the right answers yet, and there is not public, let alone political, consensus.
In the open debate which followed, many Members referred to the Audit Scotland report on alcohol published that morning, and members spoke about health care, policing, our cultural attitude to drinking, and what legislation can by itself achieve anyway. The main issues of disagreement lay around arguments of minimum pricing, and there were frequent calls for the need for consensus which seemed to mean compromises from all other parties and not the speaker’s own.
You can read the full text of this interesting debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the press about the Audit Scotland report in the CJScotland Newsblog, and read the Government’s press release on the Bill.
Questions for the Law and Justice Officers
Assaults and Unlicensed Taxis
Shirley–Anne Somerville (SNP) raised the case of a number of sexual assaults carried out by bogus taxis picking up passengers in Edinburgh, and called for more to be done to tighten up the licensing of this trade. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the Government was happy to work together with the police in that area to ensure the safety of potential taxi travellers.
Eviction of Drug Dealers
Patricia Ferguson (Lab) wanted to know what more could be done to speed up the process of the eviction of drug dealers from social housing following a conviction. The Cabinet Secretary thanked her for raising the issue and said that the solution to this fell beyond the remit of justice alone, and he said he was happy to listen to any proposals she may have to address the issue.
Young Offenders Institutions
During his question to the Cabinet Secretary, Jim Tolson (LD) called on the Government to take urgent action to remedy the problem of overcrowding, which is especially acute in parts of the prison estate holding young offenders. Kenny MacAskill said that Polmont would be opening a new wing in September this year, and he also repeated figures about the spending on the prison estate and the other new prisons planned for the future.
Community Service Orders
There were a series of questions from Jeremy Purvis (LD), Bill Aitken (Con) and Richard Baker(Lab) about making community service orders begin as speedily as possible. Kenny MacAskill replied that making Orders begin promptly following sentencing was a priority for the Government in line with the recommendations made in the McLeish report, and he said that responsibility for the current state of affairs which sees offenders waiting so long before commencing their community service, lay as much with the previous Executive as with the current Government.
Legality of minimum price for alcohol
Peter Peacock asked the Cabinet Secretary what legal advise it has sought about ensuring that its proposals for minimum price of alcohol are in line with European legislation, to which Mr MacAskill replied that Governments never publish their legal advice, but that the Government lawyers are certain that these proposals keep with European law.
Alcohol Misuse
There was a question from Jim Hume (LD) about the Government’s alcohol strategy, which allowed the Cabinet Secretary to reiterate many of the points that had been made in that morning’s debate about the need for action, and the relationship between price and alcohol consumption.
Spousal Evidence
There was a question from Joe Fitzpatrick (SNP), which allowed the Solicitor General for Scotland to confirm that the current loophole whereby a spouse cannot be compelled to give evidence against their partner in a criminal trial, will be closed as part of the future Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill.
Cornton Vale Report
The recent critical report of conditions at Cornton Vale was brought up by Ross Finnie (LD), who wanted to know if there was a timetable for implementing the recommendations was. Kenny MacAskill replied that the prison service are doing their best under difficult conditions, and he outlined some of the unique difficulties that female prisoners present the prison service with.
You can read all the Themed Questions in the Official Report, or watch them on Holyrood.TV.
Written Questions
There was a question about whether the Government’s alcohol strategy might undermine violence against women strategies, which argues that alcohol can never be an excuse for violence, and there was a question which revealed how many shop lifters received direct measures. There were a number of questions about those convicted of shop-lifting, and about what work is being undertaken to reduce domestic violence, and a question about the law surrounding loan sharks. There were more questions about fiscal fines, and about evaluating knife crime initiatives. There were more questions about direct measures, this time in relation to drugs offences. There were a number of questions relating to police, and more policing questions on complaints against police, and about the police projection study. A question about random drug tests in prison and more questions about prison including rehabilitation programmes available to prisoners in custody.
Posted by KM
on Mon 30th Mar 2009
at 5:09 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
This week saw the Stage 1 of the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill, as well as a Labour led debate on police numbers. The Justice Committee began work on the first round of Stage 2 amendments of the Sexual Offences Bill.
The Justice Committee
Items of subordinate legislation
Victim Statements (Prescribed Offences) (Scotland) Order 2009 and Victim Statements (Prescribed Offences) (No 2) (Scotland) Order 2009
The Committee were joined by officials to discuss two items of subordinate legislation which had been discussed by the Committee last week but which required a further vote from the Committee this week, due to a drafting error in the initial instruments. The witnesses were thoroughly apologetic, not least because this was the second week in a row that subordinate legislation was required to rectify legislation which had been poorly drafted. After a number of questions, the Committee agreed the instruments.
Advice and Assistance and Civil Legal Aid (Priority of Debts) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and Advice and Assistance and Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (Draft)
The Committee were joined by the Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing, to discuss the next items of subordinate legislation, which sought to change the threshold at which legal aid is granted. The new legislation would increase the availability of legal aid to include those on higher incomes than was previously the case, although contributions will be tapered so those on higher incomes will still have to pay a substantially higher amount than those on very low incomes. The regulation was also agreed to.
Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 (Inhibition) Order 2009 (Draft)
Mr Ewing remained with the Committee for the next item of subordinate legislation. This instrument would make changes to the Act concerning the right of solicitors to prior payment of fees that have been recovered for a client. The Committee also agreed this Instrument.
You can read this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and read the papers relating to the different Instruments in the meeting Papers
Stage 2 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill
The Minister remained with the committee for the commencement of Stage 2 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. You can read all about the Bill on its homepage, link provided below. The amendments under discussion today concerned a number of areas which the Committee had commented on in their Stage 1 Report. These included the addition of an offence of ‘rape with an object’, which prompted discussions about whether or not this would be regarded as a lesser offence than ‘rape’ and the Minister provided assurances that the legislation be drafted so this did not occur. There were also amendments which would widen the range of activities which would be included under ‘sexual assault’, and another amendment introduced the offences of ‘voyeurism’, which the Bill does not currently provide for. The Minister said that currently, such an offence would be prosecuted as a breach of the Peace, but given that the offence is clearly of a sexual nature, and those found guilty of it are often placed on the sex offenders register, the Bill ought to include provisions for this offence. There were some questions about how this may affect stage shows which show nudity, but at the end of the discussion this amendment was also agreed to.
You can read the transcripts of this part of the legislation in the Official Report and you can also watch it all on Holyrood.TV.
You can also read the Bill and all related documents including the list of amendments, on the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill page.
The Chamber
Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill, Stage 1 debate
On Wednesday, the Chamber debated Stage 1 of the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill. This Bill extends hate crime legislation, making a new statutory aggravation which would apply to cases where there is evidence that a crime has been motivated by malice or ill–will based on a victim’s actual or presumed sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability. The general principles of the Bill were recently agreed to by the Justice Committee in their Stage 1 report.
Patrick Harvie opened up the debate, and he warmly welcomed the Bill and he thanked everyone who has been involved its formulation throughout its long history. He reiterated the need for this legislation, and said that although this Bill is not a magic bullet and will not by itself stop many of the hate crimes currently experienced by a minority of the population, together with other measures, this Bill will help to reinforce the message that hate crimes are not tolerated by society.
During the debate that followed, there was much consensus from across the Chamber, with all Members speaking in favour of the Bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Minister for Community Safety were also keen to emphasise the Government’s support.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV
You can also read all the documents relating to the Bill on the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill HomepageDebate on police numbers
The next day the Parliament returned to some familiar party political mud slinging, with a Labour led debate about police numbers. This follows the continued pressure on the Government’s election pledge for an additional 1,000 officers by 2011, a pledge which Opposition parties have been eager to hold the Government to account over.
The debate was opened by Richard Baker for Labour, and he quoted from a recent interview given by Kenny MacAskill, which he said indicated the Government were aware they were not going to succeed in meeting this pledge. The debate was marked by the usual dancing round numbers, with the implications of the use of terminology such as ‘extra capacity’, ‘additional police’, ‘additional new recruits’, and ‘extra overall police’ being argued over. During the debate, the Government finally put on record that there would be an extra 1,000 officers by March 2011, however, Opposition speeches then argued over whether this would be over and above the extra police that are getting funded from sources other than central Government.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
First Minister’s Questions
Confiscation of Assets
During questions to the First Minister, Bill Aitken (Con) asked the First Minister about the law surrounding the confiscation of assets. He said that the law in Scotland had not proved as successful as it ought to have, and he spoke about the law in Ireland where the burden of proof lies entirely on the suspect to be able to show where their money comes from, if it is felt that their wealth lies beyond their means. The First Minister replied by saying that the Government are providing extra resources for the prosecution of crimes in this area, and he also drew attention to the £23 million which has already been seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act in Scotland. You can read this question in the Official Report
Slopping out payments
The First Minister revealed to the Chamber during FMQs that the Scottish Government had come to resolution with their colleagues in Westminster, about resolving the Sommerville issue (which meant that the Scottish Government were liable for payments to ex prisoners as compensation for slopping out under human rights legislation). Mr Salmond said that following intensive discussions between officials, agreement had been reached in principle on a quick and practical solution to the problem.
You can read this question in the Official Report, and also read the press on the story in the CJScotland Newsblog
Written questions
This week there was a question about the number of racially motivated crimes recorded by police, how many children are living with parents with drug abuse problems . There were a number of questions about repeat offenders, and about numbers of unpaid fiscal fines, and the amount of money spent on anti-knife carrying campaigns . There was a question about disposals given to prosecutions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and about whether piracy was an offence under Scots Law, and about the police projection study that the Government carried out (see the debate above for more information). There was a question about the amount of drugs found in each Scottish prison over the past year, and a question which revealed there were 293 foreign nationals currently in Scottish prisons.
Posted by KM
on Tue 24th Mar 2009
at 8:18 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
This was a relatively quiet week, with the main item of interesting being the Cabinet Secretary’s statement to the Chamber about ‘slopping out’ compensation
The Justice Committee
Items of subordinate legislation
The Committee spent the public part of its meeting considering an item of subordinate legislation, which were passed without major discussion. You can read the details of the subordinate legislation in the Meeting Papers, and also read the transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report. If you chose, you can also watch it on Holyrood.TV
The Chamber
Statement on prisoner compensation payments
On Wednesday, Kenny MacAskill made a statement to the Chamber about the Government’s ongoing attempts to close the legal loophole so it will not have to pay substantial compensation to prisoners as a result of ‘slopping out’ claims. The Government has put aside £67 for potential payments, for which it may be liable because of a time bar anomaly in the Scotland Act 1999. Mr MacAskill updated the Chamber on progress made with talks with Westminster so far, and during questions which followed, all the Members joined the Secretary in agreeing there was an urgent need to resolve this issue.
You can read the full statement to the Chamber in the Official Report, or watch it Holyrood TV. You can also read the considerable press coverage of this story in the CJScotland Newsblog
First Minister’s Questions
The issue of slopping out payments came up again next day during questions for the First Minister. Annabel Goldie used her question for the First Minister to argue that this issue remained unresolved as a result of the ‘broken relationship’ between Labour in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood.
You can read this question in the Official Report. See the link above to read the press on this story.
Written Questions
There were a series of questions about young offenders and a series of questions about the process of recruiting a new Inspector of prisons. There were more questions about the replacement prison in Grampian, and a question about prisoner numbers. There were a series of questions about the training of new police constables, and a range of other questions related to policing. There was a question about the cost of the Management of Offenders Act and about training given to the judiciary as part of the Vulnerable Witnesses Act. There were a range of questions about education young people about knife crime, and several questions about the use of direct measures, and the facilities available for treating drug addicts. There were questions about the Government’s anti cocaine campaign
Posted by KM
on Tue 17th Mar 2009
at 7:42 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
This week the Justice Committee agreed an Order on Victim Impact Statements, and they also published the Stage 1 report on the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill. In the Chamber the First Minister answered a number of questions about the Brandon Muir murder and about the alcohol strategy.
The Justice Committee
Subordinate Legislation – Victim Statements (Prescribed Courts) (Scotland) Order 2009
Most of the meeting was held in private consideration of a number of draft reports, following which the Committee heard from the Cabinet Secretary who moved an item of subordinate legislation concerning Victim Impact Statements. This Order would allow victim statements to be made during solemn High Court and Sheriff Court trials throughout Scotland.
Victim statements are made at the discretion of the victim, and allows them to articulate to the court the effects the crime has had on them. The statement would be read out after a conviction has been reached, but before sentence has been passed, and it is not meant to affect in any way the sentence that is passed. Victim Statements have been piloted for the past two years, and this order will introduce their use throughout all solemn trials in Scotland. After a brief discussion, the Committee recommended the Order meaning they will now become operational throughout Scotland.
You can read the transcripts from this part of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog
Justice Committee’s Stage 1 Report of the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill
At the end of the week, the Justice Committee published their Stage 1 report into the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill. The report recommended the general principles, meaning the legislation can now proceed to Stage 2.
The Committee agreed that if a crime was motivated by malice and ill-will towards a victim because of his or her actual or presumed sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability, then it should be classed as an aggravated offence. They accepted the concerns that had been raised during evidence to the committee about creating a ‘hierarchy of victim’s right’, but they nonetheless agreed that, ‘on balance’ it was appropriate to create these new statutory aggravations.
You can read their full report on the Stage 1 Report on the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill webpage. You can also read more about the Bill on the Bill’s Official Homepage
The Chamber
First Minister’s Questions
Brandon Muir Case
Annabelle Goldie (Con) raised the case of Brandon Muir during FMQs. She quoted research will estimated there were up to 50,000 children throughout Scotland living with drug addicted parents and she queried what the Government was doing to measure this more thoroughly. The First Minister replied that the responsibility for Brandon Muir’s death lay with those found guilty of the murder and not with the police and the social work department, and he also said that the Government’s drugs strategy will provide a framework for tackling Scotland’s problem with drugs.
You can read these questions in the Official Report. You can also read the press stories related to the Brandon Muir case in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Alcohol Strategy
The Governmetn’s recently announced alcohol strategy was then discussed, prompted by a question from Nigel Don (SNP). Mr Don quoted from the head of the Violence Reduction Unit in Strathclyde Police about the cost of alcohol abuse to Scotland, and he said welcomed the Government’s moves to address this problem. In a follow up question, Richard Baker (Lab) pointed out that all parties wished to have a ‘sensible’ alcohol policy, and that the final decision on any policy should be decided by the Parliament as a whole. Christine Grahame (SNP) highlighted the need for public education as well as legislation, and Murdo Fraser (Con) said that minimum pricing would hamper Scotland’s whisky industry.
You can read all these questions and the First Minister’s replies in the Official Report. You can also read the press coverage of the Government’s alcohol strategy in the CJScotland Newsblog
Written Questions
There were a number of questions about young offenders, including how many were in YOIs, and how many alcohol rehabilitation programmes were operating for young offenders. There was a question about how many deaths alcohol related deaths per year in Scotland, and a question about judicial training on how to deal with sexual offence trials. There were a number of questions about the new HMP Grampian , and some more questions about prison, this time about how many prisoners are currently on remand, and the types of speech and language therapy available to prisoners in HMP Cornton Vale, and finally one last question about the operational capactity of prisons. There followed a number of questions about numbers of police, about new technology for police forces,
There was a question about how many breaches of bail had been recorded by each police force, and another question about police recruitment. There was a question about ‘speedy community penalties’, a number of questions about gang activity and anti-social behaviour,and about the number of fixed penalties issued in the past 12 months. There were a series of questions about police use of taser guns, about underage drink and drug abuse, about spending on drink and drug abuse projects,and about number of drink driving offences. There was a question about antisocial behaviour orders, and about alcohol test-purchasing schemes.
Posted by KM
on Tue 10th Mar 2009
at 8:31 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
In Parliament last week the Education Committee heard from the Scottish Government about a new advisory group on offender education, and the Justice Committee continued their deliberations regarding aspects of some UK legislation, part of which requires their consent. In the Chamber, there was a debate led by Bill Aitken on behalf of the Justice Committee about their inquiry into community policing, and there were also questions to the Law and Justice Officers.
The Education Committee
Offender Learning Project
Last September the Education Committee decided to look into the issue of offender learning. They subsequently found out that the Scottish Government were just about to establish an ‘Offender Learning Project’ to consider this issue, and they therefore decided to take evidence on this before deciding how to proceed.
The Committee were joined by five representatives from the Project, who were able to answer the Committee’s questions. They outlined the structure and remit of the group, saying that their task is to develop education strategies to help three groups of offenders – adults in custody, young offenders, and offenders in the community. The group is comprised of Government and external stakeholders as well as an independent chair, and they will report back to Ministers by the summer 2009.
You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV
The Justice Committee
Most of the Committee’s meeting was spent in private, considering the pieces of Legislative Consent Memorandums (LCMs) put to them last week by the Justice Secretary (see last week’s entry for more details, and see also the Papers, link provided below). They also considered the Stage 1 report of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) Bill, also in private. Before that however, they briefly discussed a number of pieces of subordinate legislation, which they agreed to.
On pages 7 – 35 of the Meeting Papers, you can read the correspondence relating to last weeks LCMs, which concerned the the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill , and the Coroners and Justice Bill, both of which are UK Legislation. They raised a number of areas of concern from the Committee, relating to immigration policy in the case of the former Memorandum, and changes to data sharing powers in the latter.
You can also read the little available transcript of the meeting in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV.
The Chamber
Community Policing Debate
On Wednesday, the Parliament got the opportunity to debate Community Policing during a debate led by Bill Aitken on behalf of the Justice Committee. This follows on from the Justice Committee’s inquiry on the subject, which carried out a comprehensive examination of the status and future of community policing in Scotland (see links below to read the Committee’s report). After Mr Aitken opened the debate the Justice Secretary provided an update on the development of community policing throughout Scotland.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it, or download it the video file, from Holyrood.TV. You can also read the Committee’s report on the Justice Committee’s Community Policing Inquiry Homepage .
First Minister’s Questions
Detention of rape witness
During a supplementary question in FMQs, Margaret Curran asked the First Minister about the case of a rape witness who was put in the cells overnight by the trial judge due to the fact she was unable to give evidence because she was traumatised. The story has attracted widespread condemnation in the press.
You can read her question and the FM’s response in the Official Report. See also the stories in the CJScotland Newsblog
Alcohol Abuse
There were a number of questions about the Government’s alcohol policy, with Paul Martin (Lab) accusing the Government of being about to do a U turn over its plans for the ‘polluter pays’ policies You can read this question in the Official Report
ID cards
Robert Brown, the Liberal Democrats Justice Spokesperson who also sits on the Justice Committee, brought an item of Committee business up during FMQs to attempt to bring attention to the issue. The Justice Committee are currently considering an Legislative Consent Memorandum on the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is UK legislation, and part of which deals with data sharing between the British and the Scottish Governments. Robert Brown said that it was hypocritical of the Government to be publicly opposed to ID cards, but at the same time to support giving greater powers to the Westminster Government regarding the seeking and sharing of personal information. You can read the question and the reply in the Official Report
You can also watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV, where you can also download them as a video file.
Questions to the Law and Justice Officers
Alcohol related crime
Alasdair Morgan (SNP) asked the Cabinet Secretary about alcohol related crime in which he pointed to a marked escalation of arrests made for crimes in which alcohol played a large role. You can read the question in the Official Report.
Direct Measures
Gavin Brown (Con) asked the Solicitor General for Scotland how many direct measures have been issued for crimes of assault to injury, to which the Solicitor General defended the use of these measures for these sorts of offences. And you can read this question in the Official Report
Proceeds of Crime Act
Christine Graham (SNP) asked the Cabinet Secretary a question about the Proceeds of Crime Act. She argued out that the system in place in Northern Ireland is much more effective than the one in Scotland, and that we could therefore learn a great deal from their example. Read the question in the Official Report
Financial compensation for victims of domestic abuse
In response to a question from Sandra White (SNP), the Cabinet Secretary spoke about the merits as well as some of the problems with providing financial compensation to victims of domestic abuse, and you can read the question in the Official Report
Young offenders and communication programmes
Marilyn Glen drew attention to the high prevalence of young offenders in the criminal justice system who have communication difficulties, and the difficulty for those in custody of accessing support for their problems. Read the question and the Cabinet Secretary’s reply in the Official Report.
HMP Polmont
Robert Brown (LD) drew attention to the levels of overcrowding in Polmont, and the fact that many of the offenders there have been there before. The question and the reply can be found at Official ReportYou can also watch, or indeed download the video clip of, all the Themed Questions on Holyrood.TV
Written Questions
There was a question about how many young offenders have been detained in adult custody over the past two years, and about how many ‘dangerous’ sex offenders there were in HMP Peterhead, and how many prisoners there are in