Post Requested:

CjScotland is moving

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 14th to 18th December 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 7th – 11th December, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 30th November – 4th December, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 23rd – 27th November, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 16th – 20th November 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 9th to the 13th of November, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 2nd – 6th of November, 2009

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 Newsblog

Written 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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 26th to the 30th October, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 28th September to the 2nd October, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 21st to the 25th September, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 14th - 18th September, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 7th - 11th September

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 2009

This 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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 31st August to 4th of September 2009

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 rates

Next 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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 24th of August, 2009: Al–Megrahi decision.

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 22nd to 26th June, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 15th – 19th June, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 8th to 12th June, 2009

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 assessmentt

Johann 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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 1st to the 5th June 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 25th - 29th May, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 18th - 22nd May, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 11th to 15h May, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 4th to 8th of May

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 27th April to the 1st of May, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 20th to 24th April 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 30th March to 3rd April 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 23rd to the 27th March, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 16th to the 20th of March, 2009

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 Homepage

Debate 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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 9th to the 13th of March, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 2nd to the 6th of March, 2009

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

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 23rd to the 27th of February 2009

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 Report

You 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 HMP Aberdeen. There were more questions about the geographical distribution of prisoners currently in HMP Aberdeen, and question which confirmed that the Government have no plans to reconsider its decision to merge HMP Peterhead and HMP Aberdeen. There were a number of questions about policing including the numbers of days police take of sick, and a series of questions relating to offences committed whilst on bail. There were a number of questions about gang crime, and about the potential effect of the economic downturn on acquisitive crime

Posted by KM on Tue 3rd Mar 2009 at 8:18 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 9th - 13th of February, 2009

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

This was a busy week for the Parliament prior to the week long spring recess. The Justice Committee heard from the Justice Secretary about a number of items of Legislative Consent Memoranda, and the Equal Opportunities Committee began its inquiry into female offenders in the justice system. In the Chamber there was the Stage 1 debate on the Sexual Offences Bill and a couple of questions to Ministers. 

The Justice Committee

Legislative Consent Memoranda

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill (UK Parliament legislation)

The Committee were joined by the Cabinet Secretary to discuss a number of pieces of Legislative Consent Memoranda (LCM). These are required whenever there is a piece of UK legislation which will impact on devolved areas and they therefore require the permission of the Scottish Parliament if they are to proceed. The first LCM under consideration would allow the UK Parliament to apply legislation to Scotland which would allow a designated immigration officer to detain someone who is subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for up to three hours prior to the arrival of the police. During questions, the Cabinet Secretary told the Committee that the police were fully supportive of these provisions and he also answered questions about the cooperation between immigration officials and the police. The Committee decided they required more time to consider this LCM and they agreed to consider it further at their next meeting

Coroners and Justice Bill (UK Parliament Legislation)

The Cabinet Secretary remained with the Committee to speak on behalf of another LCM, this time relating to the UK Coroners and Justice Bill, which covers three sets of provisions that extend to devolved areas.

The first area is related to criminal memoirs, and would create a scheme to recover profits that convicted offenders make from publicising the stories of their crimes. This would cover all forms of publications such as books, films and the internet and it would be operated on a public interest test. The second set of provisions relates to the EU service directive, which aims to open up the internal market in services in the same way as it is open for the movement of people, capital and goods. The LCM will allow the Scottish Government to have the powers that it requires to implement the directive through secondary legislation by disapplying the limitation on penalties that can be included in secondary legislation. Finally, the third set of provisions covered by the LCM relates to the creation of a power for ministers to create information–sharing gateways. This arose from a data–sharing review that Richard Thomas and Mark Walport carried out during 2008, which found that some safe and beneficial information sharing is prevented, either by specific legal obstacles or by the lack of necessary legal powers for public bodies. The Justice Secretary defended this part of the Bill in the meeting, saying that it was up to Westminster to debate whether the Bill as it stands has sufficient safeguards or not, but that the issue before the Committee now was to make sure that the powers that Scottish ministers have with regard to devolved matters are no less than those of the other UK Administrations. He also said that he had asked his officials to look at how to put in place effective procedures for consultation and notification when Scottish Ministers do have occasion to consider the use of the power in practice.

There were a number of questions about lines of accountability between the Scottish and the British Government, about Westminster’s role in governing communication between two Scottish bodies in some instances, and there were also a number of questions surrounding the retention of profits from criminal publications.

At the end of their meeting, the Committee agreed that they required clarification over a number of issues raised during questioning regarding this LCM, and they agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for more information and to consider it further upon hearing his reply. 

Legislative Consent Memorandum Policing and Crime Bill

The final LCM the Committee considered related to the Policing and Crime Bill, which sought approval for the UK Parliament to apply provisions in three areas of the Policing and Crime Bill to Scotland. The first of these would create an offence in Scotland of breaching a football banning order which was been issued in England and Wales, which would close a loophole that emerged following the UEFA cup final last year, on cross-border recognition of football banning orders. The second related to outgoing extradition requests in other EU member states; and the final part sought to amendment of provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 on publishing and laying the appointed person report in the Scottish Parliament, which would cover searches that are conducted under the new provisions and which did not receive prior judicial approval. And at the end of their meeting, the Committee agreed to note this LCM.

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, and read more detailed information on all the LCMs in the Meeting Papers. You can also watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV.

The Equal Opportunities Committee

Inquiry into Female Offenders in the Justice System

Last week, the Committee began their enquiry into female offenders in the criminal justice system. The Inquiry’s 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”

For their first evidence session they heard from a number of officials from the justice department in the Scottish Government and the Chief Executive of the SPS, Mike Ewart.

Mr Ewart spoke first. He outlined the situation regarding female prisoners saying that although they experienced many of the same difficulties that male prisoners do, there were also some difficulties which are specific to the female population, such as that the high prevalence of mental health problems, and histories of abusive relationships also tend to be higher amongst female prisoners. He said that they also experience additional difficulties to male prisoners because they tend to be the primary carer for any dependents. He was remarkably blunt to the Committee about the problems that currently beset prisons in Scotland, saying that there are too many prisoners and that the numbers serving short sentences are too large. He said that prison can “sometimes do some good, but it always does some harm” and that “by introducing people into prisons we are making them more likely to reoffend in the future.’ He answered questions regarding the specific provisions in place for female offenders, and he said that one of the main problems was trying to do something with prisoners who may only be locked up for a number of weeks before returning to their old lifestyles again. The witnesses also answered questions about the numbers of prisoners who have lost their jobs as a result of being sentenced, and there were also discussions about the importance of treating statistics about the supposed rise in violent crimes committed by women, with caution. There were also discussions about the efficacy of rehabilitation programmes for people with mental health issues, and different national and local throughcare services were mentioned including the highly valued 218 centre in Glasgow.

You can read all the evidence from this meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland newsblog.

The Chamber

Stage 1 of the Sexual Offences Bill

On Thursday, the Parliament got its chance to debate the important Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, which recently completed its way through the rigorous Stage 1 Committee process. The Justice Committee agreed to the general principles of the Bill, although they also made a number of minor recommendations.

The key aim of the Bill is to overhaul all the disparate common law relating to sexual offences, creating one revised piece of legislation. Substantively it also creates a new definition of consent as ‘free agreement’ and it also makes changes in relation to sexual activity and young people.

You can read all the information about the Bill including links to the Committee report, on the Bill’s homepage

This Bill has been marked by notable political consensus, reflecting the Government’s aim to complete legislation which was largely formulated by the Scottish Law Commission, on a relatively non–partisan basis.  This consensus was also reflected in the tone of the debate in the Chamber. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice opened, and after outlining the key provisions of the Bill, he indicated that the Government would be willing to make a number of concessions at Stage 2, chiefly in response to the recommendations of the Committee’s report. The first of these were to create a separate offence of ‘rape with an object’, which he said would mark this act as more serious than other serious sexual assaults, and would also recognise that the consequences of such an attack could be as damaging for a victim as rape. The second area concerned consensual sexual activity between 13 and 16 year olds. The Government decided not to decriminalise this (as the SLC had recommended), and also to make it gender neutral. Thus it will remain an offence for sexual intercourse between children of this age, but now girls as well as boys can be prosecuted. The Cabinet Secretary pointed out however, that an actual prosecution of this crime would occur very rarely, and the primary result would be a referral to the Children’s Hearings System, although the Crown would retain the right to launch a prosecution in exceptional circumstances. The Government had initially said that only sexual intercourse between these ages would be criminalised, and not oral sex. However, the Justice Committee disagreed with this, recommending that oral sex should be treated the same as sexual intercourse. In his opening speech, the Justice Secretary said that in light of the Committee’s recommendation the Government would consider whether to change this before lodging amendments at stage 2, and he said he would welcome the views from the rest of the Parliament before coming to any firm conclusions one way or the other.

The speeches that followed all warmly welcomed the general principles of the Bill, though many contributors highlighted that there was a need to not view this as a silver bullet which would address the complex issue of how to investigate and prosecute sexual offences, saying that things such as the rules of evidence in courts not to mention whole scale societal attitudes also needed to be changed in order to bring about meaningful changes to this issue.

At the end of the debate, the Parliament unanimously agreed to Stage 1 of the Bill.

You can read the full transcripts of this debate in the Official Report or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland weblog.

Questions

Alcohol sales

There was a question from Frank McAveety (Lab) to the Justice Secretary about enforcing the legal age of alcohol. He praised a scheme which was operating in his constituency area which sought to not only enforce the age limit, but also to educate young people about access to alcohol. Mr MacAskill replied that this is the approach which is also favoured by the Government and he also spoke about his recent excursions with Glasgow licensing board. In supplementary questions, he also spoke about minimum pricing, saying that this was a sensible approach to the problems of the attractiveness of cheep off–sales, to many young people. And you can read this question in the Official Report

Human Trafficking

Later there was a question for the First Minister about stories which had appeared in the press about the extent of human trafficking in Scotland. Richard Baker (Lab) wanted the First Minister to comment on his suggestion that the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency create a specialist to investigate this problem. He also argued that the Government should consider reforming the law in this area, because recent successful police operations in Scotland have not been followed by successful prosecution. The First Minister replied by highlighting the amount of money the Government has put into supporting the victims of trafficking, and he said that his Government would continue to work closely with their counterparts in England and Wales and beyond, to tackle this problem.

And you can read this question in the Official Report. See also the press in the CJScotland Weblog

Written Questions

There was a question about the capacity of HMP Grampian which will replace the old prisons at Peterhead and Aberdeen. There were a number of questions about diplomatic immunity, and about the Victim Steering Group, and there were a number of questions about police action on knife crime.

Posted by KM on Tue 17th Feb 2009 at 8:59 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 2nd to 6th of February, 2009

Monday, February 09, 2009

This was a relatively quiet week for the Parliament, though there was a short debate about human trafficking and a number of justice related questions. 

The Justice Committee did not meet this week.

The Chamber

Debate on Human Trafficking

On Wednesday afternoon there was a brief member’s debate about Human Trafficking. The motion, in the name of Murdo Fraser, recognised the work of both local and international organisations in combating human trafficking, and it also drew attention to the need for a co–ordinated international approach if this practice is to be stopped.

In his speech he quoted some figures which estimate the number involved. One estimate said that at least 2.4 million people across the world are in forced labour because of trafficking and at least 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year for the sex trade alone. He said that there was evidence of thousands of child sex workers in Scotland as well, nearly of whom have been trafficked here, and we must therefore move beyond seeing this as a problem that affects foreign countries only. He also praised much of the partnership working that is taking place between the Scottish and the UK Governments, and also much of the work that is being carried out by international and national charities.

Seven other members spoke in favour of this motion, many of them also welcoming the work of agencies involved in this field, and several also quoted texts from reports on trafficking to emphasise this issue was more than bare numbers of victims. The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing), spoke for the Government at the end of the debate and he said that despite what people may think, the SNP Administration have been working and co-operating closely with their colleagues in London on this issue. He also spoke about the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament, saying that it will create a statutory offence of sexual coercion, which will enable police and prosecutors to target traffickers or pimps who knowingly force someone to engage in sexual activity.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV

Questions

Cashback for Communities

There was a question for the Justice Secretary from Michael Matheson (SNP) who wanted to know if the number of football clubs who can benefit from the Cashback to Communities fund could be expanded to include a club in his constituency area. The Cashback for Communities fund was established by the Proceeds of Crime Act, which enables illegally earned money to be confiscated from prosecuted criminals. Michael Matheson said that the club in question was forbidden from bidding for this money because it was a semi–professional club, and the Justice Secretary agreed to review this matter, saying he agreed that this club was also a community club which added great benefited to the local area. Read this question in the Official Report

Police custody health care pilot

There was another question for the Cabinet Secretary, this time from Marlyn Glen, who drew attention to a piloted scheme operated between the police in Tayside and the local NHS board. Under this scheme medical practitioners are able to visit those held in police custody, which she argued was an essential service to those who were disabled or in need of regular medication. The Minister replied that although he was unaware of this scheme, it was to be welcomed, and that it was necessary for different agencies to work together in instances like these. And you can read this question in the Official Report

Right to legal aid

Christine McKelvie raised the case of an ex policeman who is seeking to have his pension reinstated after being convicted of rape, and is claiming legal aid in order to pursue his claim. Mr MacAskill replied that the Government were powerless to stop this from occurring, because only the Scottish Legal Aid Board are able to amend the rules related to legal aid. However, he said that he was concerned about this case, and that he would bring it up with the SLAB when he next met them. And you can read this question in the Official Report

Breaches of Bail

In a question to the First Minister, Bill Aitken claimed that bail conditions are being broken every 47 minutes in Scotland and therefore the current laws cannot be said to be working. He arrived at this figure from an answer to a parliamentary question which said there were 11,000 breaches of bail conditions last year, and he urged the First Minister to carry out a comprehensive review and report back to the Parliament on this issue.

The First Minister replied that this was the first time these figures has been compiled, and that this fact alone shows the Government’s determination to address this problem. He also quoted a UK Conservative document which said that the laws surrounding bail conditions in Scotland are tougher here than in England and Wales, and he urged the Tory justice spokesperson to not be the ‘Jeremiah of the justice system’ and recognise that Scotland is at least trying to address this problem. And you can read this question in the Official Report

Written Questions

There were written questions this week about how many offences for selling alcohol to those under the age of 18 have been detected over the past year, and a number of questions about children and alcohol misuse. There were more questions about alcohol, this time about the number of offences linked to alcohol misuse over the past year, and about the number of direct measures which have been issued for drugs offences, and about ID cards and entitlement to council services. There were a number of questions about children and justice, including the hot topic of the age of criminal responsibility, and a question about how Scotland handles extradition and the treatment of prisoners subject to extradition. There was a question about when the Government will respond to the recommendations of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS), and about overcrowding in HMP Kilmarnock. More questions about prisons, this time about the numbers of prisoners with drug and alcohol problems, and prison staffing levels

Posted by KM on Mon 9th Feb 2009 at 8:33 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 26th to 30th of January, 2009

Monday, February 02, 2009

Last week was a relatively quiet week for justice in the Parliament. The Public Audit Committee published its report on Police Call Management and the Justice Committee completed hearing evidence in its Stage 1 consideration of the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill. There were also a number of questions in the Chamber. 

The Justice Committee

Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill.

This was the Justice Committee’s final week of hearing oral evidence in Stage 1 of the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill. As is customary for the final week of hearing evidence it heard from the Minister presenting the Bill, and Government officials in charge of drafting it, as well as other witnesses.

The Committee first heard from a panel of witnesses from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service who were asked about the fact that offences which have been in part motivate by prejudice are already covered under common law. The witnesses replied that, although this is the case, if the Bill were to be enacted it would put these offence on a more serious footing, as well as providing a better means of being able to collate data on incidents. They also said that as well as giving the signal to the public that these crimes would be taken more seriously, it would also mean that the police would begin to record these crimes which would in turn enable the Crown to bring prosecutions forward. They also spoke about the technological changes the Crown Office would be required to make if the Bill came to pass, and the possibility of a ‘computer overload’ if more aggravations were added to the system to deal with. They also answered questions about how to support witnesses in potential trials of this charge, given that they may be vulnerable and reluctant to give evidence on the stand. The witnesses said that it would be important to balance the personal cost of the victim with the overall public interest, but that everything would be done to minimise discomfort.

Patrick Harvey MSP who presented the Bill was on the next panel of witnesses, together with the drafting officials from the Government. Mr Harvey spoke about his motivations for introducing the Bill to the Parliament, and he said that offences motivated by prejudice against a person’s sexuality or disability had not been taken seriously for too long a time, and he argued that there was enough evidence to show that this Bill would go some way to addressing that problem. He responded to those who argued that existing common law was technically sufficient for these crimes already by saying that the same arguments used to be made regarding domestic abuse, but now in part because of changes in legislation, it has a much higher profile and is taken more seriously. He was also anxious to emphasise that this was more than a flag waving exercise, which would send out a message to the public, and that it would also help to prosecute and punish these crimes more effectively. He also spoke about sentencing, and he said that the purpose of the Bill was to bring about the most appropriate sentence for the crime, which may not necessarily be the most punitive one, or the one that the victim wanted, but the one that would serve the best interest of the public.

You can read the full evidence heard by the Committee in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read all the documents related to the Bill on the Bill’s Homepage.

Public Audit Committee Report on Police Call Management

On Friday the Audit Committee published their report into a range of issues related to police call management. The Committee decided to carry out this report following the Audit Scotland document “Police call management: an initial review” (2007).
The key recommendations of the report include:

• That each police force should provide local information on response times to non-emergency calls to the police board or the local authority, and that this information should also be made available to the public.

• That the Scottish Government should work with the relevant agencies to explore the potential for increased efficiencies through improved working and shared services between the police and other agencies.

• That the development of improved access to police services in non&ndashemergency situations requires a consistent national approach and a greater degree of leadership from the Scottish Government.

• That there should be a single non–emergency number in use across Scotland which should not be an 0845 or other premium rate number as these are often not available to many calling from a mobile and may provide a disincentive to callers. The Committee calls on the Scottish Government to examine detailed proposals for the introduction of such a number.

• That there is a greater need for transparency and accountability for ACPOS who play a central role in setting the agenda for each police force. 

You can read the full report, which also has links to all the evidence received, in the Committee Report on Police Call Management. See also the press in the CJScotland Newsblog

The Chamber

Questions

Community Facing Prison

There was a question for the Cabinet Secretary about the plans for the new prison at Peterhead, which will replace the existing prison at that site and also HMP Aberdeen. Mike Rumbles (LD) questioned the Government’s statement that the new prison will be ‘community facing’ saying that it will in fact result in many families having to make a 60 mile round trip from Aberdeen in order to visit those in custody, and he argued that if families are unable to visit, this will impede prisoner’s rehabilitation. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the new prison will also be suitable for female prisoners, meaning that many female prisoners from the local area will not be held in Corton Vale, which is even further away, and he also drew attention to the extra cost that an additional prison in Aberdeen would incur.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

HMP Peterhead

The Liberal Democrats clearly decided to focus on the prison in Peterhead, because there was a question about it later, though this time about the timetable for its completion. Alison McInnies (LD) accused the Government of delay after promising a year and a half ago that they would end uncertainty about its procurement and building process.  The Cabinet Secretary denied that the Government has moved slowly on this matter, and he confirmed that the process of planning, procurement, construction and commissioning will take a minimum of four years.
And you can read this question in the Official Report.

Victims’ Champion

Later, during FMQs, there was a question about the Labour proposal to have a ‘victims champion’, which would mirror a post that has recently been established in Westminster. David Stewart (Lab) said that prisoners in Scotland already have their own champion, but that victims do not, and he said he would be bringing forward a Private Members Bill which would seek to create such a post. The First Minister replied that there is already a range of proposals in place to support victims, many of which are contained in the document “Scottish Strategy for Victims”. He said that a range of measures were being considered, one of which may include a victims commissioner, and that once David Stewart has formalised his intentions by putting them on paper, the cabinet secretary would be happy to discuss the proposals with him more fully.  And you can read this question in the Official Report.

Written Questions

There was a question about the number of under 18 year olds caught attempting to buy alcohol, number of crimes of being drunk and disorderly throughout the different parts of Scotland, and about the recent extra funding given for community service orders to be started and completed quickly, and another question about the timing of community service orders. There was a question about the number of drink drivers, and another about the Government’s strategy to tackle drink and drugs driving, and about a pilot knife-crime text hotline. There were a number of justice questions including about strategies to tackle knife carrying, and numbers of breaches of bail. There were a number of questions about the piloted head or body mounted cameras in police forces. There were a number of questions about prisoners’ health services, and finally, there was a question about the site for a new HMP Prison Inverclyde.

Posted by KM on Mon 2nd Feb 2009 at 8:17 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 19th to 23rd of January 2009

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Justice Committee continued hearing evidence in relation to the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill last week, and also discussed Justice and Home Affairs in Europe with the Justice Secretary. In the Chamber there were questions for the First Minister and for the Law and Justice Officers. 

The Justice Committee

Stage 1 of the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill

The Committee continued taking evidence as part of the scrutiny of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) Bill last week, hearing from spokespeople from the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland, ACPOS, and the Law Society of Scotland.

The Equality and Human Rights Commissioner welcomed the proposals in the Bill, arguing that it would help criminal justice agencies take crimes motivated by prejudice more seriously than currently occurs, and echoed much of the evidence heard last week that although there are provisions under current common law for such aggravations to be taken into account, the evidence shows that this occurs very rarely in practice. He also spoke about the under reporting of offences that occur in the gay and lesbian communities and the length of time it has taken for police and prosecution agencies to take these crimes seriously.

The spokespeople from ACPOS said that if this Bill were passed it would have a significant impact on the way that police record homophobic crimes, which would result in a more consistent approach nationally, because currently it is up to each individual police force to decide how to code these types of offences. They also said that when it came to prosecuting these crimes, it was more of a problem to get people to come forward and report them in the first place, than to prosecute it once it had been reported, and that this legislation would help to give victims the courage to come forward and ask for these crimes to be taken seriously. 

The final panel were from the Law Society of Scotland. In opposition to previous witnesses, they expressed concern that the Bill was doing little more than putting on statute provisions are already contained in common law. They said that although there may be some merit in, for example, sending out a message to the public that homophobic crime is wrong and will be taken seriously, there is also a loss of flexibility that occurs when common law is substituted for statutory offences, which would impose additional burdens on the Crown, and may make cases more difficult to prove.

You can read all the oral evidence from this part of the meeting in this part of the Official Report. You can also access all the information about the Bill on the Bill Homepage

Justice and Home Affairs in Europe

Following this, the Committee were joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to question him about Justice and Home Affairs in Europe (JHA). This follows the Committee’s decision last November that there were a number of issues that were of potential interest tot he Parliament, including Eurojust, Prum, and the applicable law on matrimonial issues. The Cabinet Secretary begun his evidence by saying that in general this Government did not differ that much from the previous Scottish Executive with regard to JHA, although he said they perhaps wished to ‘fly the flag’ more for Scotland and ensure that it be represented as a distinct entity at international justice meetings. The Justice Secretary and his officials spoke about the Prum convention, which makes requirements on member states with regards to the sharing of DNA and fingerprint data, and he said he was happy that they had secured the appropriate balance between individuals’ rights and the rights of communities to be protected. His officials also spoke about the setting up of Eurojust, saying that it has helped to formalise cases in which there are more than one country has jurisdiction to prosecute or investigate.

You can read all the evidence relating to this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and you can also read the briefing papers given to the Committee about current JHA in pages 4 - 26 of the Committee Papers.

Subordinate Legislation

Finally, the Committee considered a piece of subordinate legislation, which would give privileges and immunities to a number of international organisations (and the UK would in return receive the same privileges and immunities abroad). There were some questions raised as to the differences between the immunities given to different officials, however it was also recognised that most of these issues are not reserved to Holyrood, and it was regarded that the international obligations did require following. After a brief discussion, the motion was agreed to.

And you can read this part of the meeting in this part of the Official Report.

You can also watch the whole meeting on Holyrood.TV.

The Chamber

First Minister’s Questions

Knife Crime

Prompted by the Summit on Knife Crime which was to be held the next day in Parliament (see below for more information), the issue of knife crime came up during First Minister’s Questions on Thursday. Iain Gray (Lab) wanted to know why there was no mention of this issue in the recent Government document “Revitalising Justice: Proposals to Modernise and Improve the Criminal Justice System” given that the First Minister is on record as saying he would ‘consider’ the issue of mandatory custodial sentences for those carrying blades. He said that it was not good enough for the Government to say that this was still under consideration, and he called on the Government response to knife crime to be ‘up–front, central, and rapid’. He urged the Government to implement the legislation passed in 2007 which would license non–domestic knives, and he questioned their urgency in dealing with this problem.

Mr Salmond’s reply hinted that Members would be able to bring amendments forward to the forthcoming Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, which would address any issues they might consider outstanding. He also said that it was important not to demean the work that is currently under way, such as the Violence Reduction Unit based in Strathclyde, which is tackling knife crime. He said that the Government’s proposals on knife crime will be brought forward, though he did not say when, and he said that all legislation has to be correct in its definition and its implications and should therefore not be rushed before it was ready

You can read this question in the Official Report. See also the links below.

Jury Trials

There was a question from Jamie Hepburn (SNP) about the current Government consultation on modernising the jury system, specifically about the response from ACPOS which was in favour of the idea of abolishing jury trials in certain long and complex trials.  Mr Hepburn argued that trial by jury is a fundamental pillar of the Scottish justice system and therefore great caution should be exercised before any such move could occur. The Fist Minister said that all the responses to the consultation were in the process of being independently analysed and that this analysis would be published shortly. He emphasised however, that the possibility of abolishing trial by jury was, at this stage they merely wanted to collect the views of the relevant bodies. In response to a further question from Robert Brown (LD) he argued that the question was not whether or not juries were capable of understanding complex information, rather the question was whether it was acceptable to ask people to give up such a long period of their lives if they were to sit as jury on a long trial.

You can read this question in the Official Report, and you can also read the consultation on jury reform including all the responses and the press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog.

Questions to the Law and Justice Officers

Direct Measures

Gavin Brown (Con) asked the Government about the recent summary justice reforms which increased the number of offences for which direct measures could be issued. Gavin Brown argued that the fact that 9% of all charges of assault over a five month period were dealt with by means of a direct measure clearly went against the Government’s assertion that all violent crime should be treated seriously.  The Solicitor General for Scotland replied on behalf of the Government and he argued that the guidance given to Fiscals says that only non–serious assaults should be dealt with in this way, and that by using direct measures a great deal of police and court time has been freed up so they are more able to deal with more serious crimes more efficiently. See the press coverage of this story in the CJScotland Newsblog

Serious Fraud Investigations

In his question about the investigation of serious fraud, David McLetchie (Con) accused the Government of the slow implementation of the Tompkins report, which has resulted in the Serious Fraud Office in England and Wales being unable to investigate the possible extent of the alleged fraud committed by Bernard Madoff in Scotland. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, replied that this issue was one for the police and the Crown office to investigate, and he disagreed that the Government have been slow to implement to the recommendations of the Tompkins report.

Reinvestment of Proceeds of Crime

Aileen Campbell (SNP) asked a question which allowed Fergus Ewing to talk about the various social programmes that are being funded by money confiscated from the proceeds of crime, and he confirmed that there was no disagreement between the Scottish and the British Government about how this money is distributed.

Low Moss Prison

Ross Finnie (LD) and David Whitton (Lab) asked a question about the naming of the new prison at Bishopbriggs, which is to replace the old Low Moss Prison. The new prison is in the process of being built, and it has been provisionally named as HMP Bishopbriggs, reflecting its location. This has resulted in considerable disquiet from the local community who would prefer it to retain its old name.  The Minister emphasised several times that this was an issue for the SPS to deal with, and not Ministers, and he rejected calls that the Government could influence prison and ask them to change it.

You can read this and all the other justice questions in the Official Report, and watch them on Holyrood.TV.

Summit on Knife Crime

On Friday, there was a summit on knife crime (see FMQs above). Although this was held in the Parliament building, it fell outwith official Parliamentary business because it was not part of any legislative process or Government business. The summit was therefore not covered by the Official Report, although it was filmed on Holyrood.TV should you wish to view it.  There was also a Parliamentary news release, and much press comment, which you can read in the CJScotland newsblog (though most of this focused on the absence of the Justice Secretary as opposed to the substantive issues relating to sentencing and knife crime).

Written Questions

There were a number of questions about the Children’s Hearings System and a question about the recently announced extra money to ensure that offenders serving community sentences begin their sentences without much delay. There was a question about the cost of administrating community service orders and a question in which the Minister for Community Safety praised the Street Pastor service . There was a question about the number of offences aggravated by religious hatred, about drink and drug influenced drivers and the average cost per day of administrating a DTTO. There were a number of questions about direct measures (see also questions to the Law and Justice Officers above), and about the breakdown of funding given to tackle gang culture and a number of questions about alcohol rehabilitation in prisons, and finally, there was a question about the rehabilitation of sex offenders

Posted by KM on Tue 27th Jan 2009 at 8:32 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 12th - 16th of January, 2009

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The main justice activity took place in the Justice Committee last week. On Tuesday the Committee took evidence on the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill, and on Friday published the detailed Stage 1 report of the important Sexual Offences Bill. The budget was debated in the Chamber. 

The Justice Committee

Stage 1 Report on the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill

The Justice Committee published its Stage 1 report into the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill at the end of last week. This Bill is based largely on work carried out by the Scottish Law Commission (SCL) although it differs from it in a number of areas. It creates a new statutory framework for all sexual offences, repealing much of the old common law and creating new statutory offences, particularly relating to sexual conduct where there is no consent. It also defines consent as ‘free agreement’ and provides a non–exhaustive list of scenarios in which consent is absent. Finally, it also makes changes to the law creating to sexual conduct involving children. The Committee heard detailed and often explicit evidence, which was also reflected in their report.

The Committee agreed to support the general principles of the Bill, although it highlighted a number of areas which required further attention during Stage 2 and called for some revisions. Some of the key points of the report are:

• The Committee received evidence about whether the offence of penetration with an object should be classified as rape or as serious sexual assault. The Bill as it stood classified this offence as serious sexual assault, but much evidence was received which argued that the affect on the victim of this offence was on par with that of rape. The Committee decided that there should be a separate offence of ‘rape with an object or with another part of the body’, which would have the same penalties as rape. Such an offence already exists for England and Wales.
• One of the most contentious issues in the Bill the Committee received evidence on was the that of ‘prior consent’, whereby if someone gave prior consent to sex but then became incapacitated or unconscious and so was unable to consent at the time of sexual activity, this would not constitute rape. Those arguing in favour of this said it was necessary because otherwise consensual sexual activity that occurs within the context of established relationships (for example, previously consented to sexual activity while one person was asleep) would be criminalised. However, the Committee also receive a large amount of persuasive evidence arguing that this goes against key strands of the Bill, which is based on the notion that a person can withdraw consent any time. In light of these arguments, the Committee recommended that the Government reconsider this part of the Bill.
• The Committee recommended that sexual offences committed by a child under the age of 13 should be dealt with by means of the Children’s Hearings System, rather than the courts. The Bill currently provides that the Lord Advocate retains the option of criminal prosecution.
• The issue of whether older children (i.e. between the ages of 13 and 16) should be prosecuted for consensual sexual activity, was also a controversial area during evidence. The Bill provides that most consensual activity between this age group would be criminalised, which ran counter to the recommendations of the SCL who argued that this should instead trigger a non–offence ground for referring children to the hearings system. The Committee’s report resolutely supported the retention of the legal age of 16, arguing that it was symbolically important to send out the message that sexual activity under this age is not condoned. However, the Committee also supports the continued use of the Children’s Hearings System to address this behaviour, although they also welcomed that the Lord Advocate retains the discretion use criminal prosecution in some cases it was felt to be appropriate.

You can read the full Stage 1 Report, which also has links to all the evidence the Committee received, and can also read the Bill and all its accompanying documents (including the helpful SPICe briefings) on the Bill’s homepage. Finally, you can also the press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog

Committee meeting

Earlier that week,the Committee began its Stage 1 scrutiny of the Offences (Aggravated by Prejudice) Bill. This is a ‘Handout Bill’ which means that it is a members Bill which is supported by the Government. The Bill was brought by Patrick Harvey (Green) and seeks to extend hate crime legislation (which currently covers racially or religiously aggravated crimes), to introduce new statutory aggravations to protect victims of crime who are targeted as a result of hatred of their actual or presumed sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.  Although this Bill would not introduce any new criminal offences, it would require that these aggravations be taken into account at the time of sentencing.

The first panel comprised of spokespeople from the Equality Network, the Scottish Transgender Alliance, and Stonewall Scotland. They spoke about the benefit of this Bill, even though under Scottish common law it is already possible for courts to take the motivations of an offender into account when determining sentence. One of the witnesses said that this would ensure that the police and the Crown Office take the offence seriously and deal with it in the same way as a racially or religiously aggravated crime, and that even though provisions currently exist to take these motivating prejudges into account, there has not been a single case dealt with this way up till now. Other witnesses said that this Bill would provide an educative message to the public by underlining that this prejudice is unacceptable, and would also provide means to allow data on such crimes to be recorded. The witnesses also spoke about different tariffs that could be attached to such aggravations, and reasons why these crimes often go unreported.

The second panel comprised of spokespeople from Enable Scotland, Capability Scotland, and the Scottish Association for Mental Health.  They all echoed many of the points that the earlier panel had expressed, albeit in relation to disabled people. They also spoke about the fact that they receive many reports of bullying from disable people which are actually describing behaviour which is criminal but which the victims have got used to assuming was just part of their life. They also disagreed that this Bill would create a ‘hierarchy of rights’, because aggravations motivated by gender and age are not covered in the same way, arguing that this Bill was responding to a specific problem which current legislation does not address.

You can access all the Bill’s information on the Bill Homepage

You can read all their evidence in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood TV. See also the press stories in the CJScotland Weblog

The Chamber

First Minister’s Questions

Annabel Goldie (Con) asked Alex Salmond about the ongoing appeal by Megrahi, following stories in the press that day which suggested a deal was underway which would allow the critically ill man to return home. Ms Goldie argued that freeing a convicted terrorist early would create ‘widespread and deep unease’, and she asked for clarification on the matter. The First Minister replied that he was unable to comment in case this would prejudice the case that is ongoing. You can read this question in the Official Report. See also the press stories in the CJScotland Newsblog

Budget Debate

On Wednesday the Parliament debated the Budget Bill which was published by the Government in the first week after the Christmas recess. As with last year, the minority government will require the support of other parties if it is to clear Parliament. Criminal justice does not occupy nearly as controversial a place in this budget as it did last year, when key concessions over extra police and drugs policy were given to the Conservatives in return for their support. The budget for 2009–2010 allocates a total of £1.8 billion to criminal justice, the largest recipients being local authorities, the SPS and the police, in that order. Criminal justice received scant attention during the debate, which largely focused on the budget in relation to the current economic climate. At the end of the debate the Government won the debate comfortably, with only the Liberal Democrats voting against them.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the press in the CJScotland Newsblog. You can also read the full breakdown of the justice budget in the Budget Bill 2009–10 Summary Proposed Justice Portfolio Budget.

Written Questions

There was a question about what action is being taken against retailers who sell alcohol to under–18s, and about what discussions are being held with police and local authorities in relation to tackling alcohol fuelled violence, and about addressing alcohol misuse amongst older people. There was a question about the financial situation of the Scottish Court Service, and a question about neighbourhood awareness of crime in their area. There was a question about the waiting time for drug and alcohol treatments on the NHS, and a number of justice questions including gang culture and West of Scotland, speedy community penalties, the amount of prisoners serving sentences of six months or less, and standardising the police recording of incidents. There was a question about serious assaults on emergency workers, and about the ongoing roll out of the Licensing Act, about the Major Crime and Terrorism Investigation Unit which has been set up by Strathclyde police, and there were a number of questions about the prison service including how many prison cells accomodate two or more prisoners, and the provisions for mental health care of prisoners leaving custody. There were more questions about prison, including the support for the families of prisoners, the affect of the VAT cut on the SPS budget, the maximum number of prisoners in each prison over recent months, and the mental health of prisoners. There were a number of questions about the Proceeds of Crime Act about what cases have been referred to the Scottish Law Commission over the past 18 months. There was a question about the treatment of sex offenders, and finally, a question about wildlife crime. 

Posted by KM on Tue 20th Jan 2009 at 8:25 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 5th - 9th January, 2009

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The new year got off to a flying start last week, with the Chamber having the opportunity to debate the Government‘s white paper on offender management, published before the Christmas break. Amongst the proposals in the paper are the controversial plans to introduce legislation which seek reduce the numbers of short– term custodial sentences, and the ensuing debate mapped out the parties’ stances on this issue. 

The Justice Committee

The Committee held their meeting in private this week to discuss their draft Stage 1 report of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, which they had been taking oral evidence on in the run up to Christmas. The report is likely to be published over the next few weeks.

The Chamber

Debate on Offender Management

The Government published it plans for offender management nearly a month ago in the white paper Protecting Scotland’s Communities: Fair, Fast and Flexible Justice. This paper, which makes proposals in relation to sentencing and sentence management, also includes the official Government response to the recommendations of the McLeish report.

The headline proposals in the Government paper include:

• Creating a Scottish Sentencing Council to bring consistency and transparency to sentencing.
• A commitment to end the system of automatic early release (once all the other parts of the Plan are implemented)
• Legislation which would make it clear that judges should not impose a custodial sentence of six months or less unless they feel they have no other option
• A new ‘Community Payback Sentence’ which an offender would have to sign off before they leave the court. This would involve unpaid work, which must begin within a week and have finished within six months.
• Review hearings which would be held to allow judges to review the progress of community sentences.

These proposals are expected to be included in the forthcoming Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill.

Kenny MacAskill opened the debate by saying that the Government’s plans for offenders is based on the twin planks of a robust regime of community penalties and strong and ‘proportionate’ management of offenders, and that justice should be ‘immediate, visible, effective, high quality, flexible and relevant’. He said the time scale for replacing short–term sentences with community service orders was dependent on primary legislation, but that decisions had had to be taken on the bench to show that the process is underway. The Cabinet Secretary emphasised the need to work together with partners in order to achieve these reforms, and he quoted CoSLA’s spokesperson who welcomed the plans. Perhaps in a pre–emptive strike against Labour criticism, he also quoted Cathy Jamieson remark from 2004 that short–term prison sentences do more harm than good.

For Labour, Richard Baker said that he agreed wholeheartedly with Cathy Jamieson’s quote, but he argued that the Government’s plans were incoherent because the funding was not in place for community penalties to withstand the increase in case load that would occur if short custodial sentences decreased. He also said that he objected on principle with the removal of sentencer’s discretion in sentencing, and he disagreed with the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, who argued that the Government’s plans would not remove discretion, rather they would ‘create a presumption’.

Bill Aitken was in typically robust form for the Conservatives, saying that the Cabinet Secretary’s speech was disappointingly low on detail on issues such as the ‘visibility’ of offenders on community sentences, and how these sentences would be made credible to the judiciary, which he argued was crucial.

The Liberal Democrats were the only party in the Chamber to agree with the Government’s proposals on short–term custodial sentences, although they also queried how the shift to community penalties would be funded. Their spokesperson, Robert Brown, also chided the Government for not providing enough detail in their proposals, and he also wondered if the parts of the plan relating to rehabilitation had been toned down to make the plan more publicly palatable. 

The debate that followed contained a large amount of political posturing, although it was peppered by some well argued and thoughtful contribution from Bill Butler (Lab), Robert Brown (LD), Richard Simpson (Lab) and Angela Constance (SNP) amongst others. At the end of the debate, the Government would no doubt have been heartened that the Labour and Conservative amendments were defeated by a LD and SNP coalition, while the LD amendment, which emphasised tackling the causes of crime, the importance of judicial independence, and working constructively with the Government, was agreed. The support of the LDs could provide crucial in the Parliamentary arithmetic of the upcoming Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, so this vote is an indication that interesting times may lie ahead.

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.

Members debate on Aberdeen Forensic Service

Directly after the management of offenders debate, there was a short private members debate about the proposed closure of the forensic service in Aberdeen. This become a political issue when the newly created Scottish Police Services Authority decided in 2007 that the Aberdeen laboratory should be closed and merged with a new and larger forensic service in Dundee. This proposal was met with stiff opposition from local agencies including both Grampian and Northern Constabulary police forces, who argued that forensic investigations would suffer if the merger were to take place. The Cabinet Secretary intervened in May last year urging the SPSA to hold a new consultation on their proposals in Aberdeen, while also giving the go ahead for the new laboratory in Dundee. In November last year, the SPSA issued a new consultation, but opponents argued that the design of the consultation is such that the closure is still a foregone conclusion.

This issue has come up periodically in the Parliament during question times, but the time allotted for private members debate allowed for it to be given a fuller airing on Thursday. The debate was led by Lewis MacDonald, in whose constituency the Aberdeen laboratory is situated, and who has been at the forefront of calls for a new and consultation to take place. He argued that the whole affair has been shoddily handled by the SPSA, who had decided to close the Aberdeen facility to save money without any consideration for professional opinion or the consultation process.

There were not many speakers in this short debate, but all those who spoke were eager to put on record their unhappiness with the way that this issue has been handled. Summing up at the end of the debate, the Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing, acknowledged that although the final decision must be left to the SPSA given its status as an agency, ultimately the disposal of this decision remains with the Government, and he said that the Government will accept the responsibility of making this decision when it is called to.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. 

Questions

There was a question from Jeremy Purvis (LD) about an anomaly in the retention of criminal record information for the purposes of a Disclosure Scotland certificate, depending on whether the applicant was in care at the time of the offence or not. If they were not in care then any convictions before then are wiped from their record when they turn 16. However, if they were ‘looked after’ then this information must be included on a disclosure application until they are 40. The Cabinet Secretary agreed that it was important not to prejudice the system against someone who was a looked after child, but he hinted there was still a need to retain some differentiation, saying that there was also a need to ‘ensure public safety and the care and welfare of our children’ when vetting applicants for disclosure checks.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

Later, the Cabinet Secretary answered a question from Frank McAveety (Lab) about the possibility of a member’s bill to create a Victims Commissioner for Scotland, one of Labour’s current policy ideas. Mr MacAskill replied that the Government already aims to put victims at the heart of the justice system, and, although the Government were happy to consider proposals for a Commissioner, it was more important for money to be spent on front–line services for victims than to have a commissioner who would deal with problems once they had arisen. And you can read this question in the Official Report, and watch all general questions on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There was a question about the Government’s plans for young people and purchasing alcohol, and about what research has been carried out into ‘proxy buying’ of alcohol. There was a question about the extra funding the Government has granted for community service orders , and about how effective community wardens may be in reducing crime. There was a question about whether male victims of domestic abuse required specialist support, about a reduction in the number of DTTOs issued over the past year, and about the proportion of homicides due to different types of violent crime, and finally, there were a number of questions about foreign nationals in Scottish prisons .

Posted by KM on Tue 13th Jan 2009 at 7:25 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 15th to the 19th December, 2008

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

In the final week of Parliament for 2008, there was a seasonal debate about drink driving in the Chamber, and a number of justice related questions. The Equal Opportunities Committee launched its inquiry into female offenders and the Justice Committee considered items of subordinate legislation. 

The Justice Committee

The Justice Committee spent most of their meeting in private, discussing their draft Stage 1 Sexual Offences Report.  However, before that they considered a number of items of subordinate legislation which were all passed without comment. The exception related to an Order which sought to change the law so that ownership of a mobile phone within prison would become a criminal offence. Owning a mobile in prison is currently is prohibited under prison rules, but it is not a criminal offence, but may instead result in actions such as the removal of privileges (see the CJScotland for more information about the Government’s announcements on this ban).

While the Committee welcomed the proposals to crack down on ownership of mobiles in prison, several members wondered about other things that should also be contraband within prisons, such as violent computer games which some members argued encourage violent and sexually violent behaviour.  The Committee were made aware during the meeting that the Government are currently undertaking a wholesale review of prison rules, which will look into these matters amongst others. However, the review is due for completion only by the end of 2010, so the Committee decided to write to the Cabinet Secretary to ask him if other loopholes (i.e. ownership of violent computer games within prison) could also be made illegal through a negative Order, in the same way they are treating mobiles.  The Committee also agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary to urge him to consolidate the amendments that have been made to legislation that deals with police pensions, and this was the 21st time this Act had been amended. They would also seek the Secretary’s advice on the status of the pension fund given the recent revelations about public service pensions that have appeared in the UK press.

The rest of the Committee’s meeting continued in private. You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Equal Opportunities Committee

The Equal Opportunities Committee launched its inquiry into female offenders in the justice system, This is to be a a “short and focussed inquiry which will help members to assess the prison experience for, and background of, female offenders, particularly the extent to which prison helps to prevent women from re-offending”.

Equal Opportunities Committee female offenders inquiry home page. This includes a call for evidence on specific questions posed. See also CjScotland 18.12.08. Equal Opportunities Committee launches inquiry into female offenders.

The Chamber

Debate on Drink Driving

On Thursday morning, there was a Government led debate on drink driving in which the Scottish Government urged the UK Government to consider reducing the legal level of alcohol for drink driving from 80 to 50 mgs of alcohol per 100 mls of blood. Leading the debate, the Cabinet Secretary argued that the current level has been in place for over 40 years, and that roads, cars, and the alcohol that we drink, have all changed in that time. Many members agreed with the Cabinet Secretary that the level should be decreased, not only because it would save an estimated 50 – 65 lives a year, but also because it would bring the UK in line with most of its European neighbours.

Much of the debate centred on the issue of reserved powers and whether this was a suitable issue for the Scottish Parliament to debate. Although the Cabinet Secretary said that this was “not a constitutional issue, it was a matter of saving lives on the roads”, many Labour speakers nonetheless accused the SNP of political point scoring by using this as another issue to create distance between Holyrood and Westminster. They argued that here was a consultation process underway in England on this very issue which should be allowed to run its course. Anther theme which arose in the debate was the issue of driving whilst under the influence of drugs, which the Conservative party said was becoming an increasing problem which also had to be addressed.

Although the Conservatives and the Labour members abstained (arguing that this was a reserved issue), the Government were joined by the Liberal Democrats in the final vote, meaning that the Parliament voted in favour of reducing the drink–driving limit by a comfortable majority.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJSNewsBlog

Questions

Antisocial behaviour review

During general questions, Jim Tolson (LD) asked the Minister for Community Safety about the Government’s ongoing review into community safety, particularly with reference to whether disputes about tall hedges would be included in future legislation recommended by the strategy. The Minister replied that the review is investigating various options in relation to these disputes and that it will be published early in 2009. You can read this question in the Official Report, and watch it, together with other general questions, on Holyrood.TV

National Fraud Capability

During questions to the First Minister, Annabel Goldie asked about a report written in May by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, which criticised Scotland’s record for prosecuting fraud cases. One of the recommendations in the report was to establish a national fraud capability within three months, and Ms Goldie said that the fact that this had not happened amounted to a “scandalous dereliction of duty” on the part of the Government. Mr Salmond replied that the issue is being taken forward by a short term working group whilst another review is being carried to ascertain whether there was a need for a national fraud capability. Read this in the Official Report

Methadone Prescriptions

Later there was a question from John Wilson (SNP) about a recent report which revealed that a large percentage of addicts on methadone replacement programmes continue to offend, and the First Minister was able to talk about the national drugs strategy, which aims to rely less on methadone, and more on ‘recovery’ (i.e. complete drugs abstention). And you can read this question in the Official Report, and you can watch it, together with all other FMQs, on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There were written questions this week about how the Government aims to improve the amount of offenders who breach community orders, and about the amount of offenders who breach their order and there were a number of questions about CCTV. There was a question about how many prosecutions for assault had resulted in a direct measure and about the affect on the Scottish legal system that the creation of a UK Supreme Court will have. There were a number of questions about prisoners with learning disabilities, and about the healthcare provision for prisoners within the SPS. There was a question about prison population projection, and finally, about whether sex offenders will continue to be held in the new HMP Grampian

Posted by KM on Tue 23rd Dec 2008 at 8:50 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary review for the 8th to the 12th of December, 2008

Monday, December 15, 2008

There was a short debate to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Chamber on Wednesday, and on Thursday, there were questions to the Law and Justice Officers and to the First Minister

The Justice Committee

The Justice Committee did not meet this week, but they will be back in action next week.

The Chamber

Debate on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The last business in the Chamber on Wednesday afternoon, was a members’ business debate held to mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The debate was led by Jamie Hepburn (SNP), and the motion which was being debated praised the EDHR for being an ‘outstanding statements of the dignity, integrity and rights belonging to every human being’, which should ‘continue to serve as inspiration for the future development of Scotland’. As well as arguing for about the importance of human rights in law and in our daily lives to be recognised, his speech also emphasised the centrality of the declaration to any future independent Scotland. This was no doubt an attempt to put clear blue water between the Scottish and the UK Government after Jack Straw’s recent public statements voicing unhappiness about the way that judges have interpreted many human rights laws.

While signing up to the declaration was welcomed by all the speakers in the debate as an important step, many members also highlighted the need for this to be matched by ensuring that implementation and enforcement also occur. Members spoke about international violations of human rights in Palestine (from where a cross party group of MSPs has just returned) as well as Zimbabwe, Darfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Speakers also spoke about human rights closer to home, with Sandra White (SNP) claiming that, although Scotland allows refuges and asylum seekers to stay, we nonetheless make the experience a difficult and unpleasant experience. Bill Aitken said he may surprise the Chamber by speaking up in favour of the declaration despite acknowledging that he has been known to criticise the ‘somewhat eccentric application’ of some aspects of European human rights legislation over the years. Jack Staw’s assertion that the declaration was a ‘villain’s charter’ was criticised by Hugh O’ Donnell (LD), and closing up the debate, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, underlined the Government’s opposition to identity cards and 42 days detention. He also acknowledged however, that there may be a need to revisit the balance between rights and responsibilities, saying that there was understandable public concern on the issues such as the payouts to prisoners, when the rights of others, including victims of crime, and those who work in prisons, must also not be ignored. He concluded by emphasising that it was important to not take human rights for granted, saying ‘human rights are not only important when they are under threat; it is when they are under threat that we begin to appreciate just how important they are.’

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

Questions

Drink Driving

During questions to the First Minister, Dave Thompson (SNP), gave the First Minister the opportunity to state the Scottish Government’s support for a change in the law which would reduce drink driving limit from 80mg per 100mls of blood to 50mgs, which is limit in many other European countries. Alex Salmond said that he wished the law to be changed in Scotland, but this was currently a reserved issue, and he was ‘disappointed’ that Westminster had failed to act listen to their concerns and change the law. He also welcomed the festive drink/drugs driving campaign.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

SPSA

There were a number of questions about the SPSA and in particular about the consultation process currently under way about the location of police forensic services in the North East. This follows an earlier announcement by the SPSA that the forensics laboratory in Aberdeen was to be closed and replaced with a new one in Dundee, which received so much criticism the SPSA was forced to keep the Aberdeen facility open in the mean time and to reissue a new consultation. Richard Baker (Lab), Mike Rumbles (LD), Brian Adam (SNP) and Lewis Macdonald (Lab) all argued that the current consultation was flawed, because it did not offer any alternative to the proposed closure of the service in Aberdeen, it only listed the reasons why this had to happen. In reply, the First Minister was steadfast in his argument that the consultation would be considered in a proper and thorough way, and it must be allowed to take its course.

And you can read this question in the Official Report, and you can watch both the questions, together with the rest of FMQs, on Holyrood.TV.

Fiscal Fines

After lunch, the Justice and Law Officers were on their feet to answer questions from the Chamber. First up were a number of questions about Fiscal Fines, and the Cabinet Secretary was give the opportunity by his colleague Alasdair Morgan (SNP) to berate the UK Treasury, by arguing that the moneys received from fiscal fines should be given back to Scotland so that they can be used to ‘benefit the communities which have suffered’ as a result of many of these crimes. This was followed by a supplementary question from Bill Aitken, who wanted to know why more effort is not made to collect fines once they have been imposed, to which Kenny MacAskill replied that a new system of enforceing fine collection is currently being rolled out which will result in an improvement in this area.

Grampian Police

The issue of the proposed closure of the forensic service in Aberdeen came up once again in themed question time. Many of the points that had been made in FMQs earlier (see above), were made again, this time to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. As the First Minister before him, he replied a proper consultation was under way, and no judgement should be made until it is complete.

Drugs Courts

Claire Baker (Lab) asked the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, about the funding for the two drugs courts in Scotland which is due to come to an end in Spring next year. She argued that it was not enough to simply promise to extend funding to cover a review of the courts, because this would not provide security to those who are working in the courts, and it would also not allow sufficient time for an adequate review to take place. The Minister replied that the review in 2006 had showed widespread support from the professionals working in the courts, however, there was as yet no evidence to show that the outcomes of orders issued by the drugs courts were better than the outcomes of DTTOs issued by ordinary sheriff courts, which his party strongly supports. 

Alcohol Sales (Under 18s)

Wendy Alexander asked the Cabinet Secretary to ensure that police notify local licensing boards of any prosecutions concerning the sale of alcohol to under 18s. Kenny MacAskill replied that the police are required to automatically notify local licensing boards of such instances, and he urged Ms Alexander to write to him if she had any particular concerns about this not occurring in any police force areas.

Scottish Islamic Foundation

George Foulkes (Lab) asked the Cabinet Secretary about funding recently given to the Scottish Islamic Foundation from the race, religion and refugee integration funding stream, and he wanted to know if any Ministers had met with representatives from the SIF prior to the allocation of this grant. The Cabinet Secretary replied that this grant was issued according to the strict guidelines that apply for all such funding requests, and that if Mr Foulkes has any specific concerns about funding for the SIF he should raise them with him.

Liquor Licensing

Finally, there was a question from Jamie McGrigor (Con) about new licensing laws and their effects on small businesses. He said that many small business such as guest houses, bed and breakfasts and small licensed premises throughout his constituency in the Highlands and Islands, have had to either close down or stop selling alcohol due to the costs of the new licensing fees, which, he argued also go against the Government’s much trumpeted desire to boost Scottish tourism. The Cabinet Secretary replied that fees are set by local licensing boards, and any so concerns about them should be directed in their direction.

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or watch them on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

There was a question about addressing the numbers of children suspended from school for the consumption of alcohol, there were a number of questions about the variation in recording crimes by different police forces, and there was a question about if the Government would be prepared to discourage Scottish people from carrying ID cards. There was a question about the criminal investigation into the Clostridium difficile outbreak at a Scottish hospital, about the last weapons amnestyin Scotland, about the provisions in place for transferring prisoners’ medical information to health services in the community following their release, and finally, about the treatment of sex offenders in prison.

Posted by KM on Mon 15th Dec 2008 at 4:46 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 24th to the 28th of November, 2008

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

This week the Justice Committee took evidence from the Lord Advocate and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the last day’s consideration of Stage 1 of the Sexual Offences Bill. There were several justice related questions in the Chamber. 

The Justice Committee

Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill Stage 1

This was the final day’s session of evidence taking for Stage 1 of the Bill. The Committee heard from both the Lord Advocate and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

The Lord Advocate answered questions about the evolution of sexual offence legislation in the context of the common law tradition. Evidence given to the Committee by the Faculty of Advocates had expressed concerns about the consequences should the current common law be abolished if this bill is passed, and the Lord Advocate said this need not necessary occur: the old common law can be kept on statute alongside the new statutory offences, at least for the period following commencement of the new legislation. She also spoke about the current obstacles to securing rape convictions in Scotland, and about how, while this legislation is part of the solution, it is not the silver bullet which will cause prosecutions to rise. She spoke about the need for prosecutors to exercise ‘common sense’ in deciding when to prosecute some parts of the Bill, and about the new definition of consent as ‘free agreement’.

The Lord Advocate was asked about the provisions relating to ‘prior consent’ which have caused so much difficulty for many witnesses so far during evidence taken by the Committee. This part of the Bill means that it would be legal for someone to have sex with an individual if they were asleep or otherwise incapacitated if they had given consent to this when they were awake and able to do so. The rationale for this is that this situation may well occur in the context of an established relationship and should therefore not be criminalised. The Lord Advocate said that part of the reason for this inclusion of this part of the Bill, is to meet article 8 of the ECHR which affords the right to enjoy a private, sexual and family life without undue interference from the State, and she said there was therefore a need to not criminalise activity which takes place in the context of a happy relationship. However, she argued that there was nonetheless the need to ensure that this was not cited as a bar to prosecution by an accused who had sex with someone when they were asleep or unconscious, because of some distant recollection of consent that was given days or hours before in completely different circumstances.

In comments that were picked up by the press (see link to the Newsblog, below), she also argued that there was a need for the age of criminal responsibility to be changed, although these debates needed to take place out with the consideration of this Bill. Later, she spoke about the different penalties for sexual offences, including the possibility of imposing a fine for the offence of rape, and also about the correct way to deal with children under the age of 16 who engage in consensual activity.

The second panel comprised of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials. Reflecting that this legislation is the culmination of work carried out by the Law Commission for Scotland, and is largely non party political, Kenny MacAskill was keen to emphasise that the Government would be open to any considerations that are made by the Committee at Stage 2. He hinted specifically that he would be willing to broaden the definition of rape so as to include penetration by an object, which several witnesses have argued so should not have a subordinate place in the legislation to penile penetration. He was also asked about the tricky issue of ‘prior consent’ and he said that the Government were trying to balance their obligations under the ECHR, whilst at the same time ensuring the legislation would not be abused. During questioning, he often avoided taking a definitive stance on what could be an awkward question, saying that the Bill was based largely on the Law Commission’s report, but that he would be happy to listen to any recommendations made by the Committee when considering amendments at Stage 2. Paul Martin MSP (Lab) engaged in an exchange with the Secretary about the age of criminal responsibility, which the Lord Advocate touched on earlier, and which builds on recent comments from the Children’s Commissioner and the United Nations. The Cabinet Secretary refused to give comment on the issue, saying that this was a wider debate which had to take place at a later date, and that the Government were currently ‘considering’ the issue. However, in the mean time he was happy to continue to let the Crown use discretion about when it may be right or not to prosecute cases involving children above the age of 8. He also spoke about the choice to retain 16 as the legal age for sex, saying that, although the policy of regular non prosecution of cases of sex between children aged 13 – 16 will continue, if the age limit were reduced, this would send out the message to society that this was condoned, and that this approach had been working very well up until now so there was no need to change it.

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV.
You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog. 

The Committee papers also contain evidence given to the Equal Opportunities Committee about whether the Bill contains adequate protection from abuse to prostitutes or to people who are trafficked, and you can read these in pages 19 – 29 of the meeting papers.

The Chamber

Questions

Drunkenness and Licensed Premises

During general questions, the Cabinet Secretary replied to a question from Bill Aitken (Con) that there had been 191 reports for entering licensed premises while drunk and for being drunk on licensed premises. Mr Aitken replied that this clearly meant that their has not been the appropriate enforcement of the law as it stands, and the Cabinet Secretary agreed that this may be so, but that the licensing trade are ‘on a journey’ in which they have made recent considerable improvements. He emphasised that there can be serious and tragic consequences when someone is heavily under the influence of alcohol and then continues to drink in a licensed premises, and he said there was a need for everyone to be ‘ever vigiliant’ on this matter.

Meetings with Strathclyde Police

Bashir Ahmad (SNP) then gave the Cabinet Secretary the chance to talk about the creation of the Strathclyde Police Muslim Association which the First Minister will formally launch next week. The Secretary said that this association was welcome for two reasons: firstly it would send out a message to those who are entering the police that racism within the force will not be tolerated, and secondly because it will help with relations between the police and ethnic minority communities.

In a supplementary question from Paul Martin (Lab), he was asked about whether the Government would consider providing headcams to police officers. Mr Martin argued that the experience of police in Plymouth, who have been using this technology extensively, showed they help to reduce bureaucracy, increase arrests and reduce crime. The Cabinet Secretary replied that he is ‘watching with interest’ what is happening south of the border, and that if it can be shown that this technology can assist police, the Government would be happy to consider it, but these decisions remained operation matters left to the discretion of individual police forces.

You can read these questions in the Official Report, and watch them on Holyrood.TV

Child Protection

During FMQs, the First Minister answered a series of questions about child protection. Karen Whitefield (Lab) said that there had been an increase in child protection referrals including for unborn babies, and she wanted to know what projections the Government were working with in order to ascertain the possible figures of future referrals, in order to have resources in place to deal with them. Alex Salmond replied that the increase in child protection referrals is just a sign that more children who are at risk of harm are receiving the help and support that they need before a crisis is reached. He said that the Government are developing an early years early intervention framework for pre-conception to age eight, which will shift services away from crisis intervention to prevention and early intervention. He said that the overall number of child protection referrals has risen, while the numbers place on the child protection register has fallen, which he said shows that the early intervention that is achieved by placing a child on the child protection register is starting to have an impact.

In a supplementary question, Christine Grahame (SNP) asked whether the First Minister shared the concerns raised by Alan Baird, president of ADSW, that social workers are becoming vilified in some of the sections of the press following the Baby P case in London. The Fist Minister agreed it was important not to vilify frontline social workers, and that it was important not to generalise from one case in which there may have been bad practice. You can read this question in the Official Report and watch it (along with all the other FMQs) on Holyrood.TV

Biometric Fingerprinting in schools

Later during themed questions, there was a question for The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, about the use of biometric fingerprinting in schools. Gil Paterson (SNP) said that he had been approached by several of his constituents who said they had not been consulted on this issue by their local authorities, to which the Cabinet Secretary replied that the Government are currently consulting on draft guidance for local authorities on the use of biometric technology in schools, and that this guidance recommends that all parents should be consulted on this issue before introducing any such measures And you can read this question in the Official Report , and watch it together with the other themed questions on Holyrood.TV.

Written questions

There were several questions about licensing and alcohol, and health cost of alcohol misuse. There was a question about the amount of fraud and identity theft in recent years, and a number of questions about funding for domestic abuse in the context of the SOA. There was a question about firearms offences, and following on from last week’s bad tempered debate in the Chamber, George Foulkes asked a number of questions about ID cards, and finally, there were a number of questions about the health of prisoners.

Posted by KM on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 at 1:55 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 17th to the 21st November, 2008

Friday, November 28, 2008

This was a very busy week for justice news in the Parliament. The Justice Committee continued taking evidence as part of Stage 1 of the Sexual Offences Bill, and the Equal Opportunity Committee also took evidence as part of their Stage 1 consideration of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) Bill. In the Chamber, MSPs debated ID cards. 

The Justice Committee

Stage 1 Sexual Offences Bill

This was the penultimate week’s evidence taking for the Committee as part of their Stage 1 scrutiny.

The first panel of witnesses were representatives of ACPOS. They were first asked about their written submission which stated that the new definition of consent as meaning free agreement was rather simplistic and that it should be expanded to include terms such as ‘voluntary’ and ‘with knowledge of the nature of the act’.  Referring to the list of situations in which consent can be understood to be absent contained in the Bill, it was suggested that any definition of consent should be expanded to go beyond the absence of denial, and should include positive examples, such as positive verbal affirmations of consent, or behaviour that indicates that understanding and knowledge were present in the person who gave consent. He said that such examples would be beneficial to a jury in deliberations, rather than a more narrow definition of ‘free agreement’ which included a list of situations in which consent was absent. Regarding the provisions of the Bill which deal with children and young people, ACPOS supported the maintenance of the 16 year age threshold together with the Lord Advocate’s guidelines on discretionary prosecutions in this area, because it was necessary for the police to be able to carry out appropriate investigations into cases of all sexual intercourse or activity in this age group, because they may be inappropriate, even though many will not be.

Nigel Don pursued the point made in previous meetings about the senselessness of having a law in statute that is routinely not enforced, i.e. the practice of regularly not prosecuting consensual sexual activity between young people between the ages of 13 and 16. ACPOS said they wished to retain the illegal status of these acts so as to allow the possibility of prosecutions in cases in which free agreement may have been absent. One of the witnesses said that notions of free agreement were especially important in the context of peer pressure which plays a large role in sexual behaviour at these ages. Mr Don said that if free agreement was absent, this would fall under ss. 1 and 2 of the Bill anyway, which deal with sexual behaviour which involved coercion regardless of age, therefore there was no need to retain this part of the Bill. However, ACPOS countered that if the 16 year age threshold was reduced, agencies such as schools and social services would not bring cases to the attention of the police, many of which would warrant further investigation.

The next panel comprised of three academics who have researched this field of the law. The witnesses were asked whether they thought the Bill would have any effect on conviction rates. One witness said the Bill was welcome because it represented a tidying of the law in this area, but would not change prosecution rates significantly, and another witness agreed that the tidying up of the law was important although she also welcomed clarity in the definition of rape. The third witness also welcomed the clarification that the Bill provides, but she said that more needed to be done on the law of evidence such as sexual history evidence if conviction rates were to improve, and she said that there is a need for greater education of young people in this area. The panel was also asked about whether they thought that any definition of rape should include penetration by an object, and they replied that rape should be defined as penile penetration, with one of the witnesses saying that this act perpetrated ‘a different form of wrong’. The witnesses agreed however, that ‘penetration with an object’ should be a standalone offence, and not subsumed within the definition of ‘sexual assault’.

On consent and free agreement, although the inclusion of free agreement within legislation was to be welcomed, consent should be left out altogether, as its inclusion means that juries would apply their own understanding to the term, rather than a statutory test. There were also considerable concerns about the parts of the Bill relating to ‘prior consent’ which has also come up in previous sessions of evidence. One of the witnesses said that this would result in the Crown having to disprove the existence of prior consent in every case, which would make rape even harder to prosecute than it is already. Furthermore, it goes against the philosophical underpinnings of the Bill which are based on the idea of sexual autonomy and the idea that an individual can withdraw their consent at any time. Committee member Robert Brown raised the problematic scenario of when an individual has had too much to drink and becomes unable to consent to sexual activity, even though they may have indicated consent at an earlier time. Mr Brown argued that this would result in criminalising something that may be a common activity between adults which is ‘arguably, not criminal’. One of the witnesses replied that the parts of the Bill requiring that ‘regard is to be had to whether the [accused] took any steps to ascertain whether there was consent’, should mean that there would be a requirement on the accused to take steps to ensure the victim was able to provide free agreement or not.

The third witness panel comprised of a former commissioner of the Scottish Law Commission, which drew up the report upon which this Bill is based. He spoke about the key principles of the reform of the law in this area should be, saying that that the promotion and protection of ‘sexual autonomy’ was the primary principle of the Bill, although he acknowledged that this had clear implications for the meaning of consent. Another principle was
protection, because there were some people who were vulnerable to sexual exploitation and there are some people for whom sex is not an appropriate activity. Clarity of the law, although important in every part of the law, was particularly crucial with regards to sexual activity. He agreed with the previous panel about the effects of the Bill on rates of conviction however, and he said that the concurrent review the Crown Office are carrying out into the prosecution and investigation of rape and other sexual offences will have as much impact, if not more, than this Bill. He was asked about the part of the Bill in which a list of situations in which consent should be understood as absent, and he said that this should not be used as a definitive checklist, rather it was there to provide a non–exhaustive list of examples to juries. He defended the inclusion of ‘prior consent’ in the Bill, saying there was a need to not criminalise a situation in which a man had intercourse with a woman while she was sleeping if she had consented to having sex in that state. He said that in the context of a long established relationship this may occur with a frequency which was not so ‘statistically freakish that the law can ignore it’.

Asked about the Commission’s original suggestion that the law should decriminalise all sexual activity between 13 and 16 year olds, he said that the Commission regarded that the criminal law was not the best method of intervention in dealing with what was a social problem. He said that the involvement of the criminal law in the area of consensual sex within this age group would create a stigma for the young people involved, and that these issues would much more effectively be dealt with through the welfare provision of the Children’s Hearings systems. He made it clear that this would only apply if both parties were under the age of 16, but that 16 would remain the legal age of consent with someone over that age. 

The final panel of witnesses comprised of members of the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland. The Law Society’s written submission welcomed the Bill because it consolidates and clarifies the law in several important areas, although this alone will not solve the problem of low conviction rates. There has been little research done on exactly why juries are reluctant to prosecute these sorts of crimes, and another of the witnesses suggested that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 could be suspended in order that such a survey could be carried out.  They were asked about the thorny issue of when sexual behaviour that was initially consensual ceases to be consensual, which the Bill would currently define as rape. One of the witnesses said this area posed considerable difficulties, because there were many cases which appeared before the courts in which parties began with sexual activity in which consent seemed to be present, and then was subsequently withdrawn. He said that this clearly did need to be addressed by the law, because there was no longer consent, but that the Bill as it currently stands lets the complainer or victim alone decide when consent is withdrawn, there is no provision for how the accused is going to know that consent is withdrawn. He said that if, following the incident, the victim said they did in fact not agree to the act, but they had not made this clear to the other person concerned, this could lend them liable to prosecution for rape.

You can read all the evidence from this part of the Committee meeting in the Official Report. See also the press coverage in the CJScotland newsblog.

Subordinate Legislation - Justice of the Peace Court (Sheriffdom of Glasgow and Strathkelvin) Order 2008

The final item of business for the Committee was completing business which was carried over from last week, about subordinate legislation which implements parts of the Criminal Proceedings Act 2007. The Act makes changes to the organisation of local courts, including establishing a number of Justice of the Peace courts in the place of the existing district courts.

At last week’s meeting, Committee Member Robert Brown objected to proposals to close the district courts of Rutherglen and Kirkintilloch and move their business to a District of the Peace court in Glasgow. The Cabinet Secretary argued that moving the courts in this way was essential for the reform and rationalisation of courts throughout the country. He said that it was not sustainable to maintain courts that deal with such a low level of business as Rutherglen.

You can read this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and you can watch the whole meeting on Holyrood. TV.

The Equal Opportunities Committee

Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The Equal Opportunity Committee have been assigned the secondary Committee for this Bill, with the Justice Committee, as lead Committee considering the general principles of the Bill. This meeting took the form of a round table discussion, which allows for a more informal airing of opinions from a group of witnesses, and it also allows new ideas to emerge through discussion with each other. The focus of the meeting this morning was whether or not age and gender should be included in the Bill, though their main emphasis was on age. The Bill as it stands would create a new statutory aggravation to protect victims of crime who are targeted as a result of ‘hatred of their actual or presumed sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability’. Similar legislation already exists to protect individuals and groups targeted on racial or religious grounds, and the Committee’s remit was to explore whether the Bill should be expanded to include age and gender.

The Committee discussed whether there should be a gender aggravation aspect to the bill at an earlier specially convened meeting (see the bottom of this section for links). There was consensus among the groups that were represented at this meeting that this should not be included in the bill on the ground that it is not the best way to address the complex issue of violence against women. The witnesses accepted hate crimes are committed against women because of their gender, however, there was also concern that it might be difficult to prove that a crime was committed against someone purely for this reason, and it may also be difficult for women to appear as witnesses to such crimes

This Bill arose out of a 2004 report from the Parliament’s Working Group on Hate Crime, and was introduced to the Parliament by Patrick Harvie MSP (Green). The Working Group addressed whether age should be included in any legislation, and they concluded that it should not, because evidence shows that men between the ages of 16 and 24 are the age most likely to be involved in violent crime, and that this crime can be understood as being driven by the behaviour and lifestyle of those involved, rather than because of prejudice against people because of their age. However, there was also some evidence to suggest that, although such instances may be rare, there are a number of crimes that may be motivated at least in part, by malice or ill-will towards a particular age group, and they therefore recommended that any legislation should include a statutory provision which would allow this to be included at a future date.

In a written submission to the Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said that the Government was ‘not convinced that such an aggravation is necessary’ in this Bill, and Patrick Harvie said he was ‘remaining neutral on the inclusion of other categories’ because his intention was to implement a key recommendation of the Working Group on Hate Crime, which covered only sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability.  A number of other respondents however, were in favour of the inclusion of age (and gender) into the provisions of the Bill. Those against the inclusion of age in the legislation argued that there was little evidence that people may be the victim of offences because of their age alone, rather it is likely to be because of their vulnerability if they old, or because of their general circumstances if any other age.

The Committee were joined round the table by representatives from Christian Action Research and Education for Scotland (CARE), the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the Evangelical Alliance Scotland, Help the Aged in Scotland, and from Unison Scotland.

The spokesperson from the EHRC said that a crime committed out of ‘malice and prejudice towards a social group’, had the effect of compounding the problems that a victim of crime faces, regardless of the nature of the crime, with the knowledge that the attack was also an attack on a fundamental part of who they are, adds even more to the overall impact of that crime. He also said that, although different groups in society deserved equal protection from prejudice, it was also important to recognise that the principle of equality was not about treating everyone the same: different types of crime require different legal responses, and that including ‘aggravation related to age’.

The spokesperson from CARE said that his opinion on the inclusion of age and gender had changed over the previous weeks as he has read the submissions from other organisations. He said that although he remained concerned about the idea of a ‘hierarchy of rights’, it was important to ask whether there is a sufficient problem to generate the need for new legislation, and also if the implementation of specific measures for crimes that are targeted at certain groups will have adverse consequences for other groups. He said that based on these two questions, he did not believe there was a need for age to be included in legislation at this stage.

The spokesperson from Help the Aged also agreed that age should not be included within the Bill. He argued that the inclusion within the Bill would probably not address many of the crimes that old people do face, and also that if it were to be included and then not widely used, it may have the effect of telling elderly people that crimes against them were not being taken seriously. He also said it was crucial to distinguish between crimes committed because of malice and ill will rather than because of their vulnerability.

The spokesperson from the Evangelical Alliance supported the inclusion of age in the Bill, saying that, although the other arguments were certainly persuasive, the problem that this would in some way create a ‘hierarchy of rights’ was too fundamental to ignore. He said that the issue was one of public perception as well as public protection, and the exclusion of two of the six strands in the Bill would send out the wrong message.

The Unison spokesman argued that the inclusion of age and gender at this stage would only dilute the Bill and would detract from the focus of the legislation. However, he argued that it was necessary to monitor the situation and that the addition of a statutory instrument should be included in the Bill so that it could be expanded to include these elements at a later time.

You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the written submissions received in on the Bill‘s Committee homepage.

The Committee was not covered by the media, however, you can read the transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, and read the accompanying documents in the Committee paper. 

The Chamber

ID Cards Debate

The Government led debate about ID cards last Wednesday, which tied in with an announcement from the Home Office announcing the beginning phases of the introduction of ID cards. The Home Office also published the latest cost projections of the cards, which estimate the scheme will now cost around £5,000 million, an increase of just under £2,000 million from their initial projection made in 2004.

Opening up the debate, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, welcomed the chance to be able to put on record where his Government stood on ID cards. He said that given the new estimated cost projection, together with the current economic climate, the UK Government ought to surely be able to spend this money on better things. Some of his main criticisms concerned the dangers of storing such large amounts of personal data on the national identity register database. He highlighted the Government’s record of losing personal data and said that this risk was increased given that the collection of biometric details is being handed over to the private sector. He argued that the existence of the national identity register would actually increase the risk of fraud rather than reduce it, and that other countries have moved away from the idea of a central database of biometric information because it represents too much important data in too insecure a format. He continued that ID cards would do nothing to prevent terrorism, and also that they would create a strain between ethnic communities and the police. The Government motion stated that the cards represent a waste of money, will not increase security nor deter crime, and will have a serious impact on the civil liberties of citizens.

Next up was Robert Brown (LD) who reminded the Chamber that since the Second World War, the UK has withstood attacks from a range of fronts, including from communist spies and the IRA, all without recourse to ID cards as protection. He highlighted concerns that had also been raised by the UK Information Commissioner, who has publicly said that he is uncertain exactly what purpose ID cards are supposed to serve. When the Liberal Democrats were in coalition with Labour, his party had a firm policy of planning to refuse to allow the proposed ID cards to be used to access any devolved services, and he called on the SNP to clarify their stance on how they will interact with the UK Government on such matters. He said that ID cards are objectionable because of their intrusion into civil liberties, and their cost, which have been independently estimated at costing as much £18 billion over 10 years, which is £300 per person. However, he said that the biggest concerns with these plans, was the inability of any Government to be able to guarantee the security of such a large amount of data.

Bill Aitken for the Conservative’s, said that although this issue should be reserved for debate in Westminster, there were nonetheless some points worth making. He highlighted the research from the LSE which estimated the very high cost of the scheme and he also pointed out that none of any of the recent major atrocities would have been prevented had ID cards been introduced. He also pointed out that if any overseas national wanted to come to the UK and commit a terrorist attack, they would be able to do so even if ID cards were in place, because they would not be required to have an identity card for three months after arriving. He said that, far from reducing crime, the creation of this register would in fact trigger a massive identity fraud, and his amendment to the motion said that the money saved from scrapping ID cards, would be better spent on improving border security or policing.

Richard Baker for Labour said that that it was a waste of the Parliament’s time to be debating this issue, firstly because it does not fall within the competencies of the Scottish Parliament, and secondly because the Liberal Democrats led a debate about this very issue less than a year ago, making this a parliamentary groundhog day. He said that public opinion is in favour of ID cards, and so is the public opinion of the majority of European Countries. He said that it was important to take biometric passports (which will be required in order to meet international obligations) into account of the discussions over ID cards, because their introduction is supported by all the parties in the Chamber, and the cost of these passports will go a considerable way to offsetting the price of ID cards. He also said that the operational costs of issuing ID cards will be recovered from fees, and that anyone who says that this money should be spent on other matters is therefore missing the point. He said that the UK Government had never claimed that ID cards would prevent all terrorism, but he said that out of the 67 convictions for terrorist related activities that have occurred in the UK over the past 18 months, around 90% of them had multiple identities, and ID cards would have a role in tackling that. He said that large amounts of personal data are currently stored by many organisations including banks, and that people will benefit from a reduction in the amount of forms required to be filled out verifying identification. He said that the real problems in keeping Scotland safe lay in a Government who were showing a failure of leadership and a failure to provide the resources to build on the previous Executive’s progress on making communities safer. He said that the Scottish Government are failing to act on antisocial behaviour, failing to address the prisons crisis, and are creating a real-terms cut of £35 million in the budget for tackling crime.

The debate that followed was often acrimonious and heated, especially the contribution from George Foulkes (Lab), who had been attempting to interject during all of the earlier speeches. He said that the ID card would not hold someone’s lifestory as had been claimed by an earlier contribution, and that anyone who did not want a card to contain the information it had on it must have something to hide. He would not give way to other members in his speech as they had refused to do so to him, and accusations about misquoting debates or having incorrect facts, were thrown across the Chamber. There was a well spoken and sensible contribution from Mike Rumbles (LD), and Patrick Harvie(Green) also spoke eloquently in support of the principle of civil liberties, saying that the Government needs to understand that it is the servant, and not the master, in our society. 

All in all, this was a particularly ill tempered debate, with the Presiding Officer repeatedly having to keep Members in line. At the end of the debate, the Parliament voted in favour of the Government’s motion as amended by the Liberal Democrats.

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 coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog.

Questions

HM Prison Peterhead Inspection Report

There was a question from Alison McInnes (LD) about the inspection report into HM Prison Peterhead which had raised concerns about the shortcomings in the provision of purposeful work opportunities. She welcomed the announcement made a year ago about a new prison to replace the existing one, but she said that the fact that a planning application has not yet been lodged for the new prison means that there is a need to ensure the existing facilities do not deteriorate any further in the interim.

The Cabinet Secretary replied that the prison has developed an action plan to address the recommendations contained in the recent inspectorate report, and he also welcomed some of the positive comments made in it. Without addressing the specific point about the planning permission for the new HM Prison Grampian, he welcomed the fact that a new prison will open next month, and that two others will follow shortly.

The Labour justice spokesperson, Richard Baker, asked what was being done to ensure that those who are on the waiting list for the sex offenders’ programme receive treatment. The Justice Secretary replied that programmes to treat sex offenders are available in other institutions within the SPS as well as in Peterhead, and that it was also important to remember that sex offenders cannot be made to participate in this sort of treatment against their will .

You can read this question in the Official Report and watch it, together with other general questions, on Holyrood.TV

Stigmatisation of children

The First Minister was replaced by his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, for FMQs this week. She was asked a question by her colleague Nigel Don (SNP), about the recent Barnardo’s report which highlighted that 43% of the public surveyed though that something has to be done to protect them from children, and 45% of the public thought that children are ‘feral’ in the way they behave. Mr Don asked the Deputy First Minister what the Government was doing to reverse this trend, what steps are in place to provide the early intervention that a small group of young people do need. She replied by reiterating the point that the majority of young people are a credit to our nation, and that the Government is committed to a new agenda for young people through the Young Scot initiative, part of which will specifically target unfair and negative reporting of young people. She also said that an ‘early years framework’ which is being produced together with local authorities will be produced shortly, and that in the mean time she would ensure that the Government works closely with agencies in the youth sector to ensure that young people are supported to make a positive impact in their communities and nationally. And you can read this question in the Official Report.

Knife Culture

Duncan McNeil (Lab) whose consistency is particularly hard hit by knife crime, asked what the Government is doing to reduce the harm that is caused by knifes and blades. He said that around1,000 patients attend Glasgow dental hospital each year as a result of knife–related facial injuries, and that murder committed by a knife or sharp instrument accounts for three times as many deaths as any other cause. He went on to argue that these crimes have increased by 59% over the last two years, and there was therefore a clear need for legislation for a mandatory prison sentence for carrying a knife. Nicola Sturgeon replied that the Government was fully committed to getting knives off the streets, which included working with the violence reduction unit and other partners, together with co–ordinated enforcement, targeted education, and more effective early intervention. She said the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was considering the specific issue of mandatory knife sentences, and that the Government are already taking tough action which has resulted in 2,000 knives being confiscated this year alone, and that tougher prosecution guidelines have also been put in place which will result in longer periods of custody for carrying a blade. She concluded by saying there would be cross party support for addressing this serious problem. And you can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch both the questions to the Deputy First Minister on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There were a range of written questions this week about programmes within prisons to rehabilitate sex offenders, and a question about babies being brought up in prison, and about the provision of health care for people in police custody. There was a question about whether distillery visitor centres would be exempt from the forthcoming Licensing Act or not (they will not), and about the number of community sentences that are being carried out nationally. There was a question about data on racially aggravated crimes reported in the different police forces, and about the amount of funding given to Children’s Panels in the current spending review period. There was another question about funding for the Children’s Panel. There were a number of questions about alcohol, firstly about the breakdown of alcohol related offences throughout the Lothians region, and about how many pupils have been suspended from school for alcohol misuse, and finally about the test purchasing scheme

Posted by KM on Fri 28th Nov 2008 at 8:55 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 3rd - 7th of November, 2008

Monday, November 10, 2008

This week the Justice Committee heard their second session of evidence as part of the scrutiny of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, all of which related to the parts of the Bill which affect young people and children. This theme continued in the Chamber, where there was a debate about the United Nation’s Convention of the Rights of the Child.

The Justice Committee

Scrutiny of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill

The Committee met on Tuesday to hear their second day of evidence as part of the scrutiny into the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill from three panels of witnesses about the areas of the Bill relating to children and young people. The Bill would criminalise all sexual activity involving children under the age of 13, (even if all who were involved were children and claimed to have consented), and, even though consensual sex between older children would be criminalised, the law would routinely not be enforced, and when it was this would be at the Lord Advocate’s discretion. This is in order to not criminalise the significant minority of children under 16 who do engage in sex, whilst still sending out the message that it is not approved of.

The first panel consisted of representatives from the voluntary sector organisations Children First, Children in Scotland, and Barnardo’s Scotland. Many of the questions they were asked were developing points they had made in their written submissions (which you can read on the Bill’s Committee homepage). Firstly, and mirroring recommendations that were made by the witnesses last week, the witnesses said that the list of situations in which consent should be regarded as being absent (for example, if someone is incapacitated through alcohol), should be extended to include cases in which the victim has previously been the victim of physical or sexual abuse by the accused, and cases in which the victim agreed to or submitted to the act because he or she was subject to emotional or psychological abuse.

The witnesses also said that they welcomed the Bill’s proposals that children under the age of 13 cannot give proper consent to sexual relations, although they also said that this part of the Bill was inconsistent with the fact that children under this age would be prosecuted if they engaged in consensual sexual activity. They said that, if children this age were not able to give consent to sexual activity, they should not then be held responsible for engaging in non–coercive and non–exploitative sexual activity themselves, or at least that there should be discretion in prosecution decisions to avoid unnecessary criminalisation.

This raised the interesting point (also raised last week), of the merits or otherwise of having a law which is routinely not enforced (viz. the Lord Advocate’s guidelines which state that consensual sex between the ages of 13 –15 should generally not be prosecuted). The witnesses said that, although it was important to make sure the precise wording of the legislation was as tight as possible, there was also need for flexibility and discretion in the law, with one witness saying that, the accompanying guidance to professionals involved in the implementation of the law, was as important as the precise wording of the law in statute.

There were interesting discussions about the age of criminal responsibility in general and in particular about the part of the Bill that would prosecute children under 13 if they engaged in sexual activity. Paul Martin (Lab) raised the scenario of a 12 year old child who assaults a 2 year old, saying that in such a case criminal proceedings should surely be considered. There was slight disagreement from the witnesses on this issue: Children 1st said that even if the behaviour of a 12 is unacceptable, the behaviour must be considered as a care and protection issue, rather than a criminal justice one. Barnardo’s Scotland said that, although such cases would be very rare, the Bill should not be amended to remove the possibility of children under 13 being criminally responsible for sexual behaviour. Children in Scotland said that as a general principle they were against the criminalisation of young children, but it was up to the Committee to recommend whether a presumption of non–prosecution would be put aside in certain cases or not.

The witnesses were also asked about the parts of the Bill dealing with sexual activity of those between the ages of 13 and 15, especially in light of evidence that says that around 30% of Scottish youngsters first have sex before the age of 16. The witnesses said that the best of way of discouraging young people of having sex before they are ready is to provide them with information and access to sexual health services,rather than to criminalise sex. However, the witnesses were keen to emphasise that sex before 16 should not be encouraged or approved of, but that it was nonetheless important that if it was going to happen, it should not be compounded by the additional problems of spreading sexually transmitted infections or unwanted pregnancies.

The next panel was the Scottish Children’s Commissioner, Kathleen Marshall. She said that it was important that young people are involved in the formulation of law and policy in this area, but that this would need to be carried out in a sensitive way given the subject area. She said that this is required by article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which says that young people’s views need to be taken account of in the formulation of law which affects them, and that, as an absolute minimum, this should involve 13, 14 and 15 year olds. She said that although she was disappointed that children’s views have so far not been heard as part of the formulation of this Bill, it was still not too late to carry out such a consultation.

Regarding the issue of whether a child under the age of 13 should be prosecuted for sexual activity, she said she was unequivocally against this idea, even if the behaviour was extreme, involving violence for example. She said that it was crucial to differentiate between the ’moral responsibility’ of the child by knowing right from wrong, and the age of ‘criminal liability and the age of criminal prosecution’. Therefore, even if a 12 year old had committed a serious sexual offence and they knew that it was wrong, they should still not be criminalised because children should be regarded as a developing being who are redeemable, and such a case would raise serious issues about the life and experiences of the young person in question.

She was also asked about the proposals which would effectively decriminalise consenting sexual activity between 13 and 15 year olds, and she said that although this was to be cautiously welcomed, it was also necessary to ensure that this did not give the message that the age of consent was being lowered, and there should therefore be a simultaneous and high profile public health campaign to emphasis that 16 was still the legal age of consent, which would ensure that young people do not feel pressurised to engage in sexual activity before they are ready.

The final panel was comprised of professionals from the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, who were able to shed light on current practice involving young people who engage in sexual behaviour. The witnesses said that the majority of the cases should be considered along welfare, care and protection lines and sent to a children’s hearing, and that the Bill would not significantly alter the decision making process they currently make about the best way to deal with these cases. They said that the hearing system allows for individual assessment to be carried out for each case, which would also get around the problem of trying to write the legislation in statute to accommodate individual cases. They were also critical of the proposals in the Bill which would criminalise young people under the age of 13, saying that apart from anything else, this would raise significant practical problems, and they gave the example of whether a young female who is pregnant, saying that she could either be regarded as the victim of a serious offence or as having committed an offence herself. This would then create challenges for the agencies involved which would treat her differently depending on which category she fell into.

The Committee concluded their meeting in private by considering the evidence they had heard.

You can read all the evidence in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read more about the different aspects of the Bill on its homepage.

The Chamber

Debate on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

There was a debate on Thursday led by the Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, about children’s rights in Scotland. This follows the conclusion of the most recent reporting cycle of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is a five-yearly audit showing where states fall short in compliance with the convention. Although the focus is largely on the UK, the majority of the recommendations are directly relevant to Scotland. Amongst the areas of concern raised in the UN’s report relating to Scotland, were the low age of criminal responsibility and the practice of locking up 16 and 17 year olds in adult prisons. The Scottish Children’s Commissioner has also recommended that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Children should be incorporated into Scottish domestic law.

Opening up the speech, the Cabinet Secretary said that the Scottish Government would take positive action on the issues that have been raised, and she said that Scotland has a strong tradition of protecting, including and providing for children, and she said that the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child must be achieved as these are the ‘;international gold standard’. She said that the Government has made clear its commitment to the provisions of the convention, which are a driver for improvements to children’s rights across the world.

She said that work by the current and previous administrations have lead to a significant improvement of the way that asylum seekers and their families are treated within Scotland, saying that a Scottish ‘alternative to detention’ pilot is being developed which aims to be able to take the first families in early New Year. She also said that the Government remained committed to ending the remand of under–16s in prison. This point was picked up by George Foulkes (Lab), who reminded the Chamber in an intervention to Ms Hyslop’s speech, that the Justice Secretary had said in February that no more children would be held in prisons, yet, and as the Chief Inspector of Prisons highlighted in his latest annual report, six more have been incarcerated since then. Ms Hyslop said that the Justice Secretary’s announcements about ending remand for under–16s were recognised and praised by the UN Committee, and that the present Government are working to deal with measures introduced by the previous Administration such as unruly certificates for 14 and 15 year olds.

Cathie Craigie (Lab), who also sits on the Justice Committee, asked why children were not consulted as part of the formulation of the Sexual Offences Scotland Bill (see above). Ms Hyslop said that this was an important issue, and she awaited the committee’s response on it with interest. She praised the work carried out by the present Commissioner for Children and Young People, Kathleen Marshall, saying she had worked tirelessly to ensure that all children, particularly the most vulnerable, are listened to and represented.

One of the areas that the UN Committee was critical of the current Scottish practice, was the age of criminal responsibility (8). The Secretary said this issue was ‘philosophically complex’ for Scotland, and she said that the Government would reflect and carefully consider their response, although the fact that Scotland has a welfare based system of justice for young people would also be reflected in any changes that may be brought about through legislation.

Speaking for Labour, Karen Whitefield welcomed the UK Government’s recent moves to remove the two reservations on the convention relating to immigration and children in custody with adults, and she said that in light of the Committee’s comments about the very low age of criminal responsibility in Scotland, it was now time to have a wide ranging debate about the issue. She also pointed out that just because the present Government are consulting on the abolition of unruly certificates, this does not guarantee that no children will be kept in adult prisons any more. In response to an intervention from Ms Hyslop however, she did welcome the recent announcements that 17 and 18 year olds who have been in secure accommodation should remain there rather than being transferred, as they have been previously, to either young offenders institutions or adult prisons.

Elizabeth Smith (Con) said that it was the moral as well as the legislative obligation of any Parliament to ensure that children are protected, however, she questioned whether the State should legislate on all the issues cited in the report and whether there is either a political or moral obligation to adopt every recommendation. She said that the Conservative Party accepts most of the recommendations of the Committee’s report, but they nonetheless feel that the legal and libertarian implications should be subject of more extensive debate.

For the Liberal Democrats, Nicol Stephen said that a lot has been done on children’s rights and involvement in Scotland: there is now a Children’s Parliament, a Scottish Youth Parliament, a new Commissioner for Children and Young People and a Scottish Commission for Human Rights. However, he said the tenor of debate that came from the political parties was unhelpful, saying that young people are talked down and portrayed as the problem, with Labour calling for ASBOs against 10 year olds, and the SNP pushing to ban alcohol for those aged between 18 and 21. He also said that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be incorporated into Scots law, and that children should be involved in decision making at all levels and in meaningful ways.

The speeches which followed touched on health, justice and education, with many members keen to put their views on record. There were more calls to incorporate the Convention into Scots Law, and there were also calls to end the discrimination faced by the children in Gypsy Traveller communities. There were further criticisms of the practice of holding children in Dungavel and other immigration institutions, and the point that children’s voices ought to be heard in the policy making process, was also reiterated.

You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Record, or watch it on Holyrood.TV

See also

“UN Committee on Rights of the Child reports on UK: implications for Scottish child justice” CJScotland 6.10.08

Written questions

There were written questions this week about how much the Government spent on alcohol test purchasing schemes, and about awareness raising of the laws relating to underage alcohol purchasing. There were further questions about alcohol, which showed that a total of 329 pupils were suspended from school for alcohol misuse in 2006-7, and about what sanctions are available against licenses who sell alcohol to customers who are already drunk. There were more questions about the final implementation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, including what guidance has been given to police officers about this legislation http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/pqa/wa-08/wa1106.htm#17. There was a question about collecting anonymous data on knife crime, some questions about private security firms, and a question about what the Government is doing to include more women and ethnic minorities in judicial appointments. There were a number of questions about knife crime, and about whether the Government would consider holding a cold case review into a death ten years ago. There was a question about a possible single non emergency telephone number for the police, and about police force revenue ad expenditure. There was a question about what is being done to reduce the number of women in prison, and about the site of a new prison to replace HM Prison Greenock. 

Posted by KM on Mon 10th Nov 2008 at 11:12 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 29th of September to the 3rd October 2008

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

In an important week for justice business in Parliament the SPS Chief Executive gave evidence to the Justice Committee on prison overcrowding, and the Government was defeated over proposals to increase the age limit for purchasing alcohol. These topics also featured during First Minister’s Questions, and there were also questions for the Law Officers. 

Justice Committee

The Committee began a busy meeting by taking evidence as part of their consideration of a number of items of subordinate legislation including the Scottish Commission for Human Rights (Specification) Order 2008 (Draft). This allows the Commission of Human Rights to conduct inquiries about whether the human rights contained in the Convention are being respected. This order was agreed to without debate.

The Committee then agreed to two negative instruments, which were agreed to without debate.

You can read all the questions relation to these orders in the Official Report, and you can also read details of them in the meetings Papers. You can also watch this part of the meeting on Holyrood.TV

Consideration of the draft budget

The Government published the Draft Budget Bill in mid September. This will now be scrutinised by subject committees and then be voted on as a whole by the Parliament early in the New Year. This year the draft budget looks as though it will be as controversial as the last, with the diversion of £10 million spending from prisons in the Justice portfolio, to be spent in the Health and Wellbeing portfolio to meet plans for the acceleration of the Affordable Housing Investment Programme. Although this money will be repaid to the prisons in the following year, the timing is unfortunate for the Government, because of the pressing current problem of prison overcrowding.

Mike Ewart’s written submission to the Committee was uncompromising about the pressures on the system. It said that when the budget for 2008–09 was first announced one year ago, there was enough funding to cope with the projected prison population and to make progress with the on-going modernisation of the prison estate. However, since then, the prison population has increased such that in September this year, the SPS held an extra 550 prisoners in custody and an extra 40 on HDC, than the population projection. If prisoner numbers were to fall to the projected figure, the service would be able to absorb the efficiency savings, together, with the other inflationary pressures which are facing the whole public sector, but that, if prisoner numbers were to continue at their current levels, the service should expect additional funding to cope with these pressures.

He had asked his Governors to assess the absolute maximum level that prisons could operate at whilst still meeting their minimum requirements under health and safety requirements for both prisoners and staff, the need to deliver acceptable regimes, and the ECHR. He said that prisons are currently operating considerably in excess of this limit, which has consequences such as prisoners may not be able to access their statutory entitlements to visits, they may not receive healthcare services, and there are threats to good order as prisoners compete with each other over access to services such as telephones and work places. This all means that the SPS can ‘no longer guarantee that the continued operation of Scotland’s prisons is operationally safe or compliant with … legal obligations’.

The Committee convenor, Bill Aitken, expressed concern that the Chief Executive’s views had appeared widely in the press. Mr Aitken said that the issues surrounding the budgetary and operational constraints of the SPS, were matters were for the Committee and the Committee alone to determine, and he would ‘be grateful’ if this were remembered in the future.

Paul Martin’s (Lab) questioning focused on the inaccuracy of the prison population projections. Mr Ewart replied that, although there was ongoing work to improve the way that projected figures are arrived at, they are nonetheless always going to be projections, and not predictions, and he said that the figures were alarming because they were significantly above the growth that was expected. Later in the meeting he emphasised this point again, saying that the reasons the projections and the reality were along way from each other, was not because someone ‘messed up’ the projections, but because the reality had been influenced by a range of factors which could not have been taken into account in the projections.

He was asked by Cathie Craigie (Lab) what plans the SPS had for responding to overcrowding in the short term, and he replied that there is no capacity in the system to allow expansion beyond the limits of existing buildings, but that if any other expansion in population did occur, this would require measures such as mattresses on gym floors. He also said that the SPS had not yet asked the Government for additional funding, and that they have been talking to ministers about potential measures to reduce the prison population. Ms Craigie remarked that if the SPS had been able to make public comment in the press and elsewhere about prisoner numbers, then surely they were in a position to request more money from the Government to deal with overcrowding. He replied that he is in dialogue with Ministers on ‘pretty much a daily basis’ and he would be ready to make the case for extra funding, but he said that it was the Government’s objective to reduce the prison population first. He said that the problem of overcrowding was one that additional financial resources could not solve alone, because there were also significant pressures on prison officers and prison management and the administrative burden of running such large establishments.

Mr Ewart also confirmed that there was no contingency plan to deal with an emergency such as a fire or a flood. He said that if this were to occur, he would be forced to have to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to grant an emergency release of prisoners which would have to be agreed to by Parliament.

He confirmed that the new prison in Addiewell would be operational from the 12th December, but there would be a slow ‘ramping up’ process before it was fully operational, in March next year. There would also be extra prison capacity with new wings opening in HMP Edinburgh and HMP Polmont over the next year.

He was asked whether the £10 million decrease in the prisons budget for this year would make the situation of overcrowding any easier to manage, and he replied that they can accommodate the shift between years by adjusting the overall flow of spending on various projects without interfering with the timetables for the delivery of any major projects. In response to a question from Robert Brown (Lab), he also confirmed that the consequences of changing the procurement methods for the new prison at Bishopbriggs from private to public, has added an additional year to the overall time before it is expected to be on stream.

At the end of the meeting, Mr Ewart emphasised to the Committee that the media attention that had been received as a result of this meeting, had in now way been sought by the SPS, but was merely as a result of the written evidence which had been submitted and published on the Parliament’s website prior to the meeting.  He said that he had even been contacted by a number of broadsheet newspapers in the run-up to the meeting for comment, and he had declined because he wanted to speak to the Committee before anyone else heard what he had to say.

You can read the SPS’s written evidence in pages 38 – 61 of the Committee Papers.

The Committee were in a similarly robust mood as they interviewed the next panel of witnesses who were from ACPOS. They were also chided by the Committee, this time for not having to hand exact figures of how many additional police officers have been recruited over the past year, and how many are projected to come on stream. The Committee argued that, given that policing numbers was one of the key areas of last year’s budget, this was critical to the Committee’s consideration of the current draft budget.

Evidence was given on funding for new police officers, and about how many police retire versus how many are eligible to retire. The panel also said that the projected pensions shortfall is now approaching £40 million, and urgent talks are being held with the Scottish Government on how to manage this problem. Meeting the target of 2% efficiency savings that is required from all the public sector would be more of a challenge this year, given the savings had been achieved over the previous 3 year spending review period. However, they hoped to make a number of savings due to a number of technological developments which would free up officers from some of their current duties. In answer to questions about the SPSA, the view was that it was still early days, and that it be appropriate to carry out a review of its progress so far in one year’s time or so. At the end of the meeting, the witnesses agreed to provide the Committee with the written evidence regarding police numbers by the end of the week. 
You can read ACPOS’s written evidence in pages 62–70 of the Committee Papers.

You can also read the transcripts of the Committee’s consideration of the draft budget in the Official Report. The evidence as part of the draft budget scrutiny was not televised, so it is not available on Holyrood.TV.

The Chamber

Debate on alcohol age limit

On Thursday morning, there was a Conservative lead debate on the Government’s plans to increase the age-limit for buying alcohol in off-licences from 18 to 21.

The debate was opened by Murdo Fraser (Con) who outlined the facts about alcohol misuse in Scotland. The Government were right to introduce an alcohol strategy to tackle these problems and the Conservatives were happy to work with the Government on some proposals such as some sort of system of minimum pricing for alcohol. He then went on to say that it was ‘a shame’ that the ‘ludicrous’ proposal on raising the legal age limit had overshadowed what could otherwise be a debate based on some consensus. Anomalies would arise such as the 20&n dash;year–old soldiers who have returned from a tour of duty who would be unable to buy a bottle of champagne from an off-licence to celebrate, although they would still be able to purchase alcohol in a pub. The Vice-president of the Royal Statistical Society, Professor Sheila Bird, has questioned Scottish Government claims for the reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour in the pilot areas as being either spinning the figures or simply being naïve when it came to drawing any meaningful inferences. He pointed out the opposition from SNP’s own backbenches and also the SNP’s student wing. He said that Conservative proposals would be to target problem drinkers, who belong to all age groups in society, and to strengthen existing laws in relation to underage drinking.

Speaking for the Government, Kenny MacAskill said that the Conservatives only ‘carp and complain’ from the sidelines, but offered no input into the consultation. Alcohol misuse was not a minority issue. He accused the Conservatives of being the ‘carrie-oot provider’, and he highlighted that the London Mayor, Boris Johnston recently supported the 21 age initiative in Croydon, saying that the Conservative were in favour of these proposals for the home counties, but not for ‘housing schemes in small-town Scotland’. He said that, although they acknowledged that there was a need for a cultural changes as well as legislative change, there was a need for legislative change because the status quo was no longer acceptable.

Speaking for the Labour party, Richard Baker said that if the Government were prepared to listen as they keep insisting they are, then rather than chastising the Opposition parties for not contributing to the official consultation, they should take heed of what is being said in the Parliamentary debate and not take these plans any further. He also highlighted the anomalies in their plans with regards to the different age limits for different activities, and he also said that there was a need for greater enforcement of existing legislation. He said that there was a need to ensure that young people could not procure alcohol from the family home, and he said that greater funding for local policing is the best way to tackle young people engaging in anti-social behaviour.

Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Ross Finnie argued that 18 – 21 year olds were part of the solution and not the problem: if the Government were keen to encourage responsible drinking on the part of young people, then it was this age group that needed to learn new habits, rather than not be given the chance to change at all. He said that no one was arguing with the Government’s declaration that there was a need for action to tackle the cultural problem of Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, and that the plans on the age limit had overshadowed what was otherwise a welcome debate. He said that there were many areas of the range of proposals which had merit, such as plans to link the price of alcohol with consumption, how to extend bottle labelling and separate bottle marking, and how to increase levels of education. He also argues that it would be spurious to draw any firm conclusions from the pilots where the age limit was increased, saying that these areas also benefited from a range of other additional community safety resources at a similar time.

The Conservative motion which rejected the Government’s proposals for raising the age limit, were agreed to by 72 to 47. Although this vote is not binding, it provides a clear indication of the sort of opposition the Government will face to push through the legislation

You can read the full transcripts of this debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also read the press in the CJScotland newsblog. 

Questions

The issue of the alcohol age limit featured later during First Minister’s Questions. Iain Gray called the plans to increase the age limit as being ‘unfair, unworkable, ineffective and frankly, daft’. He said that although Labour does recognise there is a problem with alcohol, it calls for a mandatory proof of age scheme together with tougher enforcement of existing legislation. He accused the SNP of being divided on this issue, and he said that results from the piloted areas in which the age limit was increased, have been mixed, and were even questioned by the Royal Statistical Society.

In reply, the First Minister firstly accused all the Opposition parties of not contributing to the consultation on alcohol policy. He said that evidence had shown that one third of young people are in favour, one third against and one third are not sure, and that there was also substantial support from the community. He again went through the results of the piloted areas, saying that there had been a reduction in anti-social behaviour, and crimes such as breach of the peace and minor assaults. He said that from police through to retailers had welcomed the crackdown in the pilot areas, and he challenged Labour to say exactly what their plans were for tackling the problem of alcohol.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

Annabel Goldie picked up on points made in the Justice Committee about prison overcrowding. She quoted the Official Report from March this year, in which the Justice Secretary said in the Chamber that ‘contingency plans were in place’ to deal with if prisons were to become damaged or destroyed, and she then quoted the Chief Executive of the SPS who told the Justice Committee earlier in the week that no such contingency plans existed, and that if such an emergency were to take place, there would have to be a release of prisoners, voted by the Parliament. She said that there was a need to ensure that prison capacity matched the prison population, that the Government should act to deal with the crisis that is happening ‘right now’, and a much better ‘plan B’ would be to find more prison places immediately. The First Minister replied that contingency plans were indeed in place although he did not say what these were. He also said that this week had seen figures released which showed the lowest recorded crime rate in Scotland for 25 years, yet there is also the highest prisoner population. He said that it was time to consider the underlying causes of prison overcrowding, which the Conservative party had to take some responsibility for, and that it was time to find better disposals and a better way of dealing with offenders sentenced to short sentences.

You can read this question in the Official Report

Cathy Craigie (Lab, who also sits on the Justice Committee) called on the First Minister to dismiss suggestions that had been floated in the press about using the Open Estate as secure custody. She also called on him to provide additional resources to the SPS to employ more officers to deal with the current crisis, and to publish any emergency or contingency plans that are in place. The First Minister reiterated the points made earlier about building new prisons and the annual investment into the prison estate, and about the need to review sentencing, given the anomaly of lower rates of crime and increasing levels of prison population. He said he would not publish any operational plans the SPS has in place, and he accused the Labour party of not having any plans in place either, and of under investing in prisons during their whole tenure in office. 

And you can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch all FMQs on Holyrood.TV.

Questions for the Law and Justice Officers

Fiscal Fines

Sandra White (SNP) asked about the collection and retention of money from Fiscal Fines. Kenny MacAskill replied that discussions were under way between the Scottish Government and HM Treasury to agree the details for the retention of the money collected from these fines, which are collected by the Scottish Court Service. He also said that the Lord Advocate had been considering ways to put the moneys that had been collected back into ‘communities which suffer the most from crime’, saying that part of the drive for ‘instant justice’ was the people had to realise that they had rights as well as responsibilities.

Police Negotiation Board Replacement

The Justice Secretary was then asked by John Scott (Con) about the Home Office consultation on replacing the Police Negotiating Board with a new pay review body. He said that following the Home Secretary’s decision to overturn the independently arbitrated pay award, police over the whole of the UK had little faith in the new proposals for reviewing police pay. Mr Scott also called on the Government to back calls from the Scottish Police Federation that an arbitrary pay settlement should be binding. The Cabinet Secretary replied that before he formally issues his response to the consultation, he wants to hear the views of stakeholders and any others who feel strongly about this issue, but that the Government was on record saying that such settlements should be binding.

Community Sentences and Vandalism and Graffiti

There was a question for the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, from Bill Kidd (SNP) about if the Government had plans for those who carry out vandalism and graffiti to do community punishments. The Minister replied that there was a range of community punishments available for such offences, including piloted fiscal work orders in four areas, where low level offenders carry out 10-50 hours ‘payback’ work, and he highlighted laws such as powers under the Antisocial Behaviour Act which prohibit the sale of aerosols to people under 16. He was asked by Robert Brown (LD) about the Government’s approach to community sentences in respect of the problem of overcrowding in prisons, and he replied that the Government backed making offenders ‘give payback’ rather than ‘sit on their haunches’ in a prison cell. Richard Baker (Lab) asked about the Government’s commitment to community penalties, given that the community safety budget has been cut, and the Minister replied that rather than ‘whining, whingeing, moaning’ and calling for endless more resources to be ‘aimlessly ploughed into every problem under the sun’, Labour should instead welcome the Government’s approach to community sentencing, or offer something else in the way of alternatives.

Travelling people

There was a question about the application of law in relation to the unauthorised encampment of travelling people from Alex Johnstone. He said that in some areas, local authorities have chosen to not implement the law as they would in respect of ‘other sectors of the community. The Cabinet Secretary replied that, while he would fully support local authorities in their implemenation of the law, there was also a need for local democracy which would respect the need for local factors to be taken into account, and local authorities must therefore be able to make decisions based on what was appropriate locally.

Knife Crime

The Lord Advocate was asked by Mary Mulligan (Lab) whether there was any reason that the Government continued to argue against mandatory custodial sentences for carrying knives. The Lord Advocate replied that sentencing must remain an issue for the courts alone to decide, and that policy decisions on a mandatory or minimum sentence are also not for the Lord Advocate to comment on. However, she said that the possibility of a sentencing council which developed sentencing guidelines, would be a practical alternative to mandatory or minimum sentences, which can be arbitrary and remove judicial discretion. She said that every case is specific, and courts must therefore be given the independence that will allow them to sentence correctly and to do so within a context in which there is clear guidance and an expectation of tough action. She said there was a need for a strong deterrent message to be sent to those who might consider carrying a knife, and that sentencing guidelines might help courts to ensure that sentences are tough and also robust enough to ensure public protection.

Licence Withdrawal for Off-sales

Finally, there was a question from Jackson Carlaw (Con) about how many off-licences had their licence for selling alcohol withdrawn for selling alcohol to those under the age of 18. He said that before the Government introduces fresh legislation, there should be a greater effort to ensure that the current laws are enforced. The Cabinet Secretary replied that he did not have specific information on this but that test-purchasing is beginning to have an effect, with fewer shops failing this test. He also said that he was committed to enforcing existing legislation and implementing and rolling out legislation passed under the previous Government.

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or watch them on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Written questions

There were written questions this week about enforcing the current laws controlling the sale of alcohol, and about whether the proposals on raising the alcohol purchase age are compatible with the ECHR. There was also a question about the European Commission’s drugs strategy for 2009 - 12, and about the use of community penalties in each of the sheriffdoms throughout Scotland. There was a question about the number of new police recruits over the past year, and finally about how anti–sectarian projects are funded.

Posted by KM on Wed 8th Oct 2008 at 10:33 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 22nd to the 26th of September

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The main item of justice news in the Parliament last week was the Stage 3 debate of the Judiciary and Courts Bill. There were also a number of justice questions to Ministers. 

The Justice Committee

The Committee did not meet this week; but they will be back in action again on the 30th of September when it will take evidence on the draft Budget Bill.

The Chamber

Judiciary and Courts Bill Stage 3 debate

Last Thursday the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill cleared its final Parliamentary hurdle with its Stage 3 debate in the Chamber. This Bill will modernise the structure and functioning of the judiciary and enshrine judicial independence in statute. The Bill will make the Lord President, (currently Lord Hamilton), the head of the Scottish Court Service (SCS), and give his office control over issues such as judicial training and discipline. It will also place the SCS under a statutory duty to take account of public and court users’ needs, and also place the Judicial Appointments Board on a statutory footing.

During previous stages of Parliamentary scrutiny, concerns had been raised that this legislation would place too much of an administrative burden on the Lord President’s office, and there were also concerns about a lack of accountability of the functioning of courts if the SCS were to become a non-Ministerial Department. There were also some robust debates in the Justice Committee about whether all aspects of judicial training should be mandatory or not.  Some of these concerns were addressed prior to Stage 3: there was an independent evaluation which concluded that there would be no excessive administrative burden on the Lord President, and a Committee amendment also meant that every member of the judiciary must attend any training that the Lord President considers necessary.

The debate on Thursday began by debating the Stage 3 amendments to the Bill. The first major grouping of amendments concerned the possible lack of accountability of the functioning of the courts, now that their control lay in the hands of the Lord President and not the Government. Paul Martin (Lab), and Cathy Craigie (Lab), argued that the management of courts was a different from judicial independence, and the Lord President should therefore be compelled to come and answer questions in the Parliament if there were concerns about the functioning of the courts. However, the Justice Secretary was able to persuade them that there were already sufficient mechanisms in the Bill for ensuring accountability, and the amendments were withdrawn.

There were also a group of amendments lead by Bill Aitken (Con) about the Judicial Appointments Board (JAB), which would require it to inform possible candidates if they have been recommended for appointment, and also (if there are several potential candidates), any ranking they have been given. These amendments were voted down by the Government who were supported by the Liberal Democrats. Another group of amendments successfully put forward by Bill Aitken would allow anyone who was removed from the JAB for reasons of misconduct on incompetence, to be able to speak in their defence.

Following this, there was the final debate about the newly amended Bill, lead by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. He said that although this piece of legislation ‘may not ignite the nation’s passions’, it was nonetheless of great constitutional importance. He acknowledged that the genesis for the Bill lay with the previous Administration, and he paid tribute to Cathy Jamieson in particular, for her role in its formulation. This point was followed up by Labour’s new justice spokesperson, Richard Baker. Bill Aitken for the Conservatives also highlighted the role of the Justice Committee and he welcomed what he called the ‘rare co-operative venture’ during the whole Parliamentary consideration of this Bill. Mike Pringle (LD) also mentioned the constitutional significance of this Bill, despite it uncontroversial nature, and speakers from across the Chamber welcomed the Bill in what were remarkably consensual contributions. At the end of the debate, the Bill was agreed without opposition.

You can read the full transcripts of this Bill in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also find out the details of the Bill on its homepage, and read the press coverage in the newsblog.

Questions

Alcohol Strategy

There was a question from David McLetchie (Con) which asked whether the law which permits alcohol to be sold at international rugby matches in Murrayfield, to be consistent with the Government’s alcohol strategy, which aims at reducing the irresponsible consumption of alcohol. He said it was inconsistent to endorse the consumption of alcohol for those between the ages of 18 and 21 in a sports stadium, but then forbid them to buy alcohol in an off-license to enjoy whilst watching the game on television at home. The Justice Secretary replied that this was not inconsistent, that the Government were opposed to alcohol misuse, which is different from being anti alcohol, and he said that the removal of the ban at Murrayfield had meant there was no longer public drinking in surrounding areas prior to big matches.
You can read this question in the Official Report.

Sectarianism

There was a question from David Whitton (Lab) about sectarianism, in which he demanded assurances from the Government that they were addressing the issue of sectarianism, in the light of recent concern expressed by politicians in Ireland about songs sung by both Rangers and Celtic fans during football matches. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, replied that this issue was indeed taken very seriously by this Government, and he listed a range of events that have taken place and groups that have been convened, with the aim of addressing this issue.

And you can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch these questions on Holyrood.TV.

The Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency

There was a question for the First Minister which gave him the opportunity to highlight the recently published annual report of the SCDEA, which said that class A drugs worth an estimated £16 million were seized in Scotland last year. Mr Salmond said that fighting organised crime was a large part of the fight against drugs, and he highlighted the work of the Serious Organised Crime Taskforce in this task. He also said that the forthcoming Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill will include new offences dealing with organised crime, including encouraging a greater use of financial reporting orders which require convicted offenders to report their finances to police for a period of time after their conviction. During supplementary questions, he also said that progress was being made in the completion of the Gartcosh campus, which is still aiming to be complete by 2011.

And you can read this question in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There was a question about the number of cases of alcohol poisoning, and about the number of direct measures issued for crimes of indecency, and about Crown guidelines for the translation of English evidence into other languages. There were questions about dealing with drug addicts held in police cells, a question about whether reconviction statistics for individual prisons would be collated, and a question which confirmed that the re conviction rate for those released from custody in 2004 – 5 was 62%, and 55% for all those who were sentenced to a community sentence. There were a number of questions about convictions for selling alcohol to under-age people, and a question about the provision of ‘harm reduction packs’ for addicts in prison. There was a question about what the SPS is doing to combat the spread of drugs within prison, and about the number of sexual offences committed throughout Scotland. And finally, there was a question about the penalties imposed for terrorism offences in Scotland.

Posted by KM on Tue 30th Sep 2008 at 9:30 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 15th –19th September

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

This was an exceptionally quiet week for justice activity in the Parliament. There were no justice debates in the Chamber, and most of the Justice Committee’s work took place behind closed doors. 

Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Most of the Committee’s meeting last week was held in private, apart from a brief discussion with the Cabinet Secretary about a piece of subordinate legislation, which would allow the transition to be made from the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. This Commission was established by the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 in order to improve the way that complaints are handled against the legal profession.

After a short debate, the Committee agreed to the Order, and the rest of the meeting was spent in private. 

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV

The Chamber

Questions

There was a question for the Cabinet Secretary about the summary justice reforms and specifically about the reaction of the Glasgow Bar Association, who have been especially vocal in their opposition to the changes. The Cabinet Secretary replied that although the GBA were a valued member of the legal family, the views they have expressed are not held by other bar associations and he said that although some difficulties have been expressed over the reforms the Government were nonetheless committed to continuing with their implementation. And you can read this question in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There was a question about the number of antisocial behaviour orders applied for by registered social landlords, and about the number of charges recorded as racially aggravated in the years 2003-04. There was a question about how many charges have been brought under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act 1995, about how many life prisoners have been recalled to prison in each of the last five years, and about the number of sex crimes prosecuted. There was a question which confirmed that the Government would publish its official response to the Scottish Prison Commission’s report by the end of the year and finally, there was a question about funding for anti-sectarian projects.

Posted by KM on Wed 24th Sep 2008 at 3:36 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 8th – 12th of September 2008

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The key justice event in the Parliament this week was a debate about the Prison Commission’s Report, which proved a useful indication of the sorts of themes that are likely to emerge over the forthcoming year. A petition on mandatory sentences for knife possession was submitted to the Petitions Committee. 

Public Petitions Committee

The public petitions committee receives petitions from members of the public calling on the Parliament to take action.

Petition on mandatory knife sentencing

Following a successful media campaign involving an online petition and press support, the petition calling for mandatory sentences for carrying a knife in public was presented by John Muir, whose son was murdered by someone who had two previous convictions for carrying blades and was out on bail at the time of the murder.

Mr Muir, who was also accompanied member of his family, stated that there was a need for tougher action to tackle knife crime because other measures, such as amnesties and education campaigns, have so far failed. He said that there are mandatory sentences for carrying firearms and for dealing drugs, and there should therefore be severe sentences for those who carry knives as well. He did not want to specify how long a prison sentence ought to be, but he said that courts should ‘consider imposing severe sentences’, and that while ‘mandatory’ was perhaps not the correct word, he was considering something ‘along the lines of mandatory sentencing’.

He did not think that the increased tariff of four years for carrying a knife which was introduced by the Public Order and Criminal Justice Act 2006, had actually been implemented, given that there were frequent stories in the press about individuals ‘out on the streets again’ a number of months after their prosecution. He also spoke about his dissatisfaction with the fact that his son’s killer may be eligible for work placements and home visits after 11 years of his 17 year sentence. He was asked about whether or not judges should be allowed to retain any discretion in sentencing, and he said that he did recognise that each case will be individual, and it would therefore be necessary for an ‘opt-out’ clause for judges in situations when a ‘young, feckless and stupid’ person was caught carrying a knife. In response to questions, he said that what he was probably asking for was a general raising of the tariff for this crime. Mr Muir acknowledged that there are many parts of the law that he cannot know about including just what exactly should be meant by ‘mandatory’, but he said that this was up to the Committee and the rest of the Parliament to address.

Mr Muir’s daughter, Karen Forrest, said that the intention behind mandatory sentences was for this to serve as a deterrent for carrying knives. In response to a comment from a Committee member that it did not seem as though prison presently acted as a deterrent, Ms Forrest replied that a community sentence in which the offender did not turn up and were under no controls, was no good either. She also said that during meetings she had attended, there were calls for mandatory sentences of up to five years for carrying knives, because ‘people are fed up’.

The Committee agreed to pass the petition on to the Government, and to include a note with it, detailing the looser understanding of ‘mandatory’ that had been established during the meeting. They agreed to keep the petition within this Committee, rather than pass it to the Justice Committee, and they decided to ask for responses to the issues raised in the petition from a range of bodies including the Violence Reduction Unit, the Crown Office, Association of Directors of Social Work, ACPOS, Victim Support, and Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration. They also agreed to draw up a paper setting out options for how it might proceed with the issues raised in the petition with these parties. The Convenor said that this had been the longest that they had ever spent considering a petition, which indicated how seriously they take the issue, and they thanked Mr Muir and his family for attending.

You can read the full transcripts in the Official Report , or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the Newsblog

The Justice Committee

The Committee began by welcoming Robert Brown (LD) to the Committee as the newly appointed justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill

The Committee have been designated the lead Committee for consideration of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill. This Bill seeks to change the law in Scotland, reversing a decision by the House of Lords taken last year, which ruled that those who have been negligently exposed to asbestos and have subsequently developed plural plaques should not be entitled to compensation, because it was not regarded as sufficiently harmful. However, the Scottish Government wanted to allow the law in Scotland to continue to compensate sufferers, thus they brought forward this Bill to ensure this can be. You can read more about this Bill on its homepage

The rest of the Committee’s meeting was spent in private, considering their draft report into the Community Policing Inquiry, which has run over from before the summer recess.

You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV

The Chamber

Prison Commission debate
The Cabinet Secretary led this debate on the Prisons Commission’s report published just before the summer recess. It proposed a range of measures for managing Scotland’s prison population, including most controversially, that legislation to reduce the prison population from its current level of 8,000 to around 5,000 and the establishment of a ‘Sentencing Council’.

MacAskill began by outlining the familiar facts about prisons in Scotland: the increase in the prison population at a time when crime is falling, and the social characteristics of prisoners. He also highlighted the high cost of imprisonment, saying that it was the Government’s job to ‘look after our pensioners, not pander to prisoners’. He said that if Scotland continued its current path, more offenders would be locked up, prisoners would be caught in the cycle of re-offending, communities will not be safer, and schools and hospitals will not be built because that money has been spent on building more prisons.  He said that prisoners should be made to payback to the communities and not be ‘given free bed and board’ and sit around playing pool. The report said that this should be enabled by a ‘flexible community penalties regime’ which is underpinned by the six principles of immediacy, visibility, effectiveness, quality, flexibility and relevancy. The report also said that the Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act might still be a useful piece of legislation to implement, but only on condition that the report’s other recommendations are also met, and the Justice Secretary said that the Government were still open to this idea, in line with their manifesto commitment to abolish automatic early release.

He announced that the Government would publish its official response to the Commission’s report by the end of the year, and that his desire was for a policy which he hoped would spring from some consensus, and he called on people to at least consider the report although they might not agree with all of it. He emphasised again that the status quo is not an option, and he challenged those who disagreed with him to say what their preferred way of dealing the situation might be.

Speaking for Labour, Pauline McNeill said that there were some parts of the report which her party could agree on, such as an increased range of community penalties and work to tackle the causes of crime, but there were other parts of the report which could not be supported by Labour. She said that community sentences would only work if they carried public support with them, and she argued that many of the proposals will not be supported by victims of crime, nor by the general public. She also pointed out that many of the Commission’s findings were similar to the policies contained in the SNP manifesto. 

She also said that the sole driver behind SNP penal policies were the current levels of overcrowding and nothing else, and that it was wrong of the Cabinet Secretary to paint the image of imprisonment as a soft option, it was actually a brutal regime, and it was a sad truth that some people had to be there. She also condemned the ‘arbitrary’ aim of a reduction of the prison population by 3,000, saying that the Cabinet Secretary would have to explain which of the prisoners currently in jail should not be there. Her party would work with the Government over plans to make community sentences more robust and she also signalled that that she would be willing to work together over plans for a Sentencing Council. However, she reiterated that plans to reserve prison only for those who have committed serious crime would cause outrage amongst the public.

Bill Aitken for the Tories began by disagreeing many of the Government’s opening arguments. He said the reason that crime was going down was because of increased security, and also the fact that people no longer bother reporting petty crimes because nothing happens as a result. He also reminded the Chamber that there were actually several European countries which did have a higher imprisonment rate, namely Spain, Portugal, and Ireland.

After also thanking the Prison Commission for the work they had done, he then accused their report of being ‘lamentably weak’, saying that at no point had it considered how to make community sentences more workable and more acceptable to sentencers, and it simply built on the current situation in which these sentences were not carried out and largely discredited. He conceded that there were some mentally ill people who were in jail, but he said that he could not see a way out of this. He also queried how the recently floated suggestion that offenders carry out work in construction projects, would work in practice. He concluded by saying that the Commission’s report was ‘profoundly disappointing’. He said it ‘epitomises the soft-touch-Scotland’ approach that is favoured by this Government, and that if the Government did force through some of their proposals, public indignation and concern would be ‘enormous’. 

For the Liberal Democrats, Robert Brown noted that the report was ‘based on what works’, and that it realistically identified what prisons can and cannot do, whilst not compromising public safety. He argued that the public were actually open to debating this issue, and their views should not be dismissed so quickly. While he said that his party did support many of the recommendations, he also said that there was a need for much closer scrutiny of many of the others. He also touched on the percentages of very short sentences, and he compared the high cost of housing them with the cost of sending someone to the most elite private schools for a year (£40,000 versus £28,000).

He quoted from the report saying that most of the drivers of reoffending lay out with the penal system and were in fact social and cultural, and he urged the Government to tackle these issues along side other penal measures. He said that the provision of different community disposals is patchy throughout the country, and the situation is not managed or monitored. He called on the Government to produce an action plan, with details of where the gaps in provision are, and a timetable for addressing them.

During the debate that followed many members complained there was not more time to explore the issues raised in the report, and members were keen to have their say on this issue. Stuart McMillan (SNP) commented on the lack of consistency in the press portrayal of the issues surrounding sentencing policy. Cathy Craigie (Lab) criticised the target of 5,000 prisoners, saying that this was an arbitrary figure, and she wondered who would be responsible for meeting these targets given that sentencing is supposedly a matter for the judiciary alone. George Foukes (Lab) made a strong attack on the Justice Secretary, saying that rather than sit back and ‘tut-tut’ about current levels of overcrowding, he had to take responsibility for it and not pass the buck by calling for external reports and reviews. He said that 16 months into this Government, it was ‘time for action’, not more debate, and he said that although the Government point to the large rise in levels of imprisonment under the Labour administration, there has been a continued rise in the time since the SNP came to power and the Government therefore ought to take responsibility for this too. He said that the suggestions to set up another two quangos (a Sentencing Council and a Community Penalties Council), were merely opportunities for the Justice Secretary to further relinquish responsibility. Gavin Brown (Con) asked for which crimes offenders currently sent to jail should be given a community sentence instead, and he also argued that a great deal of rehabilitation could also be carried out within the prison system. Angela Constance (SNP) carried some authority by telling the Chamber she has worked for ten years as a criminal justice social worker, and in Cartairs secure hospital, and she said that her experience told her that offenders would consider a robust community penalty to be a harsher penalty than a short custodial sentence. Dr Richard Simpson (Lab) urged more care to be taken with statistics, and he also said it was completely unfair to say that Labour had not done anything to address the prison estate or overcrowding when they were in power.

Nigel Don (SNP) provided a considered response, indicating that his first year on the Justice Committee has paid dividends. He said that the figure of 5,000 should be an aspiration, and not a target, and that it would be more appropriate to begin with the other recommendations of the report, and allow the consequences of that, one of which would be a reduction in prisoner numbers, to come into effect. He said that it would be impossible to provide a ‘list’ of crimes that should not deserve a prison sentence, because the appropriate sentence will always come down to a combination of different factors, including the criminal and their social circumstances. He also said that whether prison was a deterrent or not depended very much on the individual prisoner, and he said that it probably did not serve as a deterrent for the vast majority of prisoners. Duncan McNeil (Lab) said that the Cabinet Secretary was alienating potential Parliamentary support his approach, which was forcing the argument ‘down our throats’, and was prompting confrontation rather than co-operation.

During winding up speeches, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesperson, Mike Pringle, said that the report was ‘broadly, the right way forward’ and that his party’s policy was for any sentence of three months or less to be converted into a community sentence, and he said he would roll out ‘responsible behaviour panels’ for young offenders, For the Conservatives, John Lamont, compared prisons today with what they were 100 years ago, and he said that it would be nice to have a society without the need for prisons in the way that it would be nice to have a society without illness or the need for hospitals, but that while there was crime in Scotland, there would also be a need for prisons. He said that just because short-term sentences don’t work now does not mean that they would not work in the future, and he said that Government must never interfere with judicial discretion. He accused the Government of being motivated solely by a desire to save money, and ‘we do not cut crime by cutting the prison population; we cut the prison population by cutting crime’. Paul Martin (Lab) said that the report provided a ‘useful starting point’ for considering penal policy, and he said that, although short prison sentences may not deter individuals from crime in the future, they did provide the community with some much needed respite.

Speaking for the Government, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, said that one issue around which there was consensus what that there was a need for better community sentences, and he said that if respite for communities was to be of paramount consideration, then the evidence showed that an effective community sentence would have more chance of providing this, than an ineffective prison sentence. He said there were three requisites for an effective community sentence: it must be tough for the offender, the community should have a say in determining what work should be carried out, and the activity should also be of some sort of rehabilitative benefit to the offender.

This was a very interesting debate, and hinted at the political direction that this debate is likely to take over the forthcoming years. You can read the full transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Questions

Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005

There was a question for the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, about workplace assaults. Hugh Henry (Lab), asked the Minister if the Emergency Workers Act 2005 could be extended to cover other employees, such as shop workers and transport staff. Mr Ewing said that the Government were already looking at this, and he said it was good to have the support of the Labour on this issue.

You can read the question in the Official Report or watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Under 21 alcohol ban

Later, during questions to the First Minister, there was a question about the recently closed consultation on the Government’s plans for alcohol, specifically over plans to increase the age for the off-sales purchase of alcohol to 21, which is so far proving to be the most controversial part of the proposals. Ross Finnie (LD) questioned the Government’s assertion that a highly publicised pilot in Stenhousemuir in which the age limit was increased, had resulted in a 40% reduction of crime during the pilot period, saying that 18-21 year olds were in fact responsible for many of the crimes and incidents of anti-social behaviour that were reported over that time. The First Minister replied that there had actually been a substantial reduction in a range of crimes across three separate piloted areas in Scotland, and these findings together meant the argument could not be dismissed so easily.

There followed a number of supplementary questions, firstly from Alex Neil (SNP) who said that it was important to balance the rights of under-21-year-olds and the rights of people who have benefited from such a ban being in place. Pauline McNeil (Lab) then argued that it would send out the wrong message to target a specific age group, because all the research showed that alcohol misuse is a problem with many different causes, and that a better approach to be to take more appropriate action against licensed premises that sell alcohol to the under 18s. The First Minister agreed that action should be taken against these premises, and he also said that it was ‘a bit rich’ for Labour to take exception to the Government’s plans for alcohol, given that alcohol consumption per person doubled during over the last generation, when Labour was in power.

And you can read this question in the Official Report or watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month

Written Questions

There were a number of questions from Bill Aitken about what research the Government has undertaken about the relationship between the price of alcohol and consumption, and a question about the numbers of under-age people to have had alcohol confiscated from them. There was a question about the number of antisocial behaviour orders imposed by each local authority, and the number of ASBOs imposed on children under 16. There was a question about the number of deaths from drug overdoses, and about the number of babies born addicted to drugs. There was a question about the number of restriction of liberty orders applied for children under-16, and about prosecutions for selling knives to under-age children. There was a question about how many cases have been marked as ‘no proceedings’ or a written warning from the PF, and about the numbers of crimes and offences prosecuted, and the percentage of those convicted, in the Sheriff courts. There was a question which confirmed there has so far been no parenting orders issued in Scotland. There was a question about whether the Government would plug any shortfall in police numbers in Strathclyde, and about the police pension shortfall, and finally,a question about the number of anti-sectarian projects the Government are running. 

Posted by KM on Tue 16th Sep 2008 at 3:25 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 1st – 5th of September, 2008

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

In the first week following the summer recess, the Government announced its legislative programme including four justice related Bills for the upcoming year. There was also a debate in the Chamber about children’s services, and there were questions to the Law and Justice Officers. 

The Justice Committee

The Justice Committee reconvened last week for what promises to be a busy year for them in their crucial role in the process of formulating justice legislation.

The Committee firstly welcomed a new member, Angela Constance (SNP), who has replaced John Wilson (SNP). She has previously worked as a criminal justice social worker, so will be well placed to comment on justice legislation.

The Committee’s provisional work programme shows that they will be engaged with stage 1 scrutiny of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill at the beginning of this session, and they will begin their scrutiny into the important Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill at the end of October.

Items of subordinate legislation

This meeting began with the consideration of a number of items of subordinate legislation, including Orders which deal with the calculation of sentences following the imposition of a substitute sentence for an offender assisting investigations and prosecutions; and an Order dealing with Legal Aid.
All the Orders were agreed without any debate. You can read more information about the Orders in pages 4 – 9 of the meeting Papers.

You can read the transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also find out all about the Justice Committee on their homepage.

The Chamber

New Legislative Programme Announced

The new Parliamentary session got under way on Wednesday, with the announcement of the Government’s proposed legislative programme for the forthcoming year. Although many of the proposals were overshadowed in media coverage by the Council Tax Abolition Bill, the First Minister also outlined plans for four justice related Bills, all of which warrant considerable attention.

The Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill is a wide ranging Bill, which will include provisions to reform community penalties, improve criminal law, modernise court procedures, and assist victims and witnesses. It will also contain measures to address Scotland’s drinking culture. More details of the content of the legislation will follow (no doubt informed by the completion of the consultation on alcohol policy), and the Government aims to introduce the Bill early in 2009.

The Legal Services Bill is the first significant attempt to reform of the legal profession since 1980, and will introduce alternative business structures to the service.

The Arbitration Bill will modernise arbitration law in Scotland: something that has been under consideration for at least 20 years. The Government argues that ensuring Scotland has codified arbitration rules in statute will make the arbitration procedure more accessible and user friendly, which will benefit individuals and businesses in Scotland who wish to settle disputes out with the court system.

The Children’s Hearings Bill. This Bill is based on the ‘Strengthening For The Future’ consultation, published in July this year. The consultation contains plans to restructure the operations of the Children’s Hearings, bringing together the myriad of agencies which are currently involved in the Hearings, into a single agency.

Later, the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, listed what have been the Government’s achievements in ‘making Scotland safer’ over the past year, including: funding more police on the beat, putting the proceeds of crime back into communities, strengthened controls over sex offenders, prioritising child protection. She also referred to the work of the Prisons Commission, whose report will give backing to the Government’s argument that there is a need for a radical new policy in this area. Ms Sturgeon said that work was being undertaken to achieve a ‘flexible and coherent’ penal policy, that ensures that prison remains the right place for serious and violent offenders, and that community sentences are more ‘robust, immediate, and visible’, and she said that the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill would address these issues. Following the Justice Committee’s report, arguing for a ‘fundamental review into the role and responsibilities of the police’, the Government have asked Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary to review the roles and responsibilities of police forces in Scotland.

During the questions that followed, many MSPs were quick to point out that the Government have little right to claim credit for the provision of extra police, alleging that they only agreed to meet their manifesto pledge because of a need to offer concessions in order to get their budget passed. There was also widespread criticisms over many of the proposals in the alcohol consultation, particularly the plans to increase the legal age of purchasing alcohol to 21, with calls that before the Government tries to introduce new laws, more effort should be made in enforcing the laws that currently exist.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

See also: ‘A SAFER AND STRONGER SCOTLAND’ in Moving Scotland Forward: Government Programme

Debate on Children’s Services

The next day, there was a Government led debate on Children’s Services, led by Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Early Years. She said this was an opportunity to review the ‘Getting it right for every child’ programme, which was initiated by the previous Executive and taken forward by the current Government. This Government would be putting a greater emphasis on ‘practical development, implementation and testing’, and there would be a greater focus on collaborative working, due to the concordat that has been signed between central and local government. She said that it was time to translate the aspirations of those who work with children and who are looked after by local authorities, into practical realities’, which would involve the senior management of all relevant authorities to being committed to a ‘common approach’, a ‘common understanding’ and a ‘common language’. She spoke positively about the various pathfinder projects, in which information is shared securely between agencies such as the police, schools, social work, and reporters, so that early intervention can be effectively taken in the best interests of the child. She also announced an online ‘best practice model’ which is being tested in pathfinders, which will help practitioners to examine children’s needs and identify how outcomes can be improved by all the agencies involved. This guide is ‘child centred’ as opposed to agency specific, so that a common approach to needs and risk assessment can be developed across the board. She also announced the publication of a guide on ‘corporate parenting’ for local authority departments and services who are responsible for working together to meet the needs of looked after children and young people, and care leavers.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV.

See also

Better start for children in care - Scottish Government News Release

Questions for the Justice and Law Officers

Themed questions this week were for the Law and Justice Officers.

Police Pensions

There was firstly a question for the Justice Secretary about funding for the Police and Fire Service pensions, in the wake of increased concern about the ‘black hole’ in pension funding. Margaret Smith (LD) argued that if the Scottish Government did not meet this shortfall, then police forces would be forced to cut back funding new recruits. Mr MacAskill replied that the Government had written to the Treasury in London, asking for help with this funding on par with help that was given to the Home Office, but to no avail, which he said was regrettable. (The following week, the 9th Sept, the Government announced they would indeed make up this shortfall. See CJScotland newsblog

Alcohol sales in petrol stations

Next there was a question from Ian McKee (SNP), about what he called the scandal of 184 petrol stations in Scotland which sell alcohol, which he said undermines efforts to address drink driving. The Justice Secretary replied that it was up to Licensing Boards to decide which premises can be granted a license to sell alcohol, however, the Licensing Act 2005 states that such licenses can only be provided if it can be proved that the garage serves a wider community need, i.e. if they are the principle provider of food in their area.

Police custody management

There was a question from Brian Adam (SNP) about the problem of managing the numbers of people held in police custody, with a limited amount of spaces in police cells. Mr Adam said this was a particular problem for his area, in the North East, with the Police Federation reporting that the facilities in the Grampian Police area are inadequate for the numbers held in custody, which results in a large amount of police time and expense being spent moving people from one police station to another. The Justice Secretary replied that these were strictly operation issues, and should be addressed between the police forces and the police boards.

Domestic abuse courts

Finally there was a question from Alasdair Allan (SNP), about whether domestic abuse courts will be expanded to rural areas, arguing that victims of domestic abuse in rural areas face particular problems, not least the perceived difficulty in reporting crimes anonymously. The Justice Secretary replied that the Government recognised that domestic abuse was as much a problem in rural areas as in urban areas, and that the Government recently published a toolkit for local criminal justice boards and other agencies, to encourage innovative and effective responses to domestic abuse, which builds on best practice developed in the Glasgow domestic abuse court.

You can read all of these questions in the Official Report, or watch them all on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

This week there was a question which revealed how many patients have been diagnosed with alcohol related brain damage in the last five years, and a question about support for victims of domestic abuse and the numbers of interdicts for domestic abuse. There was an interestingly bland question asking what the Government was doing to reduce re-offending, and a question which revealed the number of breaches of bail. There were a number of questions about children tried in court for sexual offences, and children referred to Hearings for sexual offences. Finally, there was a question about the funding for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. 

Posted by KM on Tue 9th Sep 2008 at 3:04 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 23rd to the 27th of June, 2008

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

In Parliament’s last week before the summer recess, the Justice Committee heard from Sir Ronnie Flanagan and the Justice Secretary as part of their inquiry into community policing, and in the Chamber, the Parliament debated the Government’s alcohol strategy. 

Justice Committee

Inquiry into Community Policing

Last Tuesday the Committee took its final session of evidence in the community policing inquiry. Their first witness was the Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, who recently published ‘The Review of Policing’, part of which reviewed the recent introduction of 30,000 dedicated officers and community support officers for community policing teams throughout England and Wales.

He begun by saying that his definition of ‘successful’ community policing is when there are designated teams of officers in neighbourhoods that are known to those who live there, and which work in partnership with the community to address the priorities which they have had a role in defining. He said that community policing should not be seen as an ‘adjunct’ to policing, but should instead be considered as an integral part of it bringing together local, force, regional and national policing.

He said that ‘policing’ is too important and has too great an impact on people’s lives, to be left to the police alone. He argued that neighbourhood policing should therefore be an integral part of neighbourhood management and governance, working together with agencies. He said that one of the most effective ways of ensuring partnership working between agencies in England and Wales was through the introduction of crime and disorder reduction partnerships.

He also said that introducing neighbourhood policing required a ‘cultural shift’. He was asked about the abstraction of officers from the community they are assigned to, an issue that has come up many times during this inquiry, and he said that he recommended a two year minimum tenure for those involved in neighbourhood policing, to ensure consistency, and he argued that neighbourhood policing ought to be so valued, that there should be no reason why constables could not have a fulfilling occupation by remaining in neighbourhood policing for their entire career. 

He was asked about how to effectively ‘engage with communities’, and he agreed with a Committee member who said that there was often a danger that those who are heard are simply those who shout the loudest. He said that, although occasions such as public meetings are important for allowing people to express their voice, particularly if they represent a minority view, there should also always be other ways of gauging what the wider public think, such as through the use of regular surveys.

The Committee then heard from Strathclyde Chief Constable Stephen House, and Chief Superintendent Anne McGuire, Head of Community Policing Implementation. Chief Superintendent McGuire said there are currently nearly 600 community officers in Strathclyde, rising to 1,000 by Christmas. This has been made possible by changes in funding priorities on a local authority level, and the Government’s commitment to increase police recruitment. She also said there has also been a new emphasis on community policing with the appointment of the new Chief Constable, and there was evidence that the public wanted more officers on the beat that they could recognise and identify with. She said that their model was based on three key principles. The first was visibility, whereby all officers are either on foot or on bicycles, and they aimed for as little abstraction as possible. Secondly, there had to be community engagement, which involved listening to the public’s concerns, making them the priorities to be addressed, and then providing feedback to the community. And thirdly was the principle of problem solving which involved working together with partner agencies and also together with the community.

The witnesses spoke about how they determine what priorities are, and they said they do this by a combination of public meetings and an examination of their own crime statistics. They also said that it was important that community police officers are more than simply a reassuring presence, they also need to operate a ‘hard edged’ approach, whereby officers are ‘in the face’ of people who do not want to see more police, as well as providing a visual presence to those who do. The Chief Constable said that there was a distinction between this sort of policing and other diversionary work, often carried out with young people, that community officers in other parts of Scotland often carry out.

He said that, although a number of his officers have won awards for the diversionary schemes they have established, these sorts of activities need to be shared to a much greater extent with other agencies, both local authority and the voluntary sector. The witnesses also said that community police officers work closely together with neighbourhood wardens, however, because each local authority adopts a different approach to wardens giving them different training and powers, it was difficult to incorporate their role into the model in an explicit way.

The final panel before the Committee this morning consisted of the Justice Secretary and Alastair Merrill, Deputy Director, Police Powers, Performance and Resources, Scottish Government. Mr McAskill spoke about the Government’s ‘community policing engagement model’, which has been developed alongside stakeholders from the police and local authority, which have recently been endorsed and approved as an agreed model of community policing to use across Scotland. The Justice Secretary said that the model does not promote a single template of community policing, rather, each force must be able to develop their own approach which is tailored to their specific area, although there should also be parameters within which community policing should operate.

It was up to the Government to create a ‘description and not a precise definition’ of community policing, and that but he said that local flexibility needed to operate within national principles and parameters. He said that particular aspects of community policing, such as models of community engagement, are operational matters that should be determined by each police force.  He was pressed by members of the Committee on a variety of issues, including the minimum tenure an officer should serve in each locality, and whether community officers should be red-circled to avoid abstraction, but he repeatedly said that such matters were for each individual force to decide on themselves.

He was more willing to talk on the issue of the need for partnership working, saying that the police cannot do everything do provide safety, but it is up to them to judge what they can and cannot do, and to work with partner agencies when necessary. He said that the Government’s model will allow chief constables to set standards against which public expectations can be set, but he said that because the policing requirement in each area will vary so significantly, it would not be wise for central government to dictate what these standards should be. 

You can read more about the Community Policing Engagement Model in the Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice (355KB posted 23.06.2008)

See also the community policing inquiry homepage

You can also read the full transcripts of this meeting in the You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

That concluded evidence taken as part of this inquiry during this session.

The Chamber

Debate on Alcohol Policy

The Government published its consultation document on alcohol misuse a couple of weeks ago, which proposed a number of radical measures aimed at curbing problem drinking, including:

• Raising the minimum age for off-sales alcohol purchases to 21
• Setting a minimum price at which a unit of alcohol can be sold
• Ending ‘three for the price of two’ type promotions
• A ‘social responsibility fee’ for some alcohol retailers to help pay for the consequences of alcohol misuse
• Introducing alcohol-only checkouts in large off-sales premises

The reactions to the proposals have been varied, with the alcohol industry in particularly being vocally opposed. Last Wednesday, the Government’s proposals faced Parliamentary scrutiny for the first time with a debate on the strategy held in the Chamber. In line with their attempts to pitch this issue within a broader context than criminal justice issue, the debate was lead by the Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison.

She began by outlining the reasons that the Government’s radical approaches were needed, quoting figures on the costs of alcohol misuse to the nation’s health, to the economy, and also the social costs, including family breakdown and children’s education. She said that anyone who is drinking too much runs the risk of suffering from alcohol related harm, not only binge drinkers, and she said that 50% of men and 30% of women are regularly drinking more than the specified amount for sensible drinking.

She argued that the Government is not anti alcohol, it is anti alcohol misuse, and she said that she wanted to stimulate discussion and debate across Scotland about how best to address the problem. She said that the problem could not be addressed through one measure alone, it required a multifaceted approach, involving a range of interventions ‘designed to support a fundamental shift in culture’. She made no apologies for the bold proposals, saying that although many of the proposals are controversial, the Government is prepared to listen to all the views of those who will respond and keep an open mind at this stage

She said that the evidence suggests that levels of alcohol consumption are closely linked to the retail price of alcohol, and that alcohol is now over 60% cheaper than it was in 1980, and she argued that the proposals to impose a limited price per unit of alcohol, and to end three for two discounts, ought to address the issue of cheap sales of alcohol.

Pauline McNeill (Labour), said that her party was keen to ‘toughen up further’ to tackle alcohol misuse, and to work constructively with the Government on proposals if they believed they were workable and based in evidence. However, she argued that the Government had not engaged in any pre-consultation discussions with Opposition parties or to attempt any sort of consensus as they had done with their drugs policy. She accused the Government of taking a ‘crusade’ against alcohol, rather than creating a suitable ‘tone’ for debate, and she said parts of their proposals were extreme, not evidence based, and could be viewed as somewhat of a gimmick.

She argued that rather than create new laws, it would be better to concentrate on enforcing the laws that were already in place, and she said that Government backtracking from a strong enforcement agenda on antisocial behaviour was becoming a recurring theme. She spoke specifically about legislation which prosecutes off-licences which sell alcohol to those who are under 18, which, she argued, is not properly implemented now, and she said her party would like to modify the Licensing Act 2005 so that the licences of those who repeatedly sell alcohol to underage people can be removed. She also said that evidence about young people and alcohol show that there is a bigger problem amongst 15 year olds rather than the 18-21 age group, and she said that a bad law will be ignored if people think it is unfair, and they will feel justified in getting around it.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative)said that there are many mixed messages in the public domain about safe amounts of alcohol consumption, which ought to be simplified. She also argued that it is wrong to assume that just because someone bought three bottles of wine for the price of two, they will consume all three in the time it would have taken them to drink only two. She welcomed proposals to increase support for families which are affected by alcohol misuse, and also plans to create designated places of safety for people who are drunk. She called on schools and teachers to play their part in promoting young people’s self-esteem, which she argued played a role in binge drinking amongst young people, and she agreed with Pauline McNeil (Lab) that the biggest problem lay not with those aged 18-21, but with those aged 12-15.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrats) welcomed large sections of the report, including those relating to the additional investment for people with alcohol addiction, and including schools in attempts to bring about a ‘cultural shift’. He said that the pricing of cheap alcohol has a large role to play in problematic alcohol consumption, and therefore plans to address this issue were welcome. However, plans to increase the minimum price of alcohol required more scrutiny, although they contained some merit. He said that supermarket’s claims to have corporate social responsibility have so far not stretched to acknowledging the damaging impact of alcohol in society, but he also said that the Government needed to do more work to bring supermarkets onside.

MSPs spoke about the anomalies in the legislation, which would mean that someone could get married at 16, fight in conflicts with the armed forces at 18, buy alcohol in pubs and cigarettes in shops at 18, but not buy alcohol in off-licences until they were 21. MSPs also sought to protect, as they saw it, the right for responsible adults to be able to make decisions about purchasing alcohol sensibly, and the fact that many lower income people may benefit from promotional offers such as three-for-two drink deals. The pilot scheme in the town of Armadale, in which off-licences co-operated and raised the age limit of selling alcohol to 21, was also mentioned. Many did acknowledge that according to the police this scheme had reduced anti-social behaviour, it was also acknowledged that the scheme that operated was both small in scale and in duration. Several members were also very sceptical about plans to create a minimum price per unit of alcohol, and it was pointed out that both Buckfast and alcopops, two of the drinks most associated with underage drinking, would not be covered by such legislation.

Closing the debate, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice welcomed the tone of the contributions, and he repeated that the Government was eager to hear all views on the subject. He said that although some may favour tough enforcement, the Government favoured tough measures to address problems before they arise. He recognised that there were anomalies in the proposals with relation to age, but he argued that there are different age restrictions currently in place for a wide range of entitlements, such as conditions attached to driving licenses, and he said that there was no one age of civic responsibility. He concluded by saying that although education and culture must change, this has been said for generations and now it was time to take action because it was no longer acceptable to do nothing.

That concluded the debate, and the Government will return to this issue following the summer recess and a consideration of the responses it has received to the consultation. You can read the full transcripts of this debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

General Questions

Summary Justice Reforms

Pauline McNeil (Lab) asked the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, about reported concerns about the recently introduced summary justice reforms which have widened the types of cases which can be diverted from prosecution by the fiscal through the imposition of a fiscal fine. There have been stories in the press and previous questions in parliament about the inappropriate use of this sanction in certain cases, and in her question Ms. McNeil asked the Lord Advocate to confirm reports in which cases of domestic violence and serious assaults have been diverted from prosecution, which goes against the intention of legislation.

The Lord Advocate replied that the legislation only came into force in March this year, and is clearly therefore still in its infancy. She said that the guidelines issued to the procurator fiscal still allows them a degree of discretion, that this was crucial to the independence of the prosecution system in Scotland, and that the decisions of prosecutors should not be guided by politicians or the newspapers. However, she emphasised that the guidelines do state that cases of domestic violence and serious assault should not be dealt with by fiscal fines, and that if a fiscal takes inappropriate decisions or make errors in implementing guidance, she would ensure that action is taken.

In response to a supplementary question by Christian McKelvie (SNP), she also hinted that the various stories that have appeared in the press about the use of fiscal fines, may have been prompted by solicitors who have lost business as a result of the summary justice reforms. You can read this question in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

First Minister’s Questions

Knife possession sentencing

Wendy Alexander used what turned out to be her last question as leader of the Opposition during First Minister’s questions, to ask Alex Salmond about the Government’s plans to tackle Scotland’s ‘blade culture’. Ms Alexander was suffering from a sore throat however, so her deputy, Joanne Lamont took over. The question was prompted by a petition submitted to the Parliament that day by the family of a man who was stabbed to death by someone who had several previous convictions for carrying a blade. The family behind the petition were in the Chamber for FMQs, and they have engaged with the media as part of their campaign to have mandatory sentences for knife crime.

Ms Jamieson also pressed the First Minister on whether he would create a sentencing council as the SNP had promised in their manifesto, and she said that if such a council were to be created, it should have a mechanism to allow the voices of the victims and their families to be considered. She accused the Government of inaction on this issue and pressed the First Minister to address it as soon as Parliament reconvenes after the summer recess.

In reply, Alex Salmond confirmed that the Government will publish a criminal justice bill in the next session of Parliament, and he said that mandatory sentencing for knife crime will be one of the measures that they consider as part of this Bill. He confirmed his commitment to creating a sentencing council, and he said that the much anticipated McLeish commission report will play a role in rationalising sentencing policy. You can read this question Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.
This provided a suitable conclusion to an extremely interesting session of Parliament, with a small hint of what to expect following the summer recess.

Written Questions

There were questions this week about the number of anti-social behaviour orders issued since 1999, and about the Serious Organised Crime Taskforce. There was a question about the Government’s response to a report about
keeping DNA samples, and there was a question in which the Justice Secretary was able to announce plans to extend the pilot domestic violence abuse court, and a further question giving the Secretary the opportunity to discuss human rights claims, and finally, a question about the number of community service orders that can be imposed before a sentence of imprisonment can be given.

Posted by KM on Tue 1st Jul 2008 at 4:52 pm
Drugs and alcohol Police • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary report for the 16th to the 20th of June 2008

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

In the penultimate week in Parliament before the summer recess, MSPs got the chance to debate the Government’s new strategy for youth justice, and the Justice Committee continued hearing evidence as part of its inquiry into community policing. 

Justice Committee

Community Policing Inquiry

The Committee held a relatively short meeting this week. Their sole business was to hear from a panel of witnesses who represented community wardens, as part of their Community Policing Inquiry. Community wardens were created four years ago, with the aim of providing a visible presence on the streets, primarily in order to ‘reassure’ the public, as opposed to ‘policing’ the public. Their main function is to observe and report incidents to their local authority colleagues or to the police, but some wardens also have some powers of enforcement, such as the ability to issue fixed penalty notices for behaviour such as littering, excessive noise or graffiti. Community wardens are employed by local authorities, and their roles vary somewhat from area to area as each local authority tailors their role to fit the needs of their locality.

The witnesses were asked about how they operate with the police, and they said that in the four years they have been operating, wardens in each local authority area have developed stronger relationship with police forces, although in some cases it has taken some time for trust to develop between the two agencies, and that police services now commend wardens for the level of intelligence that they collect. They said that the information they gather is also of great use to local authorities, who are now able to act on issues such as streetlights that do not work, and missing drain covers for example, much more quickly than they may have been able to in the past.

MSPs asked if they would prefer to have greater powers of enforcement, given that their main tasks are to provide reassurance and a visible presence to the public. The witnesses said that it would be preferable to have a range of powers available to them which they could then use depending on need. However, they said that the most important factor in their work is the relationship they are able to build with their community, and they are therefore often reluctant to even use the range of powers already available to them, and they prefer instead to opt for other approaches such as negotiation. They said that people will often report instances to wardens that they would not report to the police, and it was therefore very important to keep the distinction between their role, and that of an enforcement agency, separate. However, they did also recognise that if they did not have any powers of enforcement at all, it would be difficult to maintain credibility in the eyes of the public, but they said that they would aim to secure order through providing a visible deterrence, and through strategies such as holding informal drop-ins, and providing information about their work.

The witnesses provided a number of examples of successful co-operation with police forces. In one area, wardens work together with fire and rescue services, police and environmental health and waste management in order to prevent fires in tenement buildings. In another area, wardens worked together with police in ‘Operation Dry Up’, in order to tackle underage drinking. The results of the information gathered then resulted in either police action, with cases either going to court and/or to the local authority licensing committee.

Another witness said that what the wardens are trying to encourage ‘community empowerment’, so that they begin to rely less on formal agencies to provide security, and begin to develop their own capacity to provide this. They said that wardens will try to facilitate a project or programme that the community has expressed a desire for, and then try and encourage the community to take it over and run it themselves.

That concluded this relatively short meeting, and the Committee will hear their last week of evidence as part of this inquiry, next week.

You can read the transcripts from this meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read all the written evidence taken so far on the Community Policing Inquiry Homepage.

The Chamber

Youth Justice Debate

On Thursday, Fergus Ewing, Minister for Community Safety, presented the new Scottish Government Youth justice strategy “Preventing Offending by Young People: A Framework for Action” to MSPs.

The strategy has been developed between central government and other agencies including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, the Crown Office, the Inspectorates, the Association of Directors of Social Work and Audit Scotland.

Announcing the new framework, Mr Ewing said its purpose was to outline what could be done to ‘prevent, divert, manage and change’ offending by children and young people, and he said the new focus would be on ‘prevention, early intervention, managing high risk, victims and community confidence’. He began his speech by questioning the youth justice strategy developed by the previous administration, highlighting in particular the failure of the anti-social behaviour agenda to address problematic behaviour by young people. He said that there was a clear consensus from the range of third sector agencies working on the ground that a better alternative for young people would be to provide them with more ‘choices and chances’ and ‘positive opportunities’. He gave the example of the ‘cashback to communities’ scheme which uses money from seized criminal assets to fund a range of activities for young people. Ewing said that although prevention is better, and far less costly, than cure, when it comes to the long-term fight against crime, there is still nonetheless a need to manage the risk posed by the small but significant number of young people who present a high risk to others.

Speaking for Labour, Pauline McNeil said that when Labour was in Government, they too recognised that the cycle of poor achievement, low expectation and social exclusion contributed to youth offending, but she said that the difference was that these factors were never allowed to excuse bad or criminal behaviour. She said that the Government’s framework lacked any sort of ‘reality check’; it made no mention of the fact that in many communities there are many young people who commit serious crime, and that they need to be treated robustly if their offending is to be challenged. She said that the approach set out in the document ‘looked very soft’, and she defending the work undertaken by the previous administration in addressing the problem of ‘persistent young offenders’. She said the role of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 should not be overlooked, saying that this legislation empowered communities and introduced joined-up thinking between agencies in the fight against antisocial behaviour. She also questioned the Government’s position on people under the age of 18 in prison, given that the framework states that the Government will honour the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by not imprisoning children, which the UNCRC define as being up to the age of 18. She said that although she could support the Government’s general direction, there was a need for a ‘harder edge’.

Speaking for the Conservatives, Bill Aitken also reminded the Chamber that the vast majority of young people are well behaved and a credit to themselves and their parents. He also said that it was a depressing fact that the vast majority of children who appear before the children’s panel around the age of 16 have experienced neglect or abuse in their earlier lives. He said that although the children’s hearings system is much vaunted in Scotland, it is now over 40 years old, and there was therefore a need to look at the way it operates. He also said that hearings are especially ill-equipped to deal with offenders who are aged 15 and 16 , and finally, that because drug abuse features in so much offending, including youth offending, there was a need to extend the use of DTTOs to the children’s panel.

Mike Pringle spoke for the Liberal Democrats, and he also spoke in favour of early intervention as an effective way of addressing children’s offending. He said that that staff in schools have often said to him that they are able to identify children who will get into trouble later in life within their first week of primary 1. He therefore argued for a ‘culture of early intervention’ with professionals in nurseries and schools working to identify those who are at risk of offending. He said it was important to listen to young people, both in order to be able to give them a voice, but also to give policy makers the opportunity to listen to them in order to make better policy. He urged the Government to reconsider their decision not to extend the Scottish Crime Survey to include 16-year olds, as the Home Office have recently done with the British Crime Survey. Referring to the Government’s recently published consultation on alcohol, he also said that it would be better to use some of the tools already in the toolbox, rather than introduce radical new measures such as increasing the legal age of buying alcohol. He said for example that a greater umber of those who are caught selling alcohol to underage children should be prosecuted once they are caught. Finally, he also said that the use of the ultrasonic ‘Mosquito’ dispersal device should be condemned, and he urged the Government to back calls for a ban of that device.

The debate that followed was particularly lively, with many Labour members keen to defend the policies of their Administration in relation to youth justice and anti-social behaviour. There were also many calls not to demonise young people, and to adopt a holistic approach to helping children who offend.

Summing up at the end of the speeches, the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, said that if the Government have achieved nothing else it has at least changed the tone of the debate on youth justice and child offending. He argued that the absence of the “hang ‘em high” or “whip ‘em” rhetoric from some of the usual suspects was a good thing for Scotland.

He said that although poverty could never be an excuse for offending, it was impossible to ignore the correlation between deprivation and poor life chances, with crime, and that tackling the ‘three Ds’ of drink, drugs, and deprivation, was a good place to start. He said that the Government were in fact happy to support a great deal of the legislation which came from the previous Administration, and that although he did believe there was a role for ASBOs, he did believe that the money spent on these orders would make a bigger impact if it were spent on diversionary policies for young people.

He also said that that the future of the children’s hearings system is secure, but that it nonetheless needs to be reviewed, and that, although it has passed the test of time, it is struggling to cope with its current volume of cases. He said there was a need to ensure that the system focuses on the cases that need to be dealt with, and other cases could perhaps be addressed in different ways.

He also said that although his party supports youth courts, there are other ways of addressing juvenile offending which are just as worthy. He said that there isn’t always a need for the formal structure of a court, and that for example by embedding a procurator fiscal in with the police, the same service can be delivered. He concluded by saying that the Government has proposed the strategy and changed the tenor of the debate, and that he makes no apology for saying that although there is a small minority of young people who are out of control, he believed that Scottish children are ‘good kids’.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV

See also

CJScotland 20.06.08 Parliament debates new Youth Justice Framework

General Questions

There was a question for the Justice Secretary later in the afternoon from Patricia Ferguson (Lab) about the numbers of police in the Strathclyde region.  She said that an extra 100 officers in the region will be funded by the community planning partnerships in Glasgow, and not by the Government, and she urged the Minister to ensure that the extra officers are in the communities at the times of day during which they are needed. Kenny MacAskill replied that Strathclyde police force will increase its number of officers by 800 by 2011, and that the extra police have been funded by Glasgow City Council because of the financial concordat between central and local government. Finally, he said that decisions on shift patterns are operational matters which should be left up to chief constables in each police force to decide. 

You can read this question in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV

Written questions

There were a number questions this week about test purchasing schemes aimed at catching those who sell alcohol to underage youngsters, a question about compensation for victims of historic abuse. There was a question about if carrying swords is permitted by the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007. There was a question about prosecutions for driving under the influence of drink or drugs, and about how much money the Government is spending on tackling drugs. There was a question in which the Government reconfirmed their opposition to ID cards and a question about what is being done to encourage a more socially diverse judiciary. There was a question about possible restructuring of district courts, and there were a number of justice questions, including the number of prosecutions for driving without insurance, and the number of attempted child abductions reported throughout Scotland. There was a question about education for prisoners, and a curious question which confirmed the unsurprising fact that there have been no instances of people caught attempting to break into Scottish prisons during the past five years. Finally, there were a number of questions about wildlife crime.

Posted by KM on Wed 25th Jun 2008 at 3:11 pm
Children and justice Young People • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 9th to the 13th of June 2008

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Stage 2 of the Judiciary and Courts Bill was discussed in the Justice Committee and in the Chamber there were justice related questions for the First Minister. 

The Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (Scotland) Order 2008 (Draft)

The Committee were joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, to firstly consider a number of items of subordinate legislation.

The first draft order sought to amend legislation so that domestic law reflects what has been agreed between the US, the UK and the EU in relation to the the UK and the US ‘mutual legal assistance treaty which aims to improve co-operation and mutual legal assistance in the investigation of serious crime. Mr MacAskill said that there was concern that if the terms of the EU-US mutual legal assistance treaty are not implemented across the EU before the Lisbon treaty comes into force – which is planned for 1 January 2009 – the EU-US treaty will fall. The Committee agreed to the draft order without any questions.

Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006(Consequential Amendment) Order 2008 (Draft)

The second order sought to amend legislation in order to close a loophole that currently exists in the law which can be exploited by those involved in human trafficking. This draft order would ensure that no trafficking takes place for the purposes of organ removal. He said that, although there is currently no evidence of trafficking for the purposes of organ removal in Scotland, there was a need to ensure that the law is ready should it ever be broken.

Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

The Committee then began the Stage 2 consideration of the Judiciary and Courts Bill. This legislation seeks to modernise the way the judiciary operates, handing over the operation of the Scottish Court Service to the office of the Lord President, the most senior judge in Scotland. The Lord President will continue to undertake judicial duties, but his office will also now be responsible for the operation and running of all the courts in Scotland.

The Committee considered this Bill during Stage 1, and, although they were content with the broad intentions of the legislation, they raised a number of concerns in relation to a possible increase in the administrative burden placed on the judiciary. As a result of this, the Government commissioned an independent report on whether or not there would be a loss of judicial time were the proposals implemented, which concluded that as long as the measures will be phased in incrementally, the proposed legislation is justified.

At Stage 2 of a Bill’s process through Parliament, the Government takes on board concerns that were raised by the Committee, the Chamber, and returns to the Committee with their own amendments, and also to discuss amendments which the Committee and other MSPs have lodged. Although the real changes take place at Stage 3, this part of the process sheds light on the issues that will crop up further down the line, and give an indication to the Government of the amount of work it will need to do before the Bill can be presented again at Stage 3.

The Cabinet Secretary therefore remained with the Committee to discuss the amendments. Most of the debate in the meeting concerned, not over the principle of judicial independence should be enshrined or not, but over deciding exactly where the line between Government and the judiciary should be drawn, and the implication of this for the democratic accountability of what takes place within Scottish courts.

There were several groupings of amendments. Firstly, the principle of making the Lord President in charge of operating all the courts was discussed. The Government argue that this move will not only end the ‘fudge’ of the current situation whereby the Lord President is in charge of the High Court and the Court of Sessions, and Sheriff courts and Justice of the Peace Courts fall under the jurisdiction of Ministers, but it will also make the operation of all courts much more efficient.

While most members agreed this would indeed aid efficiency, there were a number of concerns. Cathie Craigie (Lab) felt that the responsibility for such a fundamentally important function of the state should remain with the Scottish ministers. Margaret Smith (LD) also felt that handing over so much power to the Lord President would result in a loss of accountability, and she argued that Parliament ought to retain the right to decide on matters such as deciding where the boundaries of the of sheriff court or JP court jurisdiction should lie. The Committee convenor, Bill Aitken (Con), sought to ensure that decisions, such as closing courts or opening new ones, could only be taken by the Lord President following consultation, and Paul Martin (Lab), argued that further evidence was required prior to Stage 3 before he could agree that the capacity of the Lord President’s office to take on so many extra powers. Pauline McNeill (Lab) argued that judicial independence does not need to stretch to include powers to take decisions that affected local communities, these decisions should be left to accountable politicians.

In response, the Cabinet Secretary argued that if the amendments were agreed to, then not only would a key strand of the Bill be undermined, but it would also mean that the way the courts are organised would remain unchanged from the way they were set up in the 1970s. He also pointed out that the Parliament will be involved in matters such as the closure of a court, through subordinate legislation, which will have to be agreed to by MSPs. He also agreed to Bill Aitken’s amendment which would require for a consultation to take place before major changes were made to sheriff and justice of the peace courts.

Nigel Don (SNP) and Margaret Smith both lodged a number of amendments in relation to judicial training, which had been a contentious issue during Stage 1. The Committee’s Stage 1 report said that public confidence would be greatly enhanced if training were compulsory, but there has been strong resistance from parts of the judiciary for any such compulsion, and the Government have so far been reluctant to insist for an element of compulsion to be put in the Bill. Margaret Smith said that her group of amendments sought to create a compromise, following correspondence received from the Lord President who intimated that he would be willing to accept mandatory training so long as there is no ministerial direction and that his office will retain the right to decide which areas of training will be mandatory. She said that, although it would remain at the discretion of the Lord President, the public would expect mandatory training on key issues such as the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 and family law, and also that the judiciary would be trained early in respect of the implications of significant new legislation, such as the rape and sexual offences legislation that will be considered by Parliament shortly.

He agreed to hold discussions with Cathie Craigie (Lab) prior to Stage 3, in order to see if they could reach a compromise, and in return she withdrew some of her amendments. However, he agreed to her amendment which would give the Lord President discretion over which parts of training should be mandatory, as long as an element of compulsion remained.

Another contentious group of amendments related to whether or not the Lord President would be compellable to answer questions in the Parliament. Currently, the Scotland Act 1998 states that all judges are exempt from being compelled to appear before Parliament, though they can be asked and if they chose, they are allowed to answer questions. Several members of the Committee felt that, if the Lord President is to chair the Scottish Court Service (SCS), then he ought to be accountable before Parliament. The current Lord President has indicated that he would be happy to appear and answer questions should a ‘serious matter’ arise, but numerous concerns remained with the Committee. Cathie Craigie (Lab) wondered who would decide what was a ‘serious matter’, and she argued that the Government were in effect relinquishing their democratic power to a non-elected body. The Bill does provide for the Chief Executive of the SCS to answer questions before a Parliamentary Committee, but Margaret Smith (LD) also argued that there was a need to be able to ask the Lord President who sits as chair of the SCS, to either answer questions in Parliament or to produce documents. She also pointed out that, although the Lord President who is currently in post has co-operated with the Parliament, it is safer to make the change to the legislation should a future Lord President not be so co-operative.

The Justice Secretary was less conciliatory over this section than he had been over others. He argued that the whole point of enshrining the independence of the judiciary in statute was to formalise the tripartite separation of powers. He said that there was no point in creating an entity that sits half way between judicially led governance, and ministerial responsibility. He said that either the SCS should be created as a separate statutory entity with accountability to Parliament, or it should be retained as ministerial entity in which the judiciary can have no more than an informal advisory role.

He argued that the proposed governance of the SCS had been constructed carefully, and that although it will give it substantial authority, but it will also be subject to safeguards. For example, it will have a strong element of independent and non-judicial membership, and also be under a specific statutory duty to take account of the needs of the public and of court users, and to co-operate with the rest of the justice system. It will also operate within a plan that is agreed with ministers and a budget that is voted on by Parliament and it will have to account directly to Parliament for its actions via its Chief Executive. Furthermore, the Bill also provides that in the highly unlikely event that the SCS’s actions put the administration of justice at risk, ministers can seek parliamentary agreement to an order providing for control over the SCS’s functions to be taken back by the Government.

The members who raised concerns in this section of the Bill remained unconvinced however, and Kenny MacAskill was reminded that this is a minority Government, so he will have to do a substantial amount of work to allay the fears of opposition MSPs before he is able to rely on their votes. However, they agreed to withdraw this amendments prior to Stage 3 of the Bill, on the undertaking that the Cabinet Secretary meet with them to discuss these issues further in the mean time.

Other amendments on parts of the Bill relating to issues including the incapacitation of the Lord President, and the appointment of temporary judges, proved less controversial and were either agreed to or withdrawn with the full agreement of the Committee. However, many significant issues remain unresolved at Stage 2, and the Cabinet Secretary has his work cut out in seeking to persuade members to withdraw their amendments. However, Stage 2 really gives only an indication of the sort of issues that will arise at Stage 3, when amendments are voted on firstly by the Committee, and then by the Chamber, when the Bill will be finally passed. Stage 3 is scheduled to take place in September after the summer recess.

In the mean time, you can access all the documents relating to this Bill on the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill homepage

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, and also watch it on Holyrood.TV. 

The Chamber

First Minister’s Questions

Summary Justice Reforms

Annabel Goldie (Con) at FMQs said that the recently introduced summary justice reforms (whereby the number of crimes that can be diverted away from prosecution through the use of fixed penalty notice has increased), meant that ‘more criminals are not being prosecuted’. She also claimed that public confidence in the justice system is ‘haemorrhaging’ in light of recent headlines about unprovoked violent crimes. She said that, although she does not question the prosecutors’ right to discretion, she does question if this discretion is exercised appropriately. She quoted a letter in a national newspaper from a local group of solicitors, who claimed that the summary justice reforms have resulted in a range of charges, including indecent behaviour and lewd and libidinous conduct against children, not being put forward for prosecution, and she argued that his letter must highlight just the tip of the iceberg. She said that the increase in diversions from prosecution is a result of the Government’s ‘relentless drive to empty our jails’, and she concluded by saying that the criminal justice system exists to deter, punish and protect, and that it currently fails on all three counts.

In reply, Alex Salmond firstly commented that her question coincided with a press release from Bill Aitken, about the summary justice reforms, and he also pointed out that these reforms in fact received the support of the Conservative Party when they were passed during the previous session of Parliament. He said that the discretion that the Procurator Fiscal operates in the Scottish criminal justice system is the ‘envy of the world’, and he said that PFs are discharging their functions extremely well. He went on to suggest that the letter in the newspaper might be prompted by the fact that the recent changes to legal aid have meant that certain ‘well known groups of solicitors’ have had their legal aid funding cut, and he said it was wise to remember that some people may have vested interests in making the claims they do. In relation to crimes of violence, he said that there had been an increase in unacceptable violence and disorder in Scotland together with many other western societies, and that there has been a concurrent increase in prison overcrowding which the Government are now seeking to address. He then proceeded to list what he said were the failings in criminal justice that occurred under the Conservative Government during the 1980s and 90s, including creating automatic early release and not building any prisons, and he said that these facts ought to be remembered before the Conservative party poses itself as the ‘defender of justice’.

You can read this question in the Official Report

See also the press in the CJScotland Newsblog

“Concerns raised over enhanced fiscal powers of diversion following summary justice reforms”

Drugs and Alcohol Strategy

Later, there was a question from Nigel Don (SNP) which gave the First Minister the opportunity to talk about the Government’s recently announced drugs strategy, and the report into tackling drugs and alcohol published at the beginning of the week by Scotland’s Future Forum. Nigel Don quoted the aspirational target laid out by the Forum by asking what steps the Government are taking to reduce the damage caused by drugs and alcohol by 50% before 2025. He said that the Forum’s report highlights the needs to tackle the alcohol problem in Scotland which he said has grown over recent years, and he highlighted figures recently released by the Government which estimate that around £2.25 billion is lost to the Scottish economy each year through alcohol misuse.

In reply, Alex Salmond firstly outlined the main points of the Government’s drugs strategy (which was debated last week in Parliament), and he said that a consultation paper on how to tackle alcohol misuse will be published imminently. He said that he hoped that this issue would receive the degree of cross party support that the drugs strategy did.

A supplementary question from Dr. Richard Simpson (Lab) said that a number of voluntary organisations that help people with drugs and alcohol problems are being forced to issue redundancy notices because of a lack of money. He argued that it inappropriate that agencies are not only unable to secure three-year funding, but that they do not even have funding for this year. The First Minister replied that Dr Simpson should speak to the relevant cabinet secretaries about the specific agencies he referred to, and he also pointed out that the money announced as part of the drugs strategy has increased the spending in this area in comparison with previous central Government budgets.

You can read this question in the Official Report

See also the press in the CJScotland Newsblog

“Alcohol action plan to be announced on Tuesday”
“Scotland Futures Forum report on drugs and alcohol published”

Domestic Abuse

Margaret Curren (Lab) also used her question to the First Minister to raise the issue of funding for voluntary sector organisations, in this case those who work with the victims of domestic abuse. The removal of ring fenced funding by central government and the shifting of funding structure towards ‘single outcome agreements’ has meant that agencies face a less certain stream of money, and there is more discretion about which local authority services each area chooses to prioritise. Ms. Curren said that women’s organisations are reporting a squeezing of services as funding is cut and projects are merged. She said that one local authority recently cut its post of domestic abuse co-ordinator, and she urged the First Minister to intervene to reinstate this service as it was much needed.

Mr. Salmond replied that this Government had increased funding to this area by 100% compared to the previous Administration, and he said that they have already committed support for the national offices of a number of women’s organisation. He said that the single outcome agreements, due for completion by the end of this month, will deliver a better service for women who are under threat throughout Scotland.

And you can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

Written Questions this week were on the subject of alcohol consumption both the connection between binge drinking and price of alcohol and what consultation the Government has undertaken with retailers in relation to alcohol policy; more questions about
alcohol, specifically, the availability of cheap alcohol in supermarkets and about underage drinking. Following concerns raised in the Chamber (see FMQs above) about the summary justice reforms, there were also questions about the training given to Procurator Fiscals about the Criminal Proceedings (Reform) Act 2007. There was a question about the amount of class A drugs seized, and about the number of firearm licences granted. There was a question about identity cards, and about the Stockline disaster. There was a question about the financial savings that would be acheived as a result of the summary justice reforms , and another question about the Stockline disaster. There was a question about police numbers and a number of questions about
prisons, including when the prison at Bishopbriggs will be ready for occupation, the design capacity and current population of all the prisons in Scotland, the numbers who have escaped or absconded, and more questions about prisons, including the involvement of prison contractors, and the number of prisoners who are drug dependent, and about the number of people convicted of wildlife crime

Posted by KM on Tue 17th Jun 2008 at 3:00 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 2nd to the 6th of June, 2008

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

This was a busy week for criminal justice in Parliament. The Justice Committee continued with its inquiry into ‘community policing’, and there was a full debate of the Government’s new drugs policy in the Chamber. There were also questions for the Law and Justice Officers on Thursday.

The Justice Committee

Inquiry into community policing

The Committee held its third session taking oral evidence. The first panel this week comprised of four members from the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum. 

They began by saying that it was less important to spent time defining what ‘community policing’ was, and that they preferred to work towards a ‘vision’ of community policing, which would be flexible enough to adapt to suit the eight different police forces. However, there were common themes, which included police working in specific geographical areas, and towards certain performance standards. They said that different forces give different priorities to community policing: in Strathclyde, for example, they have 600 to 700 officers dedicated to community policing, other forces find resourcing more difficult, but most forces try to put one officer in each ‘neighborhood’ in each council area. However, as soon as there is a specific officer tied to a certain area, this would lead to unhappiness if they were abstracted to deal with an emergency elsewhere. 

The panel were asked about examples of good practice from their forces, and the witnesses spoke of involving the police in neighborhood partnership schemes, which involve a local inspector attending partnership meetings and sharing with them local police performance statistics, which enables them to have a direct link to the policing in their area. Another recent initiative involved setting up ‘operational support units’ where grade 4 calls (the lowest priority calls) are taken. These calls are responded to quickly and separately from the higher priority calls, sometimes only over the phone. But although this had been somewhat costly to implement, it had improved the public’s perception that the police are responsive to them.

The panel also spoke about the difficulty of performance measures and statistics, saying that there was a need to move beyond the traditional approach of gathering centrally collected quantitative data, towards richer information on local and divisional level policing, and the need to be aware of the context in which information is collected.

The next panel comprised of Joe Grant, the General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation. He urged the Committee to move beyond the term ‘community policing’, saying that the wider term of ‘24/7 response policing’ or ‘visible street policing’ was more suitable, as this is more important to the public and also reflects the Government’s priority more accurately. He said that this definition could include all officers who are in ‘post’ (i.e. not in an office) for more than 50% of their duty time, and are deployed either on foot or in a police vehicle, and he said that he would wish for the majority of the new 1000 police officers promised under this term of Parliament should to be deployed as visible street police.

He said that ‘community policing’ implies engaging with the community and improving the quality of life in areas beyond the traditional police business of crime and disorder. ‘24/7 response policing’ are officers who attend to calls which require immediate assistance, therefore, although they work in the community, they are not ‘community police officers’.

He said that visible policing in which officers are able to engage with the public, would not only improve community-police relations, but also prevent crime, improve intelligence gathering and relations with young people who are often responsible for anti-social behaviour, and would also enhance public confidence in the police, and alleviate concerns. He said that although practices such as attending community meetings were useful ways of engaging with the public, this was of no comparison to actually having a visible police presence on the streets.

He said that there was a need for a common understanding and common vision throughout all the forces in Scotland about how the police should engage with the public, but that there still had to be room to allow for local adaptation.

The third panel comprised of senior members of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. They said that ‘community policing’ will mean different things to different police areas, but that overall, it could be said to be ‘locally accessible, accountable, visible, and responsive to the communities in which they serve.’

However, they cautioned against too narrow a model, saying it would be more useful to think of an ‘ethos’ of community policing, but that it should be about prevention, intervention, and collaboration with other partners.

They said that community policing is given a very high priority within police forces because it is linked the need for public reassurance. They said that although there was a need for specialisms such as CID and firemarms and so forth, the community police officer was at the head of the fight against low-level crime and anti-social behaviour, added to which they also have the benefit of being able to alert other areas of the police if there is a more serious problem which need addressing. They said that although many of the performance measures that the police are now working towards measure qualitative factors such as ‘feelings of safety’, there was still a need for police to measured against concrete measures such as reduction in crime.

They said that communication with the public was of central importance, and that this should be not just about listening to what concerns the public has, but also about telling the public what the police have been doing about specific issues. One of the witnesses said that one police forces had carried out impact assessments after certain incidents, particularly for ‘signal crimes’ which affect the community’s fear of crime, and they said that giving information back to the community was key to securing assurance, and that this could be done either formally through public meetings and so forth, or informally, through the community beat officer speaking with local shopkeepers.

The final panel consisted of John Vine, speaking on behalf of ACPOS. He said that, although there was a need for a consistent approach to community policing across Scotland, it was also vitally important that forces be able to interpret and implement a version of community policing that is appropriate for their area. He also said that it was important for community policing to not be recognised in isolation from other policing functions, nor should it be understood as being delivered solely by the police officer working in the particular community, it was ‘multi-faceted’ and involved working with local partners.

He said that although abstracting police was a common grievance from communities who wished to have a familiar officer in their area, it was necessary for Chief Constables to have the discretion to take away an officer in case of an emergency elsewhere; therefore, he was not in favour of any sort of formal ring-fencing. He also said that although there had been little national research carried out so far into the effect of community policing on factors such as fear of crime, there was strong local and anecdotal evidence that visible policing does have a positive effect in these areas. He also said that the police could join up with local authorities in the community planning partnerships, and use this a way to measure public satisfaction the police, the local authority, and other agencies such the fire and the health boards.

That concluded the evidence in this meeting and they will hear more evidence in their meeting next week.

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read all the written evidence taken so far on the Community Policing Inquiry Homepage.

The Chamber

Drugs Strategy Debated

The following day, the Government’s drug strategy was debated following its launch and last week’s Ministerial statement.

The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, led the debate by reiterating all the points he made in the Chamber last week, saying that the new approach will be ‘person centred’, and that recovery should be viewed not as an event but as process. He said that the approach replaces the old aim of ‘harm reduction’ with that of ‘recovery’. He said that the strategy had been welcomed by a range of professionals, from the health spokesperson from COSLA to the chief medical officer of Scotland.

He was questioned about what was meant by recovery being about ‘movement and dynamism’. He avoided answering the question, saying instead that recovery from drug addiction is difficult and takes a long time to achieve. He was asked whether it would still be possible for a heroin addict to remain on a methodone programme for an extended period of time, which the Government have been critical of in the past. He replied that it was his job to set out a ‘vision’ which had as its guiding principle ‘recovery’ and that it was not his place to tell clinicians what to do, therefore any decisions about methadone in individual cases should be left up to them. He said that all the research on the subject showed that methadone has an important part to play in tackling addiction, but that getting someone on to such treatment can no longer be regarded as a successful outcome in itself.

The Labour amendment said that the target of getting an additional 10 per cent of people with drug problems into treatment, which has been the prime target for drugs services over the past eight or nine years, has been dropped.

The Minister replied that there was a need to work towards ‘outcomes’ rather than simply meeting targets, which he said could sometimes be arbitrary and often have unintended consequences. Thus, if there is a target to deliver an extra 300 people into treatment, there is an incentive for local authorities to put all their focus into treatment, and other equally important parts of recovery, such as training, will not receive resources. He said that the Government has therefore set up an ‘expert delivery reform group’ to consider future delivery arrangements and to determine how performance management and accountability for local delivery of drug services should operate within the context of the single outcome agreements with COSLA and the NHS accountability structures. This group will also develop an outcome-based framework for assessing and managing performance at a local level and creating appropriate outcomes to work towards.

He announced an extra £94 million from the Justice portfolio over the next three years, and welcomed research that Audit Scotland are carrying out into the scale and effectiveness of drug expenditure in Scotland. He concluded by saying the Chamber ought to work in a spirit of cross party consensus on this issue.

Speaking for the Labour party, Paul Martin said that by questioning aspects of the Government’s plan his party was not playing party politics, rather raising legitimate concerns about the way that public money is spent. Specifically, there was a need for the word ‘target’ to appear more prominently in the strategy (it only appears twice), because such a large amount of public money is being spent. He said that people should not be afraid of setting ‘targets’ so that there is a clear agenda which is easier for people to follow. He also wanted to know whether the Government would stick to its pre-election commitment to provide an additional 20 per cent to the drugs budget and to restore ring-fenced funding for drugs education. He wanted to know what the Government intended to do about tackling local drug dealers and he praised the work carried out by the previous Administration in their approach to tackling drugs. He said that the Government’s plans to distribute leaflets to all parents affected by drug misuse would do no harm, but that it would do little to communities which are already affected by drugs. 

For the Conservatives, Annabel Goldie said that she welcomed this new strategy, saying that for the first time, there seemed to be a desire to bring forward solutions, rather than just manage the problem by focusing on harm reduction. She said that, although she had sympathy with concerns that there was not enough scrutiny of spending in the strategy, people should nonetheless not be too hasty in demanding details at this stage. She said that because such vast amounts of money are currently being spent in different places to tackle drug abuse, Parliament should wait for the Audit Scotland report to be published in the New Year, before demanding that targets be put in place. 

Margaret Smith spoke for the Liberal Democrats, and she also welcomed the wide range of advice that the Government has taken in formulating this strategy. She welcomed the move away from a ‘one size fits all’ approach to one which emphasises that different addicts will require difficult forms of treatment. She also spoke favourably about DTTOs and welcomed the Government’s decision to extend them to district courts, saying that there was scope for their extension nationally if the pilots are successful. She also called for detail about how outcomes will be incorporated into single outcome agreements, but she said there was no need at this stage to insist on targets.

There were a number of helpful and well informed contributions in this debate, and members also relayed their experiences dealing with those affected by drug addictions either as constituency MSPs, or as health and care professionals . Dr Richard Simpson (Lab), who works for his local drug action team, said that, although ‘recovery’ was obviously important, the Government’s emphasis on ‘movement and dynamism’ which emphasises that recovery is a staged and managed process, was sending out the wrong message. He said that this process implies a chaotic situation, which probably involving criminal activity and damage to children and relationships and that the constant opposition to harm reduction and recovery is damaging to the people who deliver drug services, as well as to users and to communities. He also said that harm reduction and recovery should not be seen as two opposites, rather they are part of a continuum, and he asked the Minister for assurances that no-one will be forced to come off methadone or patients doses reduced without their knowledge. He also said that it was vital that there was some sort of targets in place, no matter how general they are. He said that service providers in the community would otherwise not be held to account in their application of resources.

Bill Aitken (Con), the Justice Committee convenor, spoke about the problem with drug use within Scottish prisons. He spoke of his surprise when he first found out that prisoners can volunteer to be housed on ‘drug free wings’ in prison, and he said there was a very urgent need to examine why drugs are freely available in prisons and he said that he was not convinced that all possible efforts to prevent drugs from getting into prisons are exhausted.
He said that Scotland should not be afraid to look abroad, and he spoke about the ‘Pennsylvania project’, which reduced the level of drug use in prisons so that only between 1 and 2 per cent of prisoners showed the effects of drugs. He said that this project was multi-faceted: it involved introducing sophisticated investigatory techniques using sniffer dogs extensively, and also a wide range of technology. He also said that part of the project was to make it clear that it was totally and utterly unacceptable for drugs to be introduced to prisons, and that we have not been nearly hard enough in that respect in Scotland.

Summing up at the end of the debate, the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, said that he looked forward to meeting Annabel Goldie and Bill Aitken to discuss their ideas about addressing drug misuse in prisons. He said there were many important differences between the prison system in Pennsylvania and those in Scotland, but he said that the ‘ethos’ being put forward by the Conservatives was correct.

He also said that he would write to the UK authorities to try and broaden powers related to confiscating the proceeds of crime. He said that by reducing the threshold, the assets of the person in the housing scheme can be confiscated as well as those of the person who lives in a lush housing estate

He said that the points by Richard Simpson and others about methadone are correct, and he admitted that the situation in Scotland with regards to this issue was ‘a mess’. He said that nobody ever set out to create a situation in which people are ‘parked on methadone’ and that replacement medication will continue to have its place although there should be efforts made to move people off if possible.

At the end of the debate, the Labour amendment, which sought to include targets for spending more firmly in the strategy, was disagreed.

Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the Newsblog

Questions to the Law and Justice Officers

Wildlife Crime (Snaring)

Kicking off questions to the Law and Justice Officers, Peter Peacock (Lab) asked the Justice Secretary how many people have been prosecuted for illegal snaring on protected species. Mr Peacock said that the Government’s decision not to ban snaring raised questions about how to police snaring that is allowed and to stop illegal snares. He wanted to know how the Government will ensure that unlicensed snaring is policed and whether or not estates that previously had snaring licences but which no longer have them, will receive particular attention from police forces. Mr MacAskill replied that in the past three years two people have been prosecuted in Scottish courts for the illegal use of snaring. He also spoke about what the Government is doing to prosecute wildlife crime in general, saying that they have set up a specialist wildlife crime unit, and that prosecutions are now more likely because there are specialists on wildlife crime within the Crown Office. He said that where snaring is used, there was a need to ensure it was used appropriately and within the law, but that there was also a need to ensure that people who have a legitimate reason for snaring are protected.

CCTV

Patrick Harvey (Green) asked the Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing), about the Government’s support for CCTV, in light of Home Office research published that week which questioned its validity as a crime prevention tool. Mr. Harvey said that CCTV was being deployed, not because of ‘evidence based policy’ but rather as an act of faith in the belief it ought to work. He said that there was a danger we were moving towards living under 24-hour surveillance unless the limits within which surveillance can operate are properly defined. The Minister replied that the Government believes that CCTV plays an extremely useful part in detecting and prosecuting crime and that the idea that we are all going to be placed under 24-hour surveillance was ‘overblown and extravagant’. However, he said that the Government are currently undertaking a strategic review of CCTV which will conclude later in the summer.

See also the press in the Newsblog

Environmental Crime Legislation

There was another question on environmental crime legislation for the Justice Secretary, this time from Sarah Boyack (Lab). Although welcoming the extra money that the Government have put in to tackling wildlife crime, she also argued that other enforcement agencies which are not part of the police, are also crucial in the fight against this type of crime. She urged the Government to ensure that agencies such as the SSPCA are not left out of pocket by doing the job that criminal justice agencies would normally carry out. The Justice Secretary replied that the Government were happy to work together with all agencies to ensure that wildlife are protected.

Police Numbers

The Parliament was back on familiar ground, with Paul Martin (Lab) asking the Cabinet Secretary for Justice if the Government still plans to have an extra 1,000 officers in place by March 2011, in line with their manifesto pledge. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the Government’s promise to ‘recruit’ an extra 1,000 police in this Parliament’s lifetime remained, although he maintained that this issue was still about more than simply a head count of officers, but also about building capacity within existing numbers. In a supplementary question, Bill Aitken (Con) asked if the early release of prisoners would mean that police officers would have to arrest the same offenders two or three times, with the result that even an extra 17,000 police would not be adequate. Kenny MacAskill replied that automatic early release was brought in by the previous Conservative Government, and that plans to build three new prisons would alleviate the pressing problem of overcrowding. He also said that McLeish commission is currently examining unconditional automatic early release.

Drug Misuse in Dundee

Following the ‘Evening Telegraph’ campaign highlighting drug misuse in its area, the MSP representing that region, Joe FitzPatrick (SNP) asked the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, what was being done to tackle drugs in Dundee, given that he was faced with a growing number of constituents who are becoming increasingly concerned about incidents ranging from the use of stairwells and other public places for drug taking, to threatening behaviour in town centres and streets. The Minister replied that Dundee will get its share of the money announced the previous day as part of the drugs strategy. He also said that while the Government supports the police in their efforts to tackle drugs, it was not up to them to tell local agencies which decisions to take in operational matters.

See also

See also the press in the Newsblog

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

There was a question this week about who was responsible for transporting young offenders to and from courts and children’s hearings and about whether the ages of children in prison are collected by the SPS or not. There were questions about the legality or otherwise of the funding given to anti-terrorism by the Government. There was a question about which part of the law prohibits the personal details of children under prosecution to be published, and a question about guidelines for prosecutors on the diversion of cases from summary courts. There was a question about the number of prosecutions for possession of drugs in Dundee and Tayside, and about how money from seized proceeds of crime will be spent in areas hardest hit by crime. There was a question about how many young people under 18 have had alcohol confiscated from them; about prosecuting shop keepers who sell alcohol to underage children and about prosecutions for drinking in prescribe public places

Posted by KM on Wed 11th Jun 2008 at 3:20 am
Drugs and alcohol Police • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 26th - 30th May, 2008

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

The Justice Committee continued its inquiry into Community Policing this week, and in the Chamber, the Government launched the new drugs strategy, and there was a members’ debate about helping victims of domestic abuse who have insecure visa status in Scotland

The Justice Committee

Community Policing Inquiry

The Committee continued with the inquiry into community policing this week, hearing firstly from the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Paddy Tompkins and senior members of his team. Mr. Tompkins began by urging members not to look at community policing as a distinct discipline within policing, because he said that every police officer works with the motivation of ‘serving the communities in Scotland’. He said that rather than define it separately, it was preferable instead to identify broad themes within community policing. Some of these themes include that community policing should have a key role in improving public satisfaction with the police service generally, and that it should also play a key role in diminishing the fear of crime as well as the actual reduction of crime. He said it was therefore not possible to define the key roles of a community police officer, and also because the term is applied in a vast range of different contexts throughout Scotland.

Some research has shown that a greater police presence on streets can actually increase public anxiety rather than reduce it, because it prompts the public to wonder what the reason is for the police presence, and he said that it can sometimes be more effective to display posters saying that there is a greater police presence in high crime areas than to actually increase police visibility.

The witnesses spoke about the desire to have the same police officers in the same communities in order for consistency and familiarity. However, they said that although this was preferable, the ability to be flexible was also one of the key strengths of the Scottish police force, and a flexible service means that officers will be moved from one role or location to another when such needs arise. They also expressed uneasiness about the ‘one size fits all’ model which is used for example in the community policing model the Committee heard about in England and Wales.

The panel made the distinction between ‘response policing’ and ‘community policing’, saying they were rather like primary and secondary health care, where one deals with the immediate emergencies and the other with ongoing, ‘background’ tasks. However, they said that in practice most police do both these jobs anyway, and the distinction is therefore difficult to draw. They said it would be beneficial for the police to communicate to the public more effectively about the demands under which they operate, because if the public were aware of the these issues, they are more likely to be understanding of their work.

The second panel of witnesses consisted of members of the Association of Scottish Neighbourhood Watches and the Association of Scottish Community Councils. The witnesses from Neighbourhood Watch said that the consensus from the Scottish neighbourhood watch community was that ‘community policing’ meant the provision of designated officers to cover a specific area, that they will probably patrol on foot or on bicycles, and will communicate with members of the public while they were on patrol. They said that community policing builds up trust between the public and the police, and they said that they provide a powerful tool for tackling crime and fear of crime when backed up by the work of neighbourhood watches and community councils. Community policing is also the branch of the police service that is best equipped to tackle antisocial behaviour, underage drinking and local crime.

The witness representing Community Councils for Scotland said that Community Councils had great potential to be used as part of neighbourhood policing strategies. He said that there are around 37 community councils per each local authority area, and they hold monthly meetings to which around 12,000 people are invited. At each meeting there are discussions about issues that trouble the local community, and they are usually attended by at least one police officer, who are then able to respond to issues that are raised. The witness said that these meeting provided an obvious way to allow for a more systematic format for police community engagement.

All the witnesses spoke of the common problem of ‘abstraction’ whereby police officers are taken away from their local area in order to deal with a situation that may arisen elsewhere. There were calls to make ‘community police officers’ a specific category of police with their own Chief Constable, for example, similar to the British Transport Police.

That concluded evidence taken for this week, and the Committee will hear their final week of oral evidence next week.

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read all the written evidence taken so far on the Community Policing Inquiry Homepage. 

The Chamber

Drugs Strategy Debate

On Thursday morning, the Government announced their new drugs strategy, entitled “The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland’s Drug Problem”, which puts the issue of drugs back in the spotlight after greater focus on alcohol in the Government’s first year in office. Announcing the strategy, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, said that that this was the first drugs strategy since devolution, and he reminded the Chamber how serious this issue is for Scotland, saying that, per head of population, we have more problem drug users than other parts of the UK, and more also than most comparable European countries.

He said that this issue had attracted considerable cross party support and there was a new spirit of consensus in the Parliament which had all been reflected in the Strategy. He said that the new strategy moves away from an emphasis on ‘reducing risk and harm’ towards to a focus on ‘recovery’. He said that this would require services which are person-centered and recognise that ‘drug users come in units of one’, who have individual needs, requiring different support and have different milestones to recovery. In the past, there had not been enough focus on achieving positive outcomes for people who have drug problems, and that new national support would be given to local bodies to help them deliver the recovery approach, and to ‘embed recovery’ into the training and workforce development of those who will carry it out.

Parents will also be a focus of the strategy, because if parents are more informed they will be able to give better advice to their children and to spot potential problems before they become out of hand. The children of drug addicted parents will also be moved to the centre of agency responses, and he said that the principle of early intervention will also become embedded into practice.

He said that for every £1 that is spent on treatment on drug addiction in Scotland, at least £9.50 is saved in health and crime costs, and that the recently announced extension of drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) will contribute to these savings. He said that he has asked the Auditor General of Scotland to carry out an inquiry looking at how resources can be used more effectively and to see how effectively the existing resources are being used.  He also said that information sharing between prison and community services, will improve the continuity of care between prison and release into the community.

Pauline McNeill noted that there was little in the wording of his statement which she disagreed with, however, she challenged the Government over the issue of funding, wanting to know whether the money announced was new money or not. She also wanted to know if the responsibility for achieving the outcomes will fall on national government and not rest solely on COSLA and the NHS, and also how the outcomes would be measured. He replied that the sharing of responsibility with COSLA and others was not a matter of apportioning blame, rather it was to achieve greater success for Scotland, and that the funding for tackling drugs has indeed been increased.

Annabel Goldie for the Conservatives wasted no time reminding the Chamber how her party had been instrumental in this strategy, and she congratulated the Government’s approach which she said was a welcome move that taken by the previous administration, which had allowed too many addicts to be ‘parked on methadone’ and not enough effort had been made to move them on to recovery. She urged the Government to examine the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 to shift the onus of proof on suspects to prove that their assets where acquired legally away from current situation whereby the onus of proof lies with the Crown, and she also asked whether DTTOs could be extended to all Scottish courts and Children’s Hearings Systems. In reply, the Minister warmly welcomed the co-operation from the Conservatives, and indeed the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, and he chided Labour, saying they persisted in taking a partisan approach to the issue. Returning to the matter at hand, he said that the extension of DTTOs was indeed being piloted in the Edinburgh and Lothian area, and if successful would be rolled out nationally. He agreed with Ms. Goldie that there was a ‘strong case’ for shifting the onus of proof in the cases she mentioned, but he provided no details about how this may occur.

For the Liberal Democrats, Margaret Smith also welcomed the pilot extension of DTTOs, given that this is what her party have pushed for. She also asked whether there were plans to review how the current approach to treating addicts with methadone will change as a result of the strategy. He replied that methadone will continue to play a key role to play in treatment, but that although there has been success at getting people onto programs, there had been less success at getting them off, which had to change, and he said the new approach will emphasise individual treatment for every addict.

There will be a full debate in the Chamber next week which will allow for some of these themes to be teased out in more detail. In the mean time however, you can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, and you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also read the press coverage in the CJScotland Newsblog .

See also

“New approach to tackling drugs” Scottish Government News Release

“No Recourse’ No Safety”

At the close of Business on Thursday, there was a short members debate led by the SNP’s Angela Constance. The title of the motion derives from the report from Amnesty International and the Southall Black Sisters called ‘No Recourse No Safety: The UK Government’s Failure to Protect Women from Violence’, which brought attention to the difficulty that women with insecure visa status have in accessing support in order to escape abuse. The contents of the motion also commended the work done by the Scottish Government and the previous administration in Holyrood, in helping women escape who suffer from domestic violence, and it also urged the Scottish Government to put in place emergency funding while a permanent solution to this problem is sought from the UK Government. Ms. Constance also congratulated the work done by national and local services such as Scottish Women’s Aid, who provide support to women from a minority population often without payment from public funds.

She said that by denying funding to support women in this position of visa limbo, backs are being turned on a group of women who can be described as ‘new Scots’, and that because immigration legislation is a reserved issue, this issue could be rectified if the Scottish Parliament could ‘cut through the demarcation of devolved and reserved matters’. She said that the women caught in this position women have no right to be accommodated under housing legislation and no housing benefit or money to pay for refuge and support. They also have no right to benefits and some of them also have no right to work. She said that this loophole meant that 106 women were denied refuge last year, which she argued was a clear abrogation of their human rights. She urged the Scottish Government to put in place emergency funds while the permanent solution of securing the exemption of women who are fleeing domestic violence from the rule that currently denies them recourse to public funds, was found.

There were only six other MSPs who spoke in this debate, and several of them raised the question of human rights and discrimination, saying that the UK Government could be accused of failing to act with due diligence in this matter. There was genuine anger in the speeches over the treatment of these women, and it was mentioned that other countries such as Canada, America and Austria are able to provide help to these women, and Scotland ought to follow suit. Research from Oxfam which argued that there is a greater degree of tolerance to asylum seekers in Scotland than in England and Wales was also mentioned.

There was also concern expressed about children being taken into care or given to an abusive partner, and it was argued that the best interests of the child must always be at the centre of decisions taken about their future. Human trafficking was also spoken about, and the recent pledge by the UK Government to finally ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings during 2008 was welcomed.

At the end of the debate, the Minister for Communities and Sport, Steward Maxwell, spoke on behalf of the Government. He said that the UK Government were already taking action on this issue, having recently announced a new scheme under which victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds might be eligible to receive support for their housing and living costs. Under the proposals, which are still being developed, victims of domestic abuse whose applications for indefinite leave to remain were successful might qualify for a contribution to their costs. He said that although his hands were tied given that these matters were reserved, he would write to the Home Office to set out the concerns and those that were expressed by members during the debate and to reiterate the desire to find a way forward as soon as possible.

You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

First Minister’s Questions

Drugs were brought up again during FMQs, as Annabel Goldie (Con) asked the First Minister what was being done to address drug use in prisons. She said that figures reveal that drug finds in prison have increased by 20% so far this year, and that, no record is kept of either the substances or the quantities that are found, and she invited the First Minister to back the Conservative approach which takes a zero tolerance approach to drugs in prison. Alex Salmond said that, although drug use within prison was indeed a serious problem, the reason for the figures she mentioned was perhaps that drug use in prisons was being dealt with differently now than it had been done in the past. nonetheless welcomed the co-operation of the Scottish Conservatives on this issue, and he said it was time to rise above party politics in the fight against drugs.

You can read this question in the Official Report, and watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There were written questions this week about the number of referrals to the children’s hearing system, and about how the recently introduced fiscal fines will be monitored. There was a question about the rights of the accused in relation to custody time limits. There were questions about sentencing guidelines and disclosure of evidence, and a question in which the Justice Secretary revlealed there were no plans to extend the Scottish Crime Survey to include 11-15 year olds, as has recently been done with the BCS in England and Wales. There were a number of questions about policing, including over their use of tazers and systems for disciplining officers, and about the use of football banning orders, and about the help available to vulnerable witnesses

Posted by KM on Wed 4th Jun 2008 at 7:27 pm
Courts • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 19th to the 23rd of May, 2008

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Last week the Justice Committee began hearing evidence as part of their inquiry into community policing. There was also a short debate in Parliament about wildlife crime, and during FMQs, the First Minister confirmed plans to end automatic early release. 

The Justice Committee

Community Policing Inquiry

Earlier this year the Justice Committee published a report on their inquiry into the ‘effective use of police resources’, which focused on the management and deployment of police throughout Scotland. During evidence collected as part of this inquiry, ‘community policing’ was often referred to, however, the Committee found that there was an absence of a commonly agreed definition of what this term meant, or how he practice was operationalised. The Committee therefore decided to undertake a further inquiry, looking specifically at the purpose and effectiveness of community policing in Scotland, including consideration of its definition and the resources currently available for it.
The Committee has already been on a number of fact finding trips to different police forces, and this was their first session hearing oral evidence.

The first panel of witnesses consisted of a Deputy Chief Constable from the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), and a researcher from the Home Office. The NPIA was established in 2006 and is a UK wide organisation which advises police forces and the Home Office on how to improve the delivery of policing. It is currently involved in the Neighbourhood Policing Programme, which supports and advises forces throughout England and Wales in the roll out and provision of neighbourhood policing.

The purpose of the Programme was to move from a ‘looser, woollier concept’ of community policing towards a more specific model which was built on international research and knowledge. They said the Programme has introduced a range of guidance, project management, budgeting plans, and a central team of staff, to advise forces throughout England and Wales on how to arrange community policing in their area. It is based on the pioneering work on neighbourhood policing developed in Chicago, although they were quick to point out that it has been adapted considerably to be suitable for the UK context
It employs a Chief Constable who is charge nationally, and it also deliver a range of ‘products’ to forces, such as seminars and workshops, and guidance on community engagement. The Programme has also identified a range of effective community engagement models, including ‘street briefings’, house-to-house investigations and attending public meetings. The witnesses said that the police engage with communities through the PACT model, which stands for Partners And Communities Together. This allows police officers, members of the public, and other public services to work together to identify a number of priorities on which the police and the other partners will focus locally, which will also act as a method ensuring the neighbourhood officer or team is accountable to that public group for progress against those priorities.
The witnesses also spoke about the different reasons why the Programme had been created, which included a growing awareness of a ‘reassurance gap’ in public confidence in police to be able to offer security, and an awareness of a need for ‘citizen focus’ in police work. There was also a realisation that successfully tackling antisocial behaviour related directly to the public perception and fear of crime, and there was therefore a need to focus on lower level crimes, which may have been overlooked in the traditional focusing of police on ‘volume crime’.

He said the task was to focus on making local police work more responsive to public needs; to develop the notion of collective security and shared interests within a neighbourhood and between different public services; and to tackle local problems strongly in partnership so as to increase confidence and reduce not only the perception but the incidence of antisocial behaviour and crime. He said that central to neighbourhood policing in England and Wales has been the introduction of police community support officers (PCSOs), and there is now a commitment to have a named officer or team in every area. He said that one of the strains in former models of community policing was the fact that officers were torn between vandalism, at one end of the spectrum, and terrorism, at the other, and it was often coverage at the community or neighbourhood end that suffered.

The next panel consisted Professor Martin Innes from Cardiff University, and Professor Adam Crawford, from the University of Leeds, who have both carried out research into policing in England and Wales. They also spoke about the pivotal role of PCSOs, saying that they work particularly well when they have the capacity to engage with people living in residential areas, and to solve particular local problems, which is much harder for police officers, who are more often than not pulled away by other pressures. They said that it is important to have teams that are dedicated to particular areas and can resist wider pressures relating for example to job turnover or status competition within the organisation. The witnesses said that an important role for teams is to open up beyond the police organisation, and that a key aspect of community policing is knowing the limitations of what the police organisation can do and what roles other partner organisations can play. For example, neighbourhood and community wardens can assume certain tasks and functions in communities that police officers are unable to perform. They said that there are other organisations that are better placed to develop trust, and that local communities also have the capacity to solve problems and to engage with hard-to-reach community members.

Speaking about community engagement, they said that this has now become embedded as a proactive rather than a reactive element of policing, so that whereas in the past the police have relied on people to come to them with their problems, now the onus is placed on themselves to go out and research and understand the problems that are faced by communities. They said that difficulties often emerged when it came to ensuring consistent application of ‘community engagement’, saying that their research had shown that there are geographic gaps in coverage and that currently, entire communities are frequently not being engaged with for a variety of reasons.

The Committee then took evidence via video link from Professor Skogan in the United States, who has written extensively on the pioneering model of community policing developed in Chicago. He spoke about the underlying principles which he said ought to underpin most community policing schemes, even though the way they translate into programmes on the ground will vary from city to city. Firstly, schemes have to establish ‘turf orientation’, where policing is decentralised, and responsibility for particular geographical areas is affixed to individual units, and a second principle is that of ‘civic engagement’. The third feature of community policing is that it involves the police adopting an ‘extremely broad problem-solving view’ of the problems that they face, which is necessary if the public come to meetings to talk about their problems, because the police must be able to respond affirmatively, if this only means connecting with other city services.

Prof. Skogan gave very interesting evidence relating to Chicago’s experience. He described the monthly public meetings which take place in local jurisdictions throughout the city, which begin with the sergeant for the area reporting back on what has been done since the previous meeting. There is then a discussion of old business, and then a discussion of new problems and what people should be thinking about in the coming month. He said that these meetings allow for the exchange of information and also act as a way of ensuring police accountability. He said that one of the most significant changes in terms of police organisation was the introduction of ‘beat teams’, whose primary task is to answer calls within their specific area. He said that the aim is to keep the beat officers in their assigned beat about 70 per cent of the time, so they can go elsewhere if emergencies arise. Each beat team also has a specialist beat unit sergeant who oversees the teams’ activities, attends the beat meetings with the public, and takes general responsibility for co-ordinating the officers as teams.

He was asked about the cost of neighbourhood policing, and he said that the scheme is actually not that much more expensive than standard policing, given that around 70 per cent of officers’ time is spent answering calls, which is work that needs to be done by police of some variety anyway, and it did not require extra or ring-fenced funding. He said that although its resource demands are relatively limited, there have been clashes between developments in community policing, with wider developments within policing generally, such as moves to create greater accountability, or the reforming police management, and he said there was therefore a need to find ways of including more information that is relevant to the effective application of community policing in management information systems.

The fourth and final panel consisted of Dr Daniel Donnelly from the Scottish Centre for Police Studies, and Alistair Henry from the University of Edinburgh, who have both carried out research in this area within Scotland. They said that at the core of community policing was a need for a ‘regular interface’ between the police, other agencies and the community, which would ensures that police can understand and tackle the community’s problems and concerns, even though these might not always be specifically related to crime. The point was also made that community policing has often been more aspirational rather then a reflection of actual practice. The witness said that this reflects the way that both society and the police themselves would like policing to be, and there was therefore a need to ensure that community policing was operationalised rather than take the phrase at face value.

The witnesses said that in order for community policing to be successful, it should be viewed either as part of the police’s core work or as a respected specialism, which gives status for the people who work in it. They were asked about what the mark of successful community policing would be, and they said an example would be if members of the public phoned their local authorities or other agencies, to get them to solve problems such as abandoned cars or other low-level nuisances, without a police officer even being approached. One of the witnesses argued that the emphasis on community policing and ‘bobbies on the beat’ has been driven by the police themselves, rather than by politicians. It was also argued that one of the factors reducing the fear of crime is through constant interaction with the police, through the public listening to them explaining what they are doing and the police showing an interest in the need to solve problems.

That concluded a long but extremely interesting session of evidence to the Committee, and there will be more evidence heard in their meeting next week.

You can read all the evidence heard in this meeting in the Official Report, and you can also watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.
You can also read all the documents relating to this inquiry, including all the written evidence so far received, on the Community Policing Inquiry Homepage .

The Chamber

Wildlife Crime Debate

On Thursday, the Solicitor General, Frank Mulholland, lead a short debate in the Chamber on the subject of wildlife crime. The purpose of this debate was to allow the Government and the Crown Office to respond to the Tomkins Review, published in April. This was a joint review by the Chief Inspectors of Constabulary and Prosecution, into preventing, investigating and prosecuting wildlife crime in Scotland. This report made 24 recommendations, including that each police force in Scotland have a full-time wildlife crime co-ordinator to act as a focal point for investigations and partnership working, and that there is full implementation of the stated specialist wildlife prosecutor role within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The Government has welcomed the review, and has committed to implement the recommendations in full.

Opening the debate, Mr Mulholland welcomed the report, and said that an action plan for implementing the recommendations has already been drawn up. He said that the role of the specialist wildlife prosecutors has already been strengthened, and that they are developing arrangements for cross-area co-operation in making decisions on wildlife cases and prosecuting them, which will ensure that all wildlife cases are dealt with by wildlife prosecutors who have the relevant experience. He said that many of the recommendations require co-operation across the Scottish Government and the criminal justice sector, and that the prosecution service is committed to working closely with the police and other partners to achieve that. He concluded by saying that implementation of the recommendations will help to reinforce the message to the public that wildlife crime is taken very seriously be the authorities. 

During the open debate that followed, there was some bad tempered exchanges about the wording on the Liberal Democrat amendment, which caused the Presiding Officer to have to intervene on a number of occasions. Overall however, there was agreement from all sides of the Chamber on the primary purposes of the debate, which was to discuss the recommendations of the joint report, and to support the future implement of its recommendations.

You can read the transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, and you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

See also

“Inspectorates’ report on the policing and prosecution of wildlife crime published” CJScotland Newsblog

General Questions

There was a question for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice from Hugh Henry (Lab), who wanted to know which three new prisons had been sanctioned by the Government and what funding method would be used to build each of them. He accused the Justice Secretary of taking credit during interviews for the actions of the previous administration, saying that Mr MacAskill had claimed that the Government had ‘commissioned three new prisons’ during media interviews, when the process of procuring two of the these prisons was actually begun by the previous administration. Kenny MacAskill responded with a reply to a different question entirely, by justifying the Government’s decision to put the prisons back into public ownership.
You can read this question in the Official Report.

Another question for the Cabinet Secretary asked what the Government were doing to tackle violent crime in housing estates’. The Justice Secretary replied that tackling ‘deep-seated culture of violence’ will take time, but that progress is being made. He said that an on-going anti-violence campaign focuses police efforts on weapon carrying and alcohol misuse, and he spoke about the recently announced initiative to tackle gang violence, which will work intensively with over 500 youngsters across Scotland. He said that this will be is supported by the £7 million investment cash back scheme, which will provide young people with ‘more positive opportunities’.
And you can read this question in the Official Report.

See also:

“Crime cash to fund culture scheme” Scottish Government News Release

You can also watch these questions on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

First Minister’s Questions

During FMQs, the First Minister announced that the Government plans to end to automatic early release. He was responding to a question from Annabel Goldie (Con), who was responding to comments by a Sheriff that because of automatic early release, ‘judicial disposals are largely meaningless and the system is being brought into disrepute’. Ms Goldie accused the Government of taking a ‘soft touch’ on criminals by allowing automatic early release to continue.

The First Minister agreed with her main point, saying that ‘the whole Parliament acknowledges that there is now a substantial consensus that automatic early release should end—and it will end’. He said that this announcement will form part of the wider review of penal policy that is currently being carried out by Henry McLeish, and he reminded the Chamber that the system of automatic early release was in fact introduced by the Conservative government in the 1990s.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

See also

“Salmond confirms policy to end automatic early release” CJScotland Newsblog

Later there was a question from Mike Pringle (LD) about the use of fixed penalty notices for sex offenders. Fixed penalty notices are part of a range of ‘direct measures’ recently agreed to by Parliament as part of summary justice reform, which allow fiscals to offer a fixed penalty in place of a prosecution for suspected certain low level crimes. Mr Pringle said that there have been reports from the Glasgow Bar Association that crimes involving suspected sex offenders have been dealt with by fixed penalty notices, and he challenged the First Minister to investigate the reports to ensure that potential sex offenders are ‘not escaping justice in order to free up court time’. Alex Salmond replied that all decisions about prosecution are the responsibility of the independent prosecution system, and that it would therefore be inappropriate for him to comment on these specific stories. However, he said that guidance had been issued to all prosecutors making it clear that they should not use direct measures in cases involving any sexual offending, and he assured the Chamber that the Crown Office will continue to monitor and review the guidance issued to its staff on an on-going basis to ‘take account of legitimate parliamentary concern’.

And you can read this question in the Official Report
You can also watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Written Questions

This week there was a question about funding for anti-terrorism ‘target hardening’
of railway stations, and a question which revealed how many drugs have been found in each prison
over the previous five years. There were further questions aboutprisons, including about how many foreign nationals are in Scottish prisons, and about the timetable for the new prison to replace HM Prison Peterhead. There was a further question about foreign national prisoners, and a question about the use of tazers by Scottish police. Finally, there were a number of questions about drink driving.

Posted by KM on Tue 27th May 2008 at 9:49 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Knife crime victimisation higher in Scotland than in England and Wales

“Grim figures reveal Scots more likely to die in knife crime” Press and Journal

Posted by MM on Tue 27th May 2008 at 6:57 am
Crime data • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 12th - 16th May 2008

Monday, May 19, 2008

There was the Stage 1 debate on the Judiciary and Courts Bill in the Chamber this week, and questions to the First Minister about the law on under age sex, and the disturbances at the UEFA final involving Rangers fans. 

The Justice Committee

The Committee were on another fact finding trip last week, but they will return to the Parliament for a meeting on the 20th May.

The Chamber

Stage 1 Debate of the Judiciary and Courts Bill

On Wednesday, the Chamber held the Stage 1 debate of the Judicial and Courts Bill. This follows the Justice Committee’s recent Stage 1 Report, which, although recommending the general principles of the Bill, also drew attention to the possible administrative burden it may place on the judiciary.

The overall objectives of the Bill are to strengthen the independence of the judiciary, by enshrining on statute what is already a common law principle; to strengthen the office of the Lord President, who will take a greater role in the management of the judiciary; to make changes to the Judicial Appointments Board, and to make changes to the Scottish Courts Service to make it run more efficiently.

Opening the debate, the Justice Secretary paid his respects to the work of the Justice Committee, saying their report was ‘considered and balanced’. He also paid tribute to the Scottish judiciary, who he said had enabled Scotland to develop its distinct identity over the past 300 years. He said there was nonetheless need for change however: Scotland required a ‘modern justice system’ that has the ‘capacity and flexibility’ to adjust to meet the needs of a changing society, along with increased public expectations.

He welcomed the Bill’s proposals relating to the handling of judicial complaints, saying that it was appropriate to have an independent reviewer, even though this person would still report to the Lord President. With regards to judicial training, he said that he was in favour of the Lord President’s preference, which was for measures that ‘verged on compulsion’, saying that this sounds ‘pretty close to being mandatory’.

Speaking about the concerns that had been raised about the possible increased administrative burden on the Lord Presidents office, MacAskill said that care had been taken throughout the consultation process to ensure that this would not occur to the detriment of the judicial work that judges must also undertake. He said the Lord President would be able to delegate most of the extra duties that this legislation will result in, and that it will only put on statute many of the tasks that his office currently undertakes anyway. He also pointed out that the Lord President did not have concerns about increased administrative burden. However, he said that in recognition of the points raised in the Committee report, and the importance of ensuring that this legislation is correct, he has asked for an independent report to be commissioned into this issue. It will be carried out by Douglas Osler and will be completed before Stage 2 consideration of the Bill begins.

Bill Aitken, in his role of both the Conservative justice spokesperson and the convenor of the Justice Committee, began by agreeing the symbolic value and importance of enshrining the independence of the judiciary on statute, and he welcomed the Cabinet Secretary’s announcement of an independent review on the administrative burden on the Lord President’s office. He spoke about the Judicial Appointments Board, which had proved one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill, in particular its requirement to ‘take issues of diversity into account’. Mr Aitken said that there was no place for affirmative action in selection to the judiciary, and that applicants must made on merit alone.

Speaking for the Labour party, Paul Martin, who is also a member of the Justice Committee, also welcomed the Osler review into judicial administration; however, he called for evidence of its terms of reference to be made public. He disagreed with some of the evidence that the Committee had received that suggested that only the judiciary were qualified to handle complaints about judicial conduct, saying that the Public Service Ombudsmen had shown that independent professionals were well qualified to carry out well informed and impartial inquiries into complaints in specialist fields. He also called on the Cabinet Secretary to reconsider his stance on whether or not there should be mandatory training, saying that Labour were strongly in favour of compulsion in this area, and this could provide an important ‘symbolic gesture’ to the public.

Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Margaret Smith, another Justice Committee member, also welcomed the general principles of the Bill. She also welcomed the recommendation to have an independent reviewer for complaints against the judiciary, saying that the sorts of complaints that they would be focusing on would be concerned with process rather than on judicial judgements. 

There was little disagreement or criticism during the open debate that followed, perhaps due to the fact that the majority of this Bill is completing work that had been set underway under the previous Administration. The only area of real disagreement seemed to around the issue judicial training and whether this legislation should make it compulsory, or whether ‘verging on compulsion’, would be sufficient. In the main, however, members were happy with the general principles of the Bill, and at the end of the debate, the general principles were unanimously agreed to by the Chamber.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

You can also read the press in the Newsblog

See also

Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill Homepage

General Questions

There was a question to the Justice Secretary, asking him if he would support police forces that wish to start up ‘problem-orientated partnerships’ (POP) in their locality. Jim Tolson (LD) said that Rosyth police are working with local organizations to develop a ‘POP’, which would recognize best practice and reward the most intelligent and effective approaches to dealing with the problems that police face.  Mr. MacAskill replied that it was important for the Government and for ‘the community’ to say thank you for the work the police do, and that if it is necessary to go beyond what has already been done to pay tribute to them, he would be more than happy to consider this.

And you can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch all the general questions on Holyrood.TV.

First Minister’s Questions

Football violence

The violence at the UEFA cup final in Manchester on Wednesday night, featured in First Minister’s Questions the next day. Wendy Alexander asked Alex Salmond whether he would launch an inquiry involving Greater Manchester Police, Manchester City Council, Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde Police and Rangers security. He replied that Manchester City Council were already undertaking an inquiry, even though it will be initially limited to looking at the equipment breakdown in the specific area of Manchester that the trouble broke out. He said that the scope of the inquiry ought to be wider, however, because there a number of other aspects to inquire into. He went on to say that the behaviour of a ‘small minority’ of fans was completely unacceptable and that the whole incident was ‘infuriating’ for Scottish football and Rangers Football Club, because the reputation that has been built up during a quarter of a century by Scotland fans, has been based on the fans’ ability, regardless of circumstances, to behave impeccably.

He said that both Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Government had been involved with talks with Manchester Police before the match, because of the anticipated number of fans without tickets in the city. However, he said that a change of approach had been taken ‘quite late in the day’ about how the events would be policed, but he refused to give more details and said instead that the inquiry launched by Manchester police would provide more answers in due course.

Wendy Alexander said that one of the contributory factors to the violence was alcohol, and she pressed the First Minister to make a timetable for ‘working together with other parties’ on this issue. He replied that the alcohol strategy will be published in June, but also that the Parliament would never put itself in the position of regarding alcohol as an excuse for violent or disorderly behaviour.

You can read this question in the Official Report. Also read the press coverage in the Newsblog

Age of Consent

Later, there was a question from Pauline McNeill (Lab), about the proposals on the law of underage sex contained in the Law Commission’s report on rape and sexual offences. The Commissions report suggested that consensual sex between youngsters aged between the ages of 13 and 15 should be effectively decriminalised. Currently, a boy of that age could be prosecuted for having consensual sex with a girl of the same age.

Both this Government and the previous Administration, said that they would base a new Rape and Sexual Offences Bill around the recommendations of the Law Commission’s report, and the Scottish Government put the report’s recommendations out to consultation prior to drafting a new Bill. Responses on this particular aspect of the report have proved divisive however, and so far the Government have not stated whether they agree with it. Ms. McNeill said that, although the law in this area may not be perfect, such a change might be seen as a relaxation of the law, which would send mixed signals to young people which would not be helpful particularly with respects to tackling the high rates of teenage pregnancy in Scotland.

Alex Salmond replied that this was a ‘complex and sensitive’ area of law, and that although the Government gave an undertaking to ‘act on the recommendations’ of the Scottish Law Commission, this does not mean that every recommendation of the Commission’s report will be incorporated into legislation. He said that the Cabinet had held a ‘very long’ discussion on this subject, and that he was confidant that the Parliament would be able to find a way of acting in a ‘responsible manner’ when it came to debating the final shape of legislation when the Government publishes the Bill later this year.

Bill Aitken then prompted him to nail his colours to the mast by saying categorically whether he agreed with the Law Commission’s proposals or not. Alex Salmond repeated that the Parliament would have to await the forthcoming legislation to see what it contained, but that he was confident the Parliament could work together on the issue in the best interests of the young people of Scotland.

And you can read this question in the Official Report. See also the press on this story in the Newsblog

Age-restricted Goods

Next, Alex Johnstone, (Con) asked a question about assistance for local authorities in curbing the purchasing of age-restricted goods such as alcohol. The First Minister replied that cracking down on illegal sales of age-restricted goods such as alcohol was a key priority for the Government, evidenced by the rolling out of test-purchasing and increased funding for local authorities to enforce this area. Mr Johnstone drew attention to a recent retail crime survey recently conducted by the Scottish Grocers Federation, which highlights the intimidation and abuse of sales assistants in relation to the enforcement of age restrictions, saying the survey found 165 incidents of physical violence against staff and 1,269 incidents of verbal abuse out of 533 stores. Alex Salmond replied that the government was also investing £120 million over the next three years to tackling alcohol misuse, and that the Government will shortly be making an announcement about providing specific resources to local authorities to enable them to step up the enforcement of the tobacco sales law. And you can read this question in the Official Report

You can also watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV

Written questions

There was a question about underage drinking and test purchasing, and another question on this topic, this time asking about how many retailers have been caught selling alcohol to underage customers in each of the last five years. There was a further question about underage drinking, asking how many young people had been admitted to hospital for excessive alcohol consumption, and about what measures are being taken to carry out alcohol screening in accident and emergency departments to increase access to intervention and treatment.

There was a question about the number of people in the Lothians region in the past 11 years who have been convicted of driving over the limit, and a question about why the information on drink driving and drug driving offences cannot be separated. There was a question about whether any legal powers exist to prohibit the consumption of methadone in public places. There was a question about funding for community sentence orders, and about what projects benefited from the seizure of assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and about number of cases brought before the court on the basis of bail undertakings. Finally, there was a question about number ofnew prisoners who test positive for drugs on arrival to prison, and about the costs of the termination of the private contract at HM Prison Addiewell, and about the management contract for HM Prison

Posted by KM on Mon 19th May 2008 at 7:31 pm
Drugs and alcohol Legislation Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 5th - 9th of May 2008

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Last week was relatively quiet, with the main justice related discussion taking place in questions to the Law and Justice Officers, covering overcrowding in Inverness Prison, the firearms summit, violence, the cuffing of prisoners in labour, the forensic laboratory in Dundee, the Open Estate.

The Justice Committee

The Committee were away on a ‘fact finding visit’ to the Scottish Borders as part of their Community Policing Inquiry last week. They will begin receiving evidence as part of this inquiry on the 20th of May. 

The Chamber

Questions to the Law and Justice Officers

New Forensic Science Laboratory

The Justice Secretary got the chance to announce plans to build a new forensic science laboratory in the Highlands, at themed question time on Thursday. The provision of forensic science services is the responsibility of the Scottish Police Services Authority, who are now in charge of providing one single forensic science service from ‘crime scene to court’. There are currently four laboratories throughout Scotland, and the SPSA’s original intentions were to merge the lab currently in operation at Aberdeen with the new one planned for Dundee, which has raised concerns that services would be stretched in the Highlands. In reply to Brian Smith (SNP), in whose constituency the Aberdeen laboratory is based, Kenny MacAskill said that following on from these concerns, he has asked the SPSA to reconsider whether to merge the services or not and no decision will be taken to close the Aberdeen forensic laboratory until a further consultation takes place.

See also the Newsblog

Open Prison Estate

Mike Pringle (LD) used his question to the Cabinet Secretary to argue that greater use should be made of the open prison estate for the reintegration of long term prisoners at the end of their sentences saying that this would help to cut reoffending rates. He said that there was a need for a greater number of places on the open prison estate, and he asked whether the Cabinet Secretary agreed that more use should be made of community sentencing. Kenny MacAskill replied that he did indeed agree with many of the points that the member raised, and he said that McLeish Commission are also looking at how the open prison estate integrates with the rest of the SPS.

Bill Aitken (Con) contributed to the debate by saying that although the open estate certainly did have a role to play in the prison system, but that it would be ‘absolute folly’ to extend the number of open places before a full review had been taken out into the criteria that are used to send people from the closed to the open estate. Kenny MacAskill replied that there were no plans to extend the open estate as yet, but also that there was more currently more capacity in the system still to be utilised. He also said that changes in risk assessment and management structure had recently changed in the open estate, following the Robert Foye case.

Female Prisoners

Dr Richard Simpson (Lab), who has long campaigned on the issue of women prisoners, followed on from last weeks stories of pregnant prisoners being handcuffed during hospital visit, with his question for the Cabinet Secretary. He asked whether the statement by the Deputy First Minister during FMQs last week that ‘the handcuffing of pregnant women in hospital’ was ‘absolutely unacceptable’, was inconsistent with a statement from the Chief Executive of the SPS, Mike Ewart, who said that it could still happen in exceptional circumstances. The Cabinet Secretary reiterated that both the Government and the SPS regard the practice ‘unacceptable’ and that recent cases of this occurring were often as a result of instructions from the private firm Reliance, who are in charge of transport to and from custody. However, he said that in very exceptional cases, for example, when a woman is threatening to harm herself or her baby, it may be necessary to handcuff the prisoner.

This question was then followed up by Sandra White (SNP), who sits on the Equal Opportunities Committee, which recently took a mini inquiry into female prisoners. She said that some of their evidence had argued that community service orders (CSOs) have been designed more for men than for women, which makes them more difficult for women to carry out. He replied that although some steps have been taken, such as the setting up of the 218 centre, more could be done to ensure that there is a suitable range of community penalties available for all prisoners.

Firearms Summit

The Justice Secretary was asked by Stuart McMillan (SNP) about the firearms summit that had been held the previous day in Bute House. He replied that it had been very constructive and that what had emerged from all the speakers throughout the day as that the current legislation is not fit for purpose, it was incomprehensible and in need of an overhaul. Firearms legislation is controlled by the Home Office, and both Kenny MacAskill and Stuart McMillan said that it was ‘regrettable’ that the Home Secretary had been unable to attend the summit, and that a strong case had been made for the need for an overhaul of legislation in Scotland. Mr McMillan even suggested that Scotland could act as ‘as a pilot area’ for new UK wide legislation. Keen to emphasise the work that was also done by the previous administration in this area, Pauline McNeil (Lab) then asked the Justice Secretary what progress had been made in evaluating what impact the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 has had in reducing the number of air-guns that are sold. He replied that these pieces of legislation, although welcome and helpful, had not gone far enough, and there was nonetheless need for new legislation.

Violent Crime

Next, Des McNulty (Lab), drew the Cabinet Secretary’s attention to a number of crimes of ‘random violence’ that had taken place in the Strathclyde region, saying that there were five murders in Glasgow alone last weekend. He said that such incidents required not only more police on the streets, but also a ‘Government co-ordinated strategy’. He said that this issue should be approached by in a non-partisan way. The Cabinet Secretary replied that there was no one single ‘simple solution’, otherwise it would have been found out by the previous Government, and he agreed that it was imperative to tackle violence in the Strathclyde area and throughout Scotland. He said that the new police officers that the Government have introduced will play a role in this, although he also agreed that the problem required action across Government. He also commended the work that had been done by Cathy Jamieson and the previous administration, by intervening early, addressing the ‘booze-and-blade culture’ and providing tough enforcement.

Inverness Prison

Finally, and following from the Inspection Report a number of weeks ago which said that Inverness Prison was critically overcrowded, and that rehabilitation services needed to be ‘reinvigorated’, Rob Gibson (SNP), in whose constituency the HMP Inverness is located, asked the Cabinet Secretary whether this would be possible on the prison’s current budget. Kenny MacAskill replied that the problems of overcrowding that are faced by Inverness prison are faced throughout the prison estate, and that until control of prison numbers can be achieved, there is a limit to what can be done, and he concluded congratulating the staff and governor at the prison for the work that they do.

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch them on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There were questions this week about the number of offences committed for drinking alcohol in public, the number of prosecutions for people under 18 for attempting to buy alcohol how many prosecutions have resulted from the test purchasing pilot schemes, how many people have been admitted to hospital for drug use over the past 5 years, the number of patients who were discharged from hospital with acute mental illness and drug misuse. There were a number of justice questions , including about the principle of disclosure in trials, prosecutions for the corporal punishment of children by their parents, and about the requirement for corroboration in sexual offence trials. There was a question about the amount that has been seized from criminal assets , and about the number of full and part time police officers working in Scotland since the end of each month since March 2007. There was a question about what constitutes an ‘operational matter’ for police chief constables . There was a question about the prisoner to staff ratio at several prisons, and a number of further questions about prisons, including the procedures for checking in prisoners on arrival at prisons, what the staff turnover and sickness rates are throughout the estate, the budgets for all of the prisons, the number of visits made by the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland to each prison in the last year, how many prisoners have moved from prison into employment following release, and how many prisoners are engaged in paid employment and community work in each prison. There were a number of still further questions about prisons, including the use of sniffer dogs to detect drugs, and whether prison staff are able to be employed in other work, and the sourcing of the food used in prisons. Finally, there was a question about training for young offenders in YOI Polmont

Posted by KM on Tue 13th May 2008 at 7:37 am
Gender and crime Prisons and prisoners • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 28th April to the 2nd May 2008

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

This week, the Justice Committee published the Stage 1 report on the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill, and there was a statement from the Justice Secretary to the Chamber to mark the full implementation of the Vulnerable Witnesses Act. 

The Justice Committee

The Committee’s meeting was spent in private, agreeing to their Stage 1 report on the Judiciary and Courts Bill (see below)

Justice Committee Report on the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill

The Justice Committee published their Stage 1 report into the Judiciary and Courts Bill on Friday last week.

The key purpose of a Stage 1 Committee report is to decide whether or not to recommend the ‘general principles’ of a Bill to the Parliament, and also to comment on its substantive points. Stage 1 debates inform much of the debate in the Stage 1 debate in the Chamber, where the whole Parliament will decide whether or not to agree to the general principles. The Government may then make amendments to the Bill depending on the views of the Parliament, and the Bill will then go back to the Committee for more detailed scrutiny at Stage 3.

They overall aims of the Bill are to strengthen the independence of the judiciary, to reduce the involvement of government in the day to day running of the court system, and to modernize the court system. The specific proposals of the Bill include:

• To put the independence of the judiciary on a statutory footing
• To make the Lord President the head of the judiciary, and give this office increased powers over managing judges
• To put the Judicial Appointments Board on a statutory footing
• To make changes to the court of session, the sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts
• To make changes to the Scottish Courts Service including establishing it as statutory agency

The Committee’s report endorsed the general principles of the Bill, although it had raised concerns over some of the particulars. The key parts of the report were:

• The proposals to put the judiciary on a statutory footing were welcomed and were regarded as symbolically important.
• There were concerns raised about the possible increased administrative burden that the changes would put on the judiciary, and in particular on the Lord President, who should be able to give primacy to the role of presiding in court. The Committee therefore recommended that independent research be carried out to quantify the increase in administration that the Bill would bring.
• Following on from the reservation about the potential administrative burden, the Committee recommended that the removal of the Scottish Court Service from the direct authority of the Scottish Ministers was not necessary at this stage, although it would be beneficial at a later date.
• Whether training for judges should be made mandatory or not, was a controversial issue during evidence to the Committee. Most senior members of the judiciary disagreed this would be necessary, while advocacy groups were strongly in favor, and the Lord President said he favoured arrangements that ‘verged on compulsion’. The Committee recommended that training should be made mandatory primarily in order for public confidence to be enhanced.
• Proposals which would urge the judicial appointments board to take account of ‘diversity’ when making selections, also sparked controversial debate during evidence. The Committee said that although they welcomed the establishment of the Board’s Diversity Working Group, the issue of diversity should not be a matter for the Board alone. They can only appoint candidates from the available qualified pool and then only from those who make an application, and they urged the Government to ‘ensure a holistic approach’ in relation to judicial appointments, including issues such as access to education and training and working patterns.
• The Bill provides that both the Scottish Ministers and the Lord President ‘may issue guidance to the Board as to the procedures to be followed by it in carrying out its functions’ to which the Board ‘must have regard’. Because it was felt it would be potentially uncomfortable to receive guidance from two separate sources, the Committee recommended that if there were to be any guidance to the Board, then this should only occur following scrutiny by the Justice Committee
• The Committee were not convinced that the Board should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
• The only point of dissent from within the Committee regarded whether or not complaints about judges be made public or not. The Committee’s convener, Bill Aitken dissented from the majority view, which welcomed a Judicial Complaints Reviewer.

You can read the whole of the Committee’s report and also access all the evidence that was received as part of it, here. You can also access all the documents relating the Bill including the Parliamentary ‘SPICe’ guides, on the Bill’s Homepage

You can also read press coverage of this story in the press in the Newsblog

The Stage 1 Parliamentary debate is scheduled to take place on Wednesday the 14th of May, 2008. 

The Chamber

Debate on Implementation of the Vulnerable Witnesses Act

On Wednesday afternoon, the Cabinet Secretary made a statement to the Chamber to mark the full implementation of the Vulnerable Witnesses Act, and this was an opportunity to discuss many issues around the treatment of witnesses in court generally.

Kenny MacAskill began by reminding MSPs of the context in which the Act was passed, saying its origins were based in the widely accepted view that the justice system was failing witnesses. He praised the previous administration for the work they did to bring about this Act, which was part of wider reforms made throughout the court systems to make the experience of giving evidence easier for witnesses. He said that together, these changes had ‘put witnesses at the heart of the justice system’.

The Act makes provisions for ‘special measures’ to be in place for all witnesses under the age of 16, and for adult vulnerable witnesses if they are suffering from a mental disorder or where there is a significant risk of the quality of their evidence being impaired because of fear or distress in connection with giving evidence. Special measures include giving evidence via live video link, using a screen in court, and having a supporter whilst giving evidence.

The Act has been introduced incrementally over the past three years, and the Justice Secretary paid tribute to the hard work and dedication that workers throughout the criminal justice system have done in order to facilitate so many changes over this period. He highlighted the work of the Crown Office the Procurator Fiscal and the Scottish Court Service for particular praise, saying that their stated aim of attempting to avoid the need for children and vulnerable witnesses to give evidence whenever necessary was the correct approach. He also spoke of newly established ‘remote sites’ which are specially equipped so that witnesses can give evidence without having to attend court, and also the wide range of training that practitioners throughout the court system have received. He concluded by saying it was important to build up the evidence base on the effects of the Act, in order to know more accurately whether the measures are reaching those whom they are meant to help.

During the questions which followed the statement, the Cabinet Secretary emphasized that ensuring whether vulnerable witnesses were afforded better treatment in court was not only a question of adequate resources, there was also a for a cultural change within the system. He also spoke about the witness protection program that is in place for witnesses of serious crimes, and praised the work of voluntary agencies such as Victim Support Scotland.

You can read the full statement and questions in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the press coverage in the Newsblog.

First Minister’s Questions

The First Minister was ‘laid low with a bug’ last Thursday, so he was replaced by his deputy Nicola Sturgeon. Annabelle Goldie spoke about recent headlines about the number of young people with alcohol problems, and she said that it was not acceptable that only 30 licenses were suspended from premises who sold alcohol to underage people, despite the fact that more than 1,300 offences were recorded. The Deputy First Minister outlined what the Government has been doing with regard to tackling this problem, including rolling out test purchasing, introducing tougher penalties, and investing large amounts to tackling alcohol misuse. She also said that the Government will publish a new ‘action plan’ to tackle alcohol misuse in the coming months. She said that the Parliament should work together on this issue, and she said that the Government was happy to listen to other parties if they had any suggestions on how to tackle this issue.

See also the story in the Newsblog.

There was also a very brief supplementary question from Johann Lamont (Lab) about the handcuffing of a pregnant prisoner during a visit to hospital. Nicola Sturgeon agreed that this was not acceptable, and said that the Justice Secretary was meeting Johann Lamont later that afternoon to discuss the case further as the Government takes this issue very seriously.

See also the story in the Newsblog

You can read both questions in the Official Report, and also watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

Written questions this week included on the topics of the number of times provisions of the antisocial behaviour legislation have been used; and about the implementation of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act. There was a question about the number of offences of driving while under the influences of drugs and three questions about the ScottishPrison Commission . There was a question about funding for the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency and about funding for the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. 

Posted by KM on Tue 6th May 2008 at 3:00 pm
Courts Gender and crime • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Review for the 21st to the 25th of April

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

There was a very interesting discussion about the treatment of female offenders in the Equal Opportunities Committee last week, and the Chief Medical Officer of Scotland also gave some interesting evidence regarding alcohol and violence to the Health and Sports Committee. 

The Justice Committee

Most of the meeting was spent considering a draft report on the Judiciary and Courts Bill, which, according to standard practice, took place in private.

The Equal Opportunities Committee

Inquiry into Female Prisoners

Justice debate moved over to the Equal Opportunities committee this week, as they held a mini inquiry into the issue of female offenders in the criminal justice system. This is against the background of a 90% rise in the female prison population over the last 10 years (versus a 16% rise in male prisoners). The Committee was trying to find out whether this issue was suitable to be considered from an equal opportunities angle: whether female imprisonment can be seen as discrimination or violence against women.

The first panel of witnesses comprised of specialist academics who said that gender should be considered as a stand alone issue in the rise of the prison population, because women have such a different experience of the criminal justice system, and the rise in the female population has been so marked. They said that it was important to have gender specific as opposed to offender specific interventions in prison, and that it is especially important to link them to broader circles of support in the community. They also argued that, because women have childcare responsibilities and are more likely to be in poorly paid work, if at all, the experience of imprisonment results in their social exclusion disproportionately more than it does for male prisoners.

They said that because most of the female prisoners in Scotland are housed in a single prison, Cornton Vale, ties with their families and local services can often become severed, and they said that it would therefore be preferable to have more local establishments instead. However, they acknowledged the benefit of one centralised establishment, which means that it is more cost effective for the SPS to run interventions and services. The witnesses spoke of the need for improved visiting facilities in Cornton Vale, given that it could be seen as especially important for the female prisoners to maintain ties with their families. They said that it would be useful if there was a presumption that social inquiry reports should be required for all women, and that each report should also contain a family impact statement. They said that, even if such statements would apply to al offenders, their impact would be greater for women.

The second panel consisted of an academic and two professionals from organisations which support vulnerable women. They spoke about women’s pathways in and out of prison and they said that the criminal justice system is even worse at helping women to stop offending, then it is for men. They said that what is often regarded as wilful resistance from female offenders to offers of help, for example their failure to respond positively to different types of community disposals or interventions in prison, should be seen as being the result of their life experiences which make their current lives chaotic and difficult to manage.

The witnesses were asked whether the issue of female offenders can be looked at from a discrimination perspective, and one of the witnesses spoke about the relationship between abuse and offending with relation to prostitution and domestic abuse. The importance of social inquiry reports was raised again, and one of the witnesses said there was a need for greater expertise on the specific issues surrounding female offenders to be developed amongst social workers writing these reports. The notion that offenders should receive a custodial sentence as a ‘reprieve’ from their lifestyles, was also roundly challenged. And one of the witnesses said that alcohol had now overtaken heroine and methadone as the primary reason for referral for female offenders to one of the main centres to help female offenders, and that the average age of those referred had also increased.

The final panel consisted of the head of the prosecution service, the Lord Advocate, and the head of the only all female prison in Scotland, Cornton Vale. The witnesses were asked about the large increase in the numbers of women held on remand, and the Lord Advocate suggested this may be because of the increasing numbers who breach conditions of bail because of the problems of addiction and mental health difficulties that many of them have. The Governor of Cornton Vale said that while most prisoners have multiple needs, female prisoners often have a more complex and wider range of needs, which are a challenge for the system to meet. The issue of what constitutes a ‘chaotic lifestyle’ was touched on, and the Lord Advocate gave an eloquent description of what such a lifestyle would look like, with women offenders attempting to manage families, partners, addictions and offending. She also spoke about how the criminal justice system can discriminate against women indirectly, and she spoke of the need to make community sentences suitable for women, so as to decrease the likelihood of failing to comply with provisions.

She said that, although the great majority of female offending is linked to acquisitive crime, there has been a marked increase in the numbers of females committing violent crimes, and she suggested this may be linked to increased binge drinking amongst women. The Governor of Corntol Vale said that many of the female prisoners often act in ways that would not be considered normal to the ‘man on the street’, but he said that these women are often unaware that their behaviour is unacceptable and they just do not know how to behave differently. He also spoke about the tensions between housing female offenders in local prisons so they can be closer to their family, versus housing them in a central unit, which would allow the prison system to develop suitable interventions for them. He also confirmed that there has been a very significant reduction in the numbers of women serving a custodial sentence for fine default.

The Lord Advocate spoke about the need for community service to gain public support again, and she spoke about her hopes for diverting minor offenders from the system with the new summary justice reforms. She also gave her support for a parliamentary inquiry to be carried out into female offenders, saying that there is a paucity of research into this issue in a Scottish context.

This concluded the Committee’s evidence into the subject, and they will now consider whether the topic merits investigation from an Equal Opportunities perspective, or whether it should be carried out by the Justice Committee instead.

You can read the full transcripts of this very interesting meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

The Health Committee

Evidence from the Chief Medical Officer

On the 6th April, the Health committee heard from the Chief Medical Officer of Scotland, Dr Harry Burns, who came to answer questions relating to his annual report. The post of chief medical officer is concerned with developing public health policy, amongst other matters, and his report had some interesting things to say in relation to alcohol, violence, and early intervention.

The Committee were keen to hear more from him about the parts of his report which drew attention to the amount of violence in Scotland, which it estimated as costing the NHS almost £400 million. Dr Burns was highly complimentary of the work of the Violence Reduction Unit, saying that their approach of looking at violence as a public health issue has created a great deal of international interest. He said that their approach is able to predict where violence will occur to a large extent, and they are also able to calculate the ‘dark figure’ of violence, which is not captured in official statistics. They have also been carrying out research into how people may grow up to become violent, and he advocated early intervention to tackle the problem before it becomes entrenched, from help at school, to activities to keep young people off the streets. However, he recognised the difficulties surrounding early intervention, saying that the point at which the Government or the authorities intervene in how parents should bring up their children will always be a sensitive issue.

He also said that he suspected there was a strong link between ‘foetal alcohol syndrome’ and violence in later life, and he said he would be very keen to commission research into the prevalence of this disorder in Scotland. He also said that there was a need for the relationship between mental health problems and drugs and alcohol to be recognised.

You can read all his evidence in the Official Report, or you can watch the whole meeing on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

The Chamber

General Questions

During general questions, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, was asked what the Government is doing to support the children of drug addicted parents. He replied that his department has been working on a national drugs strategy, which will be published before the summer recess, and he assured the Chamber that tackling the ‘scourge’ of drugs was a priory for the government.

You can read these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch them on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

There was a question about what the Government is doing to tackle underage drinking, and a question which revealed how many people had been charged with proxy alcohol purchase for those under the age of 18, and a final question on this topic, which revealed that the government has not set any targets of prosecutions for test purchasing schemes. There was a question about what the Government is going to tackle domestic violence
amongst ethnic minority communities, and about the numbers of people being treated for drug addiction in the NHS . There was a question about the Reliance contract to escort children to and from court, and there was a question about the amount of money the government has received from seized assets, and the details of the Reliance contract for escorting young people to and from court. There was a question about the numbers of prisoners in custody who have committed a serious offence and a number of other questions about prison including on the subjects of extra prison capactity, and the actions of the chief executive of the SPS in response to the Robert Foye case. And finally, there was a question about when theProtection of Vulnerable Groups Act will come into force.

Posted by KM on Tue 29th Apr 2008 at 6:30 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 14th to 18th April, 2008

Monday, April 21, 2008

Holyrood was back in full swing last week following the Easter recess. There was a debate in the Chamber on the Justice Committee’s report into the use of police resources.

The Justice Committee

The committee did not meet formally this week but spent the day with police on the beat as part of the Inquiry into Community Policing.

See also:

Community Policing Inquiry Homepage

The Chamber

Debate on Police Resources

On Wednesday afternoon MSPs got their first chance to debate the Justice Committee’s report into the use of police resources (published in January). The Committee’s inquiry coincided with their role in scrutinising the justice remit of the Government’s budget, much of which concerned the funding of extra police. The report concluded that police were currently unable to meet their present commitments within their current levels of funding: it was also sceptical that 500 extra police officers would be available for duty as a result of retention and redeployment, as the Government had initially claimed (although they subsequently amended their budget to provide funding to raise new police recruitment to a level of 1,000 by 2011). There was also a need for a ‘fundamental review’ of the role and responsibilities of the police given the public’s increased expectations, and the evolving social and political climate in which they operate.

Bill Aitken, Justice Committee convenor, opened by noting how the role of the police has changed, saying that society can no longer expect the police to be a paternalistic and reassuring ‘Dixon of Dock Green’ type figure, given the modern realities of terrorism, monitoring sex offenders, and dealing with the large volume of legislation which requires enforcing. He said that there was wide recognition from all the witnesses that there was a need for an extensive review of the roles of policing, which should take place within this Parliamentary session. He also spoke with concern about the lack of commonly agreed definition of ‘community policing’ (although he defined them as ‘officers on the street’), and the lack of clear baseline figure as to how many ‘community police officers’ there currently are in Scotland. He lastly spoke about the systems of governance and accountability of the police, and he said he was concerned about the misgivings voiced by several of the witnesses as to the effectiveness of current arrangements, and he said there was a particular need to strengthen the accountability of ACPOS.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice responded by praising the police forces throughout Scotland.  It is up to central government to decide which outcomes they wish to see delivered, while the decisions about how this should be done are best taken locally. The government’s central vision of the Scottish police service is to ensure that there is effective communication to the public of the levels of policing they can expect, and how it is being delivered. He said that the police have a central role in the wider community safety agenda; they have a role in not just tackling crime, but also preventing it. He said that he is about to undertake a short review to ensure that more specialist operations do not result in front-line police being removed from duty, and he said that the issue of extra policing was not just about head-counts, but about capacity.

Speaking for Labour, Paul Martin, who also sits on the Committee, began by accusing the government of empty promises over the issue of the extra 1,000 extra police officers. He also highlighted the tension between the SPSA and the eight police forces, and he called on the government to clarify this relationship. He also welcomed the role that community wardens have played in tackling anti-social behaviour over the years, and he said that Labour members would not accept any plans the government may have to ‘dilute’ their role.

John Lamont (Con) said that the Conservative party has long campaigned for more police officers to provide a visible deterrent and to boost public confidence. He was also roundly critical of spending on police under the previous Lib/Lab coalition, and he said that the Government’s decision to increase funding for new officers from 500 to 1000 was only due to pressure from the Conservative Party.

Mike Pringle (LD) said that it was important to not focus too much on the issue of police numbers alone, but it was also important to look at the way that resources are used within the police. He also said that he was disappointed that there was not a timetable for implementation of a new or revised retention scheme to prevent good officers from retiring. He spoke with concern about the 2% efficiency savings requirement that public services are required to meet, and he closed by saying that community wardens should not be a cheap alternative for more police officers.

During the debate the followed, there were more debates about the SPSA in relation both to individual police forces and in relation to its position under the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. There was discussion about the allocation of funding between the different forces, specifically whether this should directly mirror the size of the population or not: the extent to which civilians should play a role in the police; widespread praise for the jobs police officers perform in difficult circumstances and the relative lack of public awareness of the circumstances in which they operate. There were calls for the Government to reconsider the issue of greater private involvement in policing.

There was a large degree of consensus from different sides of the Chamber, and the debate ended without a vote. The issue of policing will continue to feature highly in Holyrood however with the Justice Committee preparing to begin their inquiry into community policing imminently.

You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

See also:

Effective use of police resources inquiry homepage

CJS Newsblog: More concerns over centralisation of police functions to SPSA: SCDEA schism?

Written Questions

Written questions this week included on the topics of prosecutions for selling alcohol to underage people, and there were some more questions about underage drinkinggenerally. There was a question about the test alcohol pilot scheme, and there was a question about the children’s hearing system and the early discharge of children under supervision. There was a question about the numbers of prosecutions for underage drivers and there was a question about the laws surrounding the intercept of communications. There was a question about the Lockerbie bombing appeal and a number of questions about the funding of DNA testing of suspects, and a question about the number of complaints made against each police force. There was a question about the amount of specialist training given to wildlife crime officers and a question about funding for the new prison at Bishopsbriggs . There were a number of questions about prisons including: how the SPS is dealing with the issue of overcrowding, how many ethnic minority prisoners there are in Scottish jails. There were other questions about prisons including the design for the new prison at Bishopbriggs and about the definition of attempted suicide and self-harm, and finally, a question about young offenders in St Mary’s Kenmure secure unit.

Posted by KM on Mon 21st Apr 2008 at 3:31 pm
Police • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 24th to the 28th of March, 2008

Sunday, March 30, 2008

This was a packed week in Holyrood, in the final week before Easter recess. The Committee heard the final oral evidence as part of their scrutiny of the Judiciary and Courts Bill, and in the Chamber, there was another debate on home detention curfew, a debate on the Fatal Accidents Inquiry, and the Justice Secretary made a public apology to the victim of the Robert Foye case. There were also questions to the Law and Justice Officers. 

The Justice Committee

Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill

The Committee heard the last session of oral evidence as part of their consideration of the Judiciary and Courts Bill.  The first witness was Professor Sir David Edward, who has carried out academic research into judicial institutions throughout Europe, presided over the European Court of Justice, and now sits as a temporary judge in the Court of Session.

He told the committee that it was very common for the governing body of European organisations that have responsibility for the administration of justice to be wholly or partly composed of judges, and that it was important to distinguish what judges do as judges, from the administrative functions that they may also be appointed to do. He was also asked about the different ways that judges can be appointed: he said that it was more beneficial to have judges who have been on the bar as opposed to so called ‘career judges’, because having a varied practice is helpful in understanding that there is more than one point of view, and that acting for clients in all sorts of situations helps one to understand how people behave. He voiced concern about Ministerial guidance to the Judicial Appointments Board (JAB) for Scotland, saying that in these situations, ‘guidance’ can often in fact mean or be interpreted as ‘instruction’. However, he said that it was ultimately up to the people on the JAB: if they were willing to act independently then this should be sufficient guarantee.

He was also asked about the provision in the Bill which states that the JAB “must have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of individuals available for selection to be recommended for appointment”, which has proved mildly controversial during previous sessions of evidence. He replied that the real issue was equality of opportunity, rather than the race or gender of the person sitting on the bench. However, he disagreed that the section should therefore be removed from the Bill, saying instead that these provisions condition the way people behave and are therefore useful, as long as they are not taken too far.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice then gave evidence: he believed that there was a role for symbolism within the court system, but the Bill was more than simply symbolic, it was of constitutional significance to enshrine the principle of judicial independence within statute. He was asked about parts of the Bill which seek to prohibit Executive interference with judicial decisions. He said that it was important to ensure that undue influence does not occur in the practice of routine discussions and meetings that occur between the Government and the judiciary, but given that these interfaces do need to take place, the matter of undue influence was largely a matter of trust and respect.

He was asked about the concern that has been voiced by the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, that having a lay majority on the Judicial Appointments Board, who are appointed by Ministers, is not consistent with the principle of judicial independence. He replied that the Bill follows the status quo, which is considered to be operating well, and that if there were a judicial majority on the Board, it might be perceived as having a self-fulfilling ordinance. 

He was also asked about the section of the Bill relating to increasing diversity within the judiciary. He replied that there has been a very significant increase in the diversity of the bench over the previous 20 years, but that the judiciary is still ‘on a journey’ in this respect. He reiterated that it was up to the Executive to act with ‘trust and respect’ to the judiciary, but that they should also be covered by the same rules as any other employer in Scotland when it comes to employment legislation. He was asked whether he thought that complaints against judges should be made public or not, and replied that this would not be appropriate because, even if misconduct has been proven, it may implicate third parties, or impact on appeals.

You can read the transcripts from this part of the meeting in the Official Report.

This concluded the oral evidence taken as part of the Committee’s consideration of this Bill. The Committee will consider all the evidence it has received and publish its report on the draft Bill sometime after the Easter recess.

Items of Subordinate Legislation

Victim Notification Scheme (Scotland) Order 2008 (Draft)

The Cabinet Secretary remained with the Committee to discuss the next item of business, which was legislation which sought to modify the Victim Notification Scheme (VNS). Under this scheme, victims of crimes in which the offender was sentenced to four years or more can apply to find out information about the offender’s release, if the offender has escaped or absconded, and if any special conditions have been placed on an offender who is released on licence. The scheme also allows victims to make representations to the Parole Board whenever an offender is considered for parole.

Kenny McAskill said that the success of the scheme required effective collaboration between the Parole Board, the Government and the Prison Service, given that they all notify the victim of different aspects of the offender’s release. He said that Government research in 2006 had shown that VNS was very popular amongst victims, but that it was of central importance to victims that whether they are included on the scheme or not is kept private from offenders, and that one of the biggest hurdles in extending the scheme was the issue of how to ensure that victim confidentiality is ensured between all the different agencies. He said that it was better for the Government to proceed cautiously, and that although it was his preference to extend the scheme so that it would apply to prisoners serving one year or more, doing so would run a number of risks, most notably the potential failure to notify victims in time of release. He said he was therefore proposing a staged extension, which would begin by covering those prisoners who have been sentenced to 18 months and above, with a view to extending this to cover offenders who have been sentenced to a year or more in prison if the system can be shown to operating effectively. He said that the scheme currently covers 600 victims per year, and if it is extended, it will cover over 2,000 annually.

The Committee unanimously supported the extension of the scheme, although some were displeased that the Government were not moving to make it applicable to sentences of one year and over straight away. They nonetheless agreed to the passing of the motion, and the VNS is now duly extended.

You can read the full transcripts of this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and you can also read the press in the Newsblog

You can also watch the full meeting on Holyrood.TV.

Community policing inquiry: call for evidence

The Committee is to conduct an inquiry into community policing in Scotland, and they have issued a call for evidence. To find out more follow the link below.

Community policing inquiry: call for evidence

The Chamber

Statement to the Chamber on the Scottish Prison Service report on Robert Foye

On Wednesday, the Justice Secretary made a statement to the Chamber about the Robert Foye case, in which a prisoner absconded from an open prison and raped a 16-year-old girl. This prompted the Scottish Prison Service to carry out a review into the open prison estate, and the McLeish commission has also been asked by the government to carry out a investigation into its use, along side the review of the overall prison system. The victim in the Foye case recently told her story in a national Sunday newspaper, and the case has been used against the government in its plans to reduce the prison population.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice began by paying tribute to the victim in the Foye case, who he said had shown ‘great fortitude and resilience throughout the whole tragic process’. He ‘apologised unreservedly’ to her for the ‘shortcomings in our prison system’ that had resulted in her attack, and he said that he would meet with her shortly to apologise in person.

He confirmed that the government has no plans to extend the use of open prisons at the present time, and he said that although there had been a ‘welcome downturn’ in the numbers who have absconded from the open estate, every abscond was still one too many. He said that the seven recommendations contained in the SPS report will be implemented within the next three months, but that in the mean time he was suggesting an additional two recommendations in order to increase public confidence. These are to establish individual prison governors at each of the open prisons, and secondly, to make a presumption against returning a prisoner to the open estate if they have previously absconded. He said that a blanket ban on returning a prisoner would be subject to legal challenge, so the SPS must reserve the right to return an absconded prisoner to an open prison, but only after approval is given from a senior level from within the SPS.

He underlined the cross party support there is for the open prison estate by quoting from Bill Aitken (Con) and the previous Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson. He said that the Government remained committed to achieving the right balance between public safety and confidence, and that the open prison estate would be considered along side the rest of the prison system by Henry McLeish and the Prison Commission.

During the questions that followed, Pauline McNeill (Lab) welcomed the apology from the government, while also noting that the SPS has so far failed to apologise to the victim. Bill Aitken (Con) said that open prisons should only be for prisoners who are either reaching the end of a high-tariff sentence or for those who represent no real physical threat, and not for prisoner who are three years into a ten year sentence, as in the case of Robert Foye. Mike Pringle (LD) sought assurances that the open prison estate was not being used simply to ease the overcrowding that was occurring throughout the rest of the prison estate, and the Cabinet Secretary said that this would not occur.

You can read the full statement and questions in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the Newsblog

Debate to extend Home Detention Curfew

The first thing the next morning, the government had the opportunity to debate the extension of the Home Detention Curfew for no less than the third time. They were defeated the first time in the Justice Committee, who rejected the proposal on the casting vote of the Conservative convener Bill Aitken. It was defeated again two weeks ago in full parliament, when four LibDem MSPs, who had been expected to support the SNP, accidentally voted the wrong way and, in two cases, turned up too late to vote. However, parliamentary procedure allows the government to put the vote before the parliament once again, and there was another full debate on the issue, although there could be few MSPs who were not by now familiar with the arguments .

Bill Aitken opened the debate by quipping ‘it’s like déjà vu all over again’. He accused the Liberal Democrats of ineptitude in their voting mix up two weeks ago, and he said that the arguments put forward by the government to extend HDC continue to be unacceptable. He agreed with statements made by the Government that prisons are indeed ‘in crisis’, but he said that the problem was created not by overcrowding per se, but by the closing of one prison before another one was ready to open. He said that the government’s proposals to deal with this problem partly by extending HCD was ‘a solution that was not the answer’. If the plans were to be implemented, ‘something terrible’ would eventually happen which would require the Cabinet Secretary to come to the Chamber and (in reference to the Foye case, see above), apologise once again for a crime committed by someone on licence. He said that the Cabinet Secretary would be held ‘personally responsible’ if such an event did take place, and he said that the only solution was to ensure that prisoners serve their whole sentence in custody, apart from early release in some circumstances ‘when it is deserved’.

In reply, the Cabinet Secretary said that part of the reason for the current situation in prisons is that during their years in power, not one new prison was built by the Conservatives, despite an ever-increasing prison population. He reiterated the points made in previous debates about the urgent need to reduce overcrowding, and that this was just one part in the government’s approach to a new prison policy. He reiterated all the safeguards that will be in place for long-term prisoners applying for licence, and he reminded the Chamber that convicted sex offenders will be precluded from applying, and therefore that any references to the Foye case as part of this debate were therefore ‘utterly shameful and entirely erroneous’. He also reiterated his promise to instigate a review of the HDC scheme in two years time to properly analyse its results.

Pauline McNeil (Lab) also did not miss the opportunity to remark on this ‘extraordinary groundhog day’ debate, also commenting that it would be ‘amusing if it were not so serious’. She also chided the Liberal Democrats for their bungled voting two weeks ago, and she bemoaned parliamentary procedure which meant that another vote could be taken on a subject that had already been defeated on two previous occasions in the Chamber. She said the proposals were introduced for the sole reason of reducing the prison population, and that the government’s logic of ‘the prisoners will get out anyway’ was ‘astonishing’.

She said that the proposals to extend HDC would take it considerably beyond the original intention of the scheme formulated as part of the Management of Offenders Act 2005. She said that the three prisons that are on stream where all initiated by the previous administration, and it was therefore wrong for this government to take credit for them. She also said that her party were willing to support a short-term increase in HCD to ease over-crowding, but that once the first new prison opens it should revert back to its current standing. She again denounced the Cabinet Secretary’s refusal to compromise on this issue, saying that this was not in keeping with the appropriate actions of a minority administration.

Margaret Smith (LD) said that she was voting for the order as an extension of the Management of Offenders Act, and that public safety will continue to be at the heart of any decision taken by the Prison Service and the Parole Board. She reminded the Chamber that 40% of those who apply for HDC are not granted it, and that although 21% of orders that are granted are breached, they are usually minor breaches, and that fewer than 1% of those release on HDC actually committed an offence while on licence. She spoke about the conditions that are attached to licenses, and she said that it could be argued that a long-term prisoner who breached their license and is returned to custody has much more to lose when their breach is taken into account in decisions about parole. She said that extending HDC should not be about reducing pressures on the prison population, even though that was important as a separate issue, rather it was about helping prisoners to reintegrate with society towards the end of their sentence. She said it could be argued that long-term prisoners have a greater need for reintegration to take place gradually and effectively than short-term prisoners do, and her party was therefore supporting the order.

During the rest of the debate, there were few new points raised that had not been mentioned in the two previous discussions on this issue. At the end of the debate, everyone voted as expected, with the Liberal Democrats voting with the Government and Labour and the Conservatives opposing. The order was therefore passed by 66 votes to 58.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, and you can watch the debate on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the Newsblog

See also FMQs below.

Debate on Fatal Accident Inquiries

Later that afternoon, the Solicitor General led a debate on the Fatal Accident Inquiries Review. The intention of the review was to ensure that the existing legislation, created in 1976, was still fit for purpose, and to improve the work that is carried out in this area. The Government appointed Lord Cullen to carry out the review, and he is expected to report back to the Lord Advocate and the Justice Secretary within one year. The purpose of the debate on Thursday was to give members the opportunity to raise and discuss issues that they think could be of assistance.

The time was right for a review to take place, and although the current system has largely served Scotland well, the legal framework and societal attitudes have evolved since the introduction of the legislation. For example the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into law has meant that any system of inquiry into deaths now has to be compatible with the convention. He said that there have also been concerns raised about delays in the process of inquiries, and about legal representation for bereaved families and the injured, and also about whether fatal accident inquiries are the best method of investigating deaths in circumstances such as deaths in hospital and other health care situations. He said there was a need for a ‘wholesale re-examination’ of the legislation that considers issues such as whether alternative models of decision-making procedure might provide a more effective inquiry in certain cases, and how the system of fatal accident inquiries interacts with other forms of investigation such as inquiries by the Health and Safety Commission.

In the debate that followed, many members spoke of their personal experience supporting constituents involved in fatal accident inquiries, and there was broad support for both the inquiry and for the appointment of Lord Cullen. The Government also said they were willing to work together with the Home Office in London on any area which required co-operation.

You can read all the contributions to the debate in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV

See also the press in the Newsblog

First Minister’s Questions

Home Detention Curfew

During FMQs the subject of home detention curfews was raised again by Annabel Goldie (Con). She quoted her conservative colleague John Lamont who had said during the debate that morning ‘we do not cut crime by cutting the prison population; we cut the prison population by cutting crime’.

She said that the vote to extend HDC for those serving four years and over was going against two previous votes within the Parliament, and that the First Minister was therefore ‘flaunting what he once called “the basic tenets” of parliamentary democracy’. She said that there must be contingency measures in place within the prison service for events such as fire or flood damage, and that such measures could also be used in the present situation of overcrowding, as an alternative to releasing a greater number of prisoners.

Alex Salmond replied that the government were taking sensible measures to deal with a difficult situation which his government had inherited. He reiterated the point made that morning, that when the Conservatives were in power not one single new prison was built in Scotland, and also the number of those who absconded from open prisons in that time was higher then, then it is now. He said that Bill Aitken’s suggestion of sending Scottish prisoners to fill unused prison capacity in Northern Ireland was not the correct way to proceed, and that Scotland could not hope to build its way out of the current crisis by simply building more prisons. Instead it was necessary to review the whole use of prisons, which was what the Prison Commission has been established to do.

You can read this question in the Official Report

See also the press in the Newsblog

Reliance transportation

Next, Nicol Stephen (LD) asked the first minister about the announcement that the contract for prison transportation for young people has been awarded to the private security firm Reliance. Mr Stephen quoted statements made by Nicola Sturgeon when in opposition against the use of private firms in public services, and Kenny MacAskill who had spoken out against the involvement of Reliance in prison escorts, saying that this was ‘gambling with public safety’. He accused the government of a ‘backtracking, breathtaking, U-turn’, saying it was ‘like Margaret Thatcher waking up one morning and saying that Arthur Scargill was the right person to run our coal mines after all’.

Alex Salmond replied that it was the previous administration that had introduced Reliance to the justice system in the first place, and he pointed out that the young people will be transported to and from custody in people carriers, and therefore the accusation that this would in some way jeopardise public safety could not be justified.

You can read this question in the Official Report, and read the press in the Newsblog

And you can watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV.

Questions to the Law and Justice Officers

Alcohol reform

There was a question from the previous Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson (Lab), to the present Justice Secretary about what the government was doing to tackle alcohol related crime. She quoted from Kenny MacAskill’s public support for Albyn house in Aberdeen, which deals with alcohol addiction, and said that it has suffered a £140,000 budget cut as a result of council budget cuts. She asked whether it was right to hope this funding cut would be filled by voluntary contributions from the licensing trade, or whether the Government would intervene to fill this shortfall.

Kenny MacAskill replied that funding priorities on a local level were the decisions of local councils, and that the government intended to make licensing boards compelled to make donations in the future. He also said that taxation could be used in the sale of cheap high strength beers and ciders, to incentivise brewers to ‘ensure better consequences for society’. He said that if Scotland had fiscal autonomy, such measures could produce the desired results.

Summary Justice Reform

Next Bill Aitken (Con) asked the Lord Advocate about the implementation of summary justice reforms, which will extend the range of cases that a fixed penalty offer can be issued for. The Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, replied that the purpose of the summary justice reforms was to allow the criminal justice system to deal with offenders as effectively and expeditiously as possible, which would be better for victims of crime and also allow the courts to deal with the more serious cases more quickly. She said that the measures had been agreed by Parliament, and that they would result in an estimated 17% reduction in prosecutions.

Proceeds of crime funds allocation

The next question was from Hugh Henry (Lab), a deputy Justice Minister under the previous administration. He asked Kenny MacAskill about the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency’s forensic accountant, saying that the funding for this position had come from funds collected from the proceeds of crime. He said this money should be distributed amongst the communities that are most affected by drugs and crime, and that staff of the SCDEA should be funded in the normal way. The Justice Secretary replied that out of the total amount of £11.8 million which has been seized from criminals, £400,000 was given to the Crown Office’s civil recovery unit, and that this was good use of the money given that it will result in greater amounts seized in the future.

In a supplementary question, he was asked about rendition flights, and he replied that he expects the British foreign minister to seek assurances that Scottish airports have not been used by the United States for rendition flights.
In a further supplementary question, he was asked about whether the government supports a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour. He replied that he supported campaigns by the police and the media, and also schemes which divert young people away from crime, and initiatives such as community officers in schools, in the fight against anti-social behaviour.

Alloa Sheriff Court

Kenny MacAskill was then asked about renovations which are taking place to Alloa Sheriff Court. He was asked to provide assurances that user groups will be consulted during the works and their interests taken into account when deciding on the changes. He apologised for the delays that have occurred in the courts renovations, and he gave assurances that the views of key interest groups would be taken into account.

Justice Policy (Young People)

Jeremy Purvis (LD) next asked the Justice Secretary about the involvement of young people in the formulation of justice policy. He said that justice policy has the most credibility when young people are involved in developing solutions to youth crime, given that they are very often the victims. Kenny MacAskill replied that young people do indeed need to be listened to, and that he had recently met the justice spokesperson of the Youth Parliament to discuss ideas, and that it was also the government’s responsibility to promote good behaviour as much as to punish bad behaviour.

Lothian and Borders Police (Meetings)

There was another question about money from the proceeds of crime, this time about whether it could be used to fund boys’ football teams in the Borders, which ‘keep young people active and out of mischief’. The Justice Secretary replied that the football teams in question could apply either to the Scottish Football Association, which has received £2 million pounds as part of the ‘cashback to communities’ scheme, or to YouthLink Scotland. He concluded by saying that when good people work with youngsters there can be a significant reduction in the rate of crime.

You can read all the questions to the Law and Justice Officers in the Official Report, or you can watch them on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There was a question about the number of attacks on police officers, and about the numbers of prosecutions for fraud. There was a question about funding for the Ethnic Minorities Law Centre, and a question in which the Justice Secretary was asked if he would support a mandatory prison sentence for everyone prosecuted with possession of a knife. Finally, there was a question about funding to tackle gang culture.

Posted by KM on Sun 30th Mar 2008 at 7:29 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 17th - 21st March, 2008

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

It was a relatively quiet week for justice in the Parliament this week, although Lord McCluskey’s evidence to the Justice Committee on the Judiciary and Courts Bill provided some entertainment. There was also a debate in the Chamber on human trafficking. 

The Justice Committee

Judiciary and Courts Bill

Following evidence from senior judges last week, the Justice Committee heard from more members of the judiciary as part of its scrutiny into the Judiciary and Courts Bill. This Bill seeks to legislate for the independence of the judiciary, and to unify the governance of the Scottish Court Service and all of the judiciary under the office of the Lord President, Scotland’s most senior judge, and finally, to make changes to the Judicial Appointments Board.

In his evidence to the committee last week, the Lord President welcomed the Bill’s proposals. He said that although the independence of the judiciary is protected by common law at the moment, if during ‘less settled times’ a totalitarian government were to come into power who wanted to take control of the judiciary, this Bill would maintain this separation ensuring this could not happen. It was also argued by the lord President and others, that it was important to have this separation noted symbolically in law, because there was no written constitution which formally noted the separation of powers in the UK.

The Committee then heard from Lord McClusky, a previous Solicitor General for Scotland and retired judge in the Court of Session and the High Court. He has a reputation for outspokenness, and he did not disappoint. In response to a question from the convenor, Bill Aitken (Con), he said that he did not think the Bill was ‘worth the paper it was written on’, and that it would not serve as a protection if a totalitarian government were to come to power, because they would simply be able to amend or repeal any legislation they did not like. He also pointed out that the principle of embedding judicial independence in written constitutions has been done in many countries including Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Chile, and that it can therefore not be any guarantee of judicial independence. He said that ‘independence lies not in constitutions and statutes but in the hearts of men’.

He said that the Bill would significantly increase the administrative burden to the Lord President, saying that ‘judges are not good administrators’, but they would have to be making decisions on ‘the colour of the lavatory paper to the frequency with which the windows in Parliament House were cleaned’. He said that increasing the administrative demands on the judiciary was bound to lead to disenchantment which would also lead to the best people not applying to the bench.

Asked about the Bill’s provision requiring the Judicial Appointments Board to “have regard to the need to encourage diversity in the range of individuals available for selection”, he said that affirmative action or positive discrimination had no place in the selection of judges, and that they ought to be selected on merit rather on because they were a women or came from an ethnic minority. He said instead that more people should be helped to acquire the skills that are needed to be judges in the first place and then should be encouraged to apply.

He said that he was happy to ‘trust those in power’ to nominate the Lord President, and that these processes should not be made transparent to the public. He also criticised the proposed systems for handling complaints against judges, saying that the system of a judicial complaints reviewer will pay the price in bureaucracy and time wasting.

The next panel comprised senior members of the Scottish Court Service (SCS). The Bill would establish the SCS as a corporate body made from 13 members, chaired by the Lord President and with a majority of judicial members. The panel said that a good working relationship between the officials of the court service and the judiciary was essential, and that sitting down together and taking an overview of the business of the courts and their development would greatly aid the courts’ smooth operation. They disagreed with the point that had been made in the morning that the increased administrative burden on the office of the Lord President would prevent a single office-holder from carrying out the dual functions of the head of the judiciary and chair of the SCS. They spoke about how they would ensure that the voices of those who use the courts are represented in the way the courts operated, and they said that the best way to represent court users is for the board to have three independent members who are not part of the legal system and who can therefore be the ‘voice of the people of Scotland’. They said they receive feedback from ‘court users’ via feedback forms available in courts and through annual surveys.

The third panel comprised of representatives from the Public and Commercial Services Union, who represent court employees. During questioning, they said that they were overall content that the proposals to unify the courts under the judiciary. However, they said that although the changes may be manageable at a board level, there may be difficulties ‘at the coalface’ trying to deal with yet more structural change to the court system.  They suggested it might be prudent to wait three to five years for other changes to become bedded in, before the unification of operations that the Bill proposes, begin.

The final panel comprised of representatives from Victim Support Scotland. They said that research they had carried out into the needs of the victims and witnesses of crime, showed that public confidence in the judiciary has fallen as a result partly of a lack of accountability in the courts system, a lack of opportunities for public participation in the justice system and judges seeming to be out of touch with reality. They said that it was crucial that the judiciary should be accountable to the public, and they suggested that there should be a code of conduct for which would make it easier for a legitimate complaint to be identified. The code of conduct could cover, for example, judges intervening when they feel that inappropriate questioning is taking place in court. They were also in favour of mandatory training for the judiciary, which would be helped by the involvement of victim agencies. They also spoke about the current unsatisfactory arrangements that were in place for handling complaints, and they said that the proposals in the bill for a judicial complaints reviewer would foster public confidence if the number of complaints received were to be published.

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog

See also:

Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 06)

The Chamber

Human Trafficking debate

On Thursday afternoon, there was a private members debate on the subject of human trafficking, to mark the first anniversary of the UK signing of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT). It was led by Gil Patterson (SNP), who has campaigned on the issue of human trafficking throughout his time in Parliament.

Opening the debate, he said that one year after the UK had signed up to the convention, it had yet to be ratified under domestic law, which meant that that the rights of victims of trafficking were still not recognised in the UK. Although legislation in this area is reserved to Westminster, he urged the Scottish Government to use any influence it had to ensure the convention is ratified as soon as possible. He said that that the identification of victims of human trafficking is police led, although for a number of reasons victims of trafficking are unlikely to disclose what has happened to them to police officers or immigration officials. He said that there is no formal procedure for consulting other agencies on what might be international best practice, and he praised the work that Amnesty International have done in this area. He said that there was a need for services that are trusted by those who are trafficked, and that victims need time to come to terms with their situation if they are to become good witnesses or to have their needs assessed.

He called human trafficking slavery and said that it comes in many different forms: women for the sex trade; manual workers; farm workers; child pickpockets; and children who are to be sexually abused. He said that the United Nations estimates that between 700,000 and 4 million women and children are victims of trafficking world wide, and that there is a well-connected worldwide criminal network behind it and that it is often associated with other criminal activities. He said that although this is a reserved matter, he wanted the Scottish Government to engage with the Home Office to urge the UK Government to sign the convention.

In the open debate that followed, members expressed their appreciation for being able put on record their abhorrence of trafficking. It was pointed out that human trafficking is the third largest money earner in the criminal world after drugs and weapon smuggling. It was pointed out that women were trafficked for the men who attended the World Cup in Germany, and that Scotland should therefore take extra steps against trafficking in the run up to the Commonwealth games.

The problem of the immediate deportation of victims without time to secure their safety or to prosecute a case, was voiced. Some members thought that the time that potential victims of trafficking can stay in the country before deportation should be extended from 30 days to 90 days, while others said that victims must be allowed to return straight home if they needed to, but that they ought to be kept safe in the UK if they could help with a prosecution first.

The lack of reliable data about the numbers of people who are trafficked, was highlighted, and the fact that it may affect men and boys as much as women and girls was also mentioned. There were calls for the removal of the UK reservation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which members said would go some way towards protecting trafficked children. There were also calls for the Government to develop a national reporting facility for children whose arrival into or departure from Scotland is unusual or suspicious, which would monitor those movements, which is not done at present. The fact that the size of the problem is so unknown prompted one member to comment that although getting the UK to sign up to the convention would not do any harm, it may not do any good either, and that prevention must be the most important first step in fighting this crime.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

First Minister’s Questions

Annabel Goldie questioned Alex Salmond on open prisons and home detention curfew.This was in light of a report published by the SPS into the case of the prisoner who absconded from an open prison and raped a schoolgirl last year. Ms Goldie said the report ‘admitted’ that high-risk prisoners could still be considered for transfer to an open jail, and that the same crime could therefore be committed again. She said that the Scottish Government’s proposals to allow ‘even more dangerous criminals’ out of jail earlier on home detention curfew, was just the ‘latest move in the Scottish National Party’s unrelenting drive to empty our jails’.

She finished by saying that said that the Scottish Government was being ‘soft on the prison population’, and she urged them to be ‘strong for victims, stand up for the public of Scotland and abandon the impending disaster of home detention curfew’.

In reply, Alex Salmond welcomed the SPS report and the recommendations it contained.  He said that it was important to recognise the important role that the open estate has played in the Scottish prison system over the past 50 years, and that although ‘dreadful mistakes’ do happen, the SPS is doing the best it can to protect the public from harm. He also said that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has asked for a presumption against returning anybody who has absconded from the open estate back to it.

He said that every political party has the protection of the public uppermost in its mind, and that the percentage of prisoners absconding in relation to the open estate population was in fact the lowest level for many years, indeed during the last year of the Conservative government there was twice as many absconds there were at the present.

You can read this question in the Official Report, you can watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV.
and you can read the press in the Newsblog.

See also

SPS publishes report on Open Estate transfer of absconder who then raped

Written Questions

There were only two justice written questions this week, firstly about needle exchange for addicts, and then a question about therapy projects for perpetrators of domestic abuse.

Posted by KM on Tue 25th Mar 2008 at 7:20 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 10th to the 14th of March, 2008

Monday, March 17, 2008

This week there was a rare opportunity to hear the most senior judge in Scotland and other senior members of the judiciary, give evidence to the Justice Committee as part of its scrutiny of the Judiciary and Courts Bill. And in the Chamber a voting mix-up meant that the Government’s second chance to change the law on HDC was only partially successful. 

The Justice Committee

Judiciary and Courts Bill

The Committee met on Tuesday to begin its first day taking oral evidence on the Judiciary and Courts Bill. This Bill seeks to make a range of reforms to the way that Scotland’s judiciary is organised which would increase judicial independence. Proposals include unifying the judiciary under the Lord President; giving the office of the Lord President new powers with regard to the training and deployment of the judiciary, and placing the Judicial Appointments Board on a statutory footing.

The Lord President, gave evidence to the Committee, in what the convenor, Bill Aitken, called a ‘unique occasion’. He was joined by his deputy, Lord Hodge. Lord Hamilton said in his written statement, that this legislation is welcome and that it is of “considerable constitutional significance”, because it changes “the relationship of the judiciary with the Scottish Government, and indeed with the parliament itself”. He told the Committee that although the legislation would significantly increase the powers and administrative duties asked of his office, he regarded sitting on the most important cases as a prerequisite to fulfilling his position as Lord President in the Court of Session, and Lord Justice General in the High Court of Justiciary.

He said that, although the independence of the judiciary is already bound by constitution convention, it has nonetheless important for the guarantee of continued judicial independence that it be established in the constitutional structure. He said that although we now live in ‘pleasant times’, this could change at some point in the future, and a situation could arise in which there could be a conflict between the judiciary and other arms of government. He said that Lord Presidents ought not be compelled under legislation to appear before Parliament. The chief executive of the Scottish Court Service would be available to answer questions about normal day-to-day management, and that concerns had been raised recently in England and Wales about the frequency of appearances of senior members of the judiciary in front of Parliamentary committees, and that such appearances should be relatively rare and significant events.

Regarding judicial training in the case of special instances such child custody cases, he said that such training should be seen as not only an entitlement, but an obligation. However, when he was asked whether this should mean that judges were compelled to attend, he said that there was a danger in ‘using the stick too much, rather than the carrot’, and that in his experience, it was better to ‘encourage’ judges to attend. He said he would prefer measures which ‘verged on compulsion’, but that it was ultimately best left up to him to put in place the compulsory arrangements.

The Bill also gives the Lord President the power to appoint the judicial members of the Judicial Appointment Board, while the lay members will be appointed by Scottish Ministers. Lord Hamilton said that he would assess potential candidates for the Board based on his ‘knowledge of them as individuals’ given that he knows all the judges in the Court of Session personally and is therefore in a position to judge who might be appropriate to fill any particular post. He agreed that his power would not have any objective scrutiny of any kind, but he said that ‘at the end of the day, one has to impose a measure of trust in relation to these matters, which I hope will be well founded’.

The second panel consisted of Lord Osborne, Lord Reed, and members of the Sheriffs Association. Lord Osborne was asked about judicial independence with regards to public statements attacking judicial decisions. He said that unless a judge had made a decision that is legally wrong, in which case there normal procedures to deal this, there should otherwise be a level of discretion and moderation in the criticism of judicial decisions. He said however, that the political community by and large respects the fact that the judiciary has a function to perform and that it should be allowed to get on with it in accordance with existing structures. He was voiced some concerns about the current operation of the Judicial Appointments Board. He said that when the Board considers an applicant for a job within the judiciary, for example, if a Sheriff sought appointment to a more senior role, the Board does not make any inquiries into how that Sheriff has performed, but rely primarily on the candidate’s performance in interviews, and on the knowledge of the individual that exists within the Board. Lord Reed supported his comments, saying that because of the lax arrangements for disciplining the judiciary and managing complaints against them, it is sometimes possible for appointments to be made without knowledge of complaints made against the individual.

The final panel consisted of members of the Judicial Appointments Board who spoke about what would happen if there were a stand-off between the recommendations made by the ‘judicial’ members of the board, and the lay members appointed by ministers, and they confirmed that for someone to be considered for the position of a judge, they would have to have at least ten years of ‘at-the-coalface experience in the courts’. They were asked about increasing diversity within the judiciary, and they said the issue was two-fold: encouraging everyone who can apply to do so and to make sure that there is no barrier to people coming forward to applying; and secondly relates to the processes that operate once applications have been made, although they stressed that at the end of day, the choices over each application much be based on the merit of that candidate only.

This meeting was a rare chance to hear from directly from Scotland’s senior judiciary. You can read the transcripts of this interesting meeting in the Official Report, and you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

The Chamber

Debate on Home Detention Curfew

On Wednesday, the Government got a second chance to change the law on home detention curfew, following the narrow defeat at the hands of the Justice Committee last week.It wants to extend the period that a prisoner can be freed under home detention curfew (HDC), from four and a half months to six months, and also to change the legislation so that HDCs can apply to prisoners serving sentences of four years and over. There are currently 330 prisoners released on the scheme under early release, and the Government claim extending the legislation would result in an extra 50 prisoners eligible for release. The change is needed because of the problem of overcrowding, with prisoner numbers currently standing at 8067, well over their capacity of 6626. There are three new prisons in the pipeline, the first, Addiewell, due to open in just over a year. The Justice Committee wanted the Government to insert a ‘sunset clause’ into the legislation, which would mean that the law would revert back to its current position once Addiewell opens, and the pressures of prison places lessened.

Opening up the debate, Kenny MacAskill emphasised that the proposals under discussion would not change any of the conditions under which HDC operates, or how prisoners are assessed in order to determine their suitability for early release, it would only make a greater number of prisoners eligible to be considered for the scheme in the first place. He reminded the Chamber that the Justice Committee had not been against changing the rules in principle: it only voted against the order because the government refused to insert a sunset clause into the order. He said that the current problems of overcrowding will not simply disappear once the new prison opens, because there will be other parts of the prison estate which will require refurbishment in the future, and that even on current trends, when the first new prisons open in a year or so, the SPS will continue to operate well over design capacity.

He said that his offer to review of the whole system of HDC once Addiewell opens still stood, and he reiterated the point about the high proportion of people in Scottish prisons in comparison with many other European countries, and about the absurdity of an increasing prison population at the same time as a declining rate of crime. He said that seventy-nine per cent of prisoners successfully complete their period on HDC, and that the majority of prisoners who do breach are recalled straight back to custody, which shows how seriously breaches are treated. He accused Labour and the Conservatives of playing ‘narrow, sectarian party politics’ with this issue, which was jeopardising ‘good order in our prison estate’.

Speaking for Labour, Pauline McNeil said HDCs had not yet been evaluated, and she accused the Government of wanting to extend the scheme simply to create more places in prison, not because of a belief in HDC as integrated model, or out of principle. She spoke out strongly against the plans to extend early release to those serving four years and over, saying that in theory this could mean that could mean that an offender serving six years could be out in two and a half years, which would neither be right in principle, nor would it reassure the public. She said that HDC had been previously introduced with strict conditions attached, and it was never intended to be a simple way of offloading unwanted prisoner numbers. She accused the Justice Secretary of refusing a sensible compromise with the Justice Committee, saying that he had asked them to sign a blank cheque with no power to ensure that it could be reversed if the outcomes were unfavourable. She said that operating a minority government ought to be about compromise, and that his inability to work together with the Committee on this issue ‘did not bode well for the future’.

She said that her party were ‘protecting the public’s interests’ and that the public are justifiably confused and concerned about early release, given that there had been stories in the press every day of that week about prisoners offending when they were on early release. She said that the Government have so far not put down any more money for community sentences, and she accused them of only paying lip service to promises to make community service more robust and an alternative to prison.

Bill Aitken (Con), who is convenor of the Justice Committee and also dealt the deciding vote against the order last week, also spoke out against the order. He said that by seeking to extend HDCs to long term prisoners, the Government were failing in one of their fundamental duties, which was to protect the public. He said that the risks to the public would increase when high-tariff prisoners are released after often serving only a ‘derisory’ part of their sentences. He said that the possibility of an offender sentenced to six years, but only serving 18 months would reduce the deterrent effect of prison, and also give the message to the public that the law ‘does not mean what it says and it certainly does not say what it means’, and that the proposals are really only an attempt to reduce the prison population by stealth. He also accused the Government of being disingenuous by saying that they are building three new prisons, because they fail to mention that two other prisons will be closing down at the same time, resulting in only one new prison overall. 

When he was challenged to propose his own solution to the problem of overcrowding by the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, Mr Aitken said that he would tell prison governors to ‘get on with things’. He pointed out that there is one prison which is never completely full, and he wondered aloud if there was ‘a deep-laid plot by the Executive and the SPS’ to ensure that it is not utilised to the extent that it could be. He also said that many offenders released on early release have committed serious crimes in England and Wales, and that the same would inevitably happen in Scotland if we went down the same road.

Mike Pringle (Liberal Democrats), said that he and his colleague Margaret Smith, had recently met with the Chief Inspector of Prisons about overcrowding, and he spoke of the seriousness of the problem, saying that it was preventing rehabilitation work with prisoners. He spoke about risk assessment, and he said that he was assured that the current procedure for releasing someone on HDC was as robust as they could be. He said that the problem of overcrowding was now so serious that the situation could arise in which decisions about risk assessment were made based on overcrowding rather than on public safety, and he also mentioned the cost of imprisonment at £34,000 a year, versus only £6,000 for an HDC license. He said that supporting the order would be a pragmatic way forward, and that the Parliament ought to hold the government to its word in its assurance to review HDC once Addiewell opens.

In the open debate that followed, members spoke either in favour or against the orders along their party lines. SNP, LD, and Green members spoke in favour of the order, and Labour and the Conservative against. Those speaking in favour, reiterated the points above about overcrowding, and Margo McDonald (Ind) wondered aloud if the government could be challenged under the ECHR because prisoners are in such overcrowded prisons. Many of those speaking against the order said that they were not against HDCs in principle, but were unhappy with the Government’s refusal to allow a sunset clause once another prison opens and eases the problem of overcrowding.

There were two votes at decision time. One to allow HDC to apply to those serving four years and over, and the other to extend the period of HDC from four and a half to six months. The Parliamentary arithmetic meant that if the Government could secure the votes of the LDs and the Greens, they would be able to defeat the Conservative and Labour party. However, when it came to the final vote to allow HDC to apply to long-term prisoners, the government lost by 62 votes to 58, because four LD members incredibly accidentally voted the wrong way, and two were late and missed the vote. They fell into line for the second vote however, and the government won 65 votes to 60 on its plans to extend the period of time for HDC from four and a half to six months.

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the stories in the press, including the voting mix up by the Lib Dems, in the Newsblog.

Debate on Drink Driving Limit

Later that afternoon, there was a short debate about the drink drive limit for alcohol. This follows the Government’s announcement on alcohol policy, in which they are seeking to reduce the limit of alcohol permissible under drink driving laws from 80mgs to 50 mgs per 100 mls of blood, into line with most of Europe. They would also like to introduce random breath testing, to increase the deterrent effect of the law. This legislation is reserved to Westerminster. However the Justice Secretary has publicly written to the Transport Minister, Ruth Kelly, asking for legislation in this area to be changed.

This comes at the same time that the BMA published research which shows that blood alcohol concentration over 50mg/100ml impairs driving, and their estimation that around 65 lives could be saved in the UK by lowering the limit from 80mg to 50mg. The Government have also commissioned their own research, which shows that most people thought a personal safe limit was two drinks, regardless of type of drink, or the size of glass.

The private members debate was led by Dave Thompson (SNP), who has led a campaign to change drink driving laws for some time. His constituency is in the Highlands and Islands, and he noted the specific problem in his area, where there are 27% more accidents caused by drunk drivers than the national average. He also pointed out that one in six deaths on Scottish roads are caused by alcohol, and that there was widespread support for a change in the law on this area. There was unanimous support from all the other speakers in the Chamber about the need to review laws that have remain unchanged for 40 years, with the only note of slight dissent coming from Bill Aitken (Con), who wondered if this was just another ‘rod with which to beat Westminster’s back’.

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

McKie investigation announced

Tucked away in written questions, the Government announced details about its manifesto promise to establish an investigation into the Shirlie McKie case. You can read the statement in the Written Questions, and you can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Questions

During general questions, the Secretary for Justice was asked what plans the government had to address the low conviction rate for rape and sexual assault in Scotland, in the context of recent comments made by a Sheriff who described the 15-year-old victim of a rape as being “not very vulnerable”. Christina McKelvie (SNP) urged the government to act quickly to introduce legislation in this area, once the consultation on the Law Commission’s report into rape and sexual offences closes. The Secretary for Justice replied that the Government would move on this legislation as quickly as possible, but that along with changes to the law, cultural and attitudinal changes much also occur. You can read this question in the Official Report,

Later, the Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison, was asked by Cathie Craigie (Lab) about what the government is doing to address underage drinking, and in particular, the problem of older people buying alcohol and passing it on to younger people. Shona Robison said that test purchasing of alcohol has now been rolled out to catch retailers who sell alcohol to people under 18, and that the forthcoming Licensing Act will create new offences, such as selling alcohol to a child anywhere and of purchasing alcohol on a child’s behalf, and, for a child, the offence of buying or attempting to buy alcohol anywhere. You can read this question in the Official Report,

There was a very brief supplementary question to the First Minister during FMQs, about whether there would be an investigation into a recent disturbance at a secure unit for young people, in which members of staff required hospital treatment, and police officers in riot gear were also reported to have been required. Alex Salmond replied that the incident raised a number of concerns that must be investigated before any conclusions can be arrived at, but that any improvements that are necessary will be introduced. And you can read this question in the Official Report,

Written Questions

There was a question about the number of prosecutions for underage drinking, and about the number of young people who required hospital treatment with alcohol problems. There was a question about how much money each local authority received from the Violence Against Women Fundin the spending review period. There was a question about the Victim Notification Scheme in the case of a prisoner who absconded from an open prison, and a question about levels of funding for prison visitors.

Posted by KM on Mon 17th Mar 2008 at 4:44 pm
Legislation Senior Judiciary (Vacancies and Incapacity) (Scotland) Act 2006 Prisons and prisoners Sentencing Tagging/tracking • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 3rd to the 7th March 2008

Monday, March 10, 2008

This week saw the Government narrowly defeated in the Justice Committee over plans to extend Home Detention Curfew. There was a debate in the Chamber on the Scottish Law Commission’s proposals to change the law on rape and sexual offences. 

The Justice Committee

Home Detention Curfew

The Government were faced with the realities of a minority Administration again at Tuesday’s meeting of the Justice Committee, as the deciding vote of the Conservative convenor denied the Government’s plans to extend Home Detention Curfew (HDC). HDC, allows prisoners to be released while electronically tagged, up to four and a half months before their sentence is complete. The primary stated objective of the scheme is to aid prisoner integration back into their communities, although it was also introduced to alleviate overcrowding in prisons.  The Government would now like to increase the maximum period a prisoner can be released on HDC from a maximum of four and a half to six months, in light of the recent record high numbers in prison.

The Justice Secretary joined the Committee to put the Government’s case. He said that prisoner numbers stood at 8,045 today, with 340 released on HDC. He said that one in five prisoners are recalled for breaching their HDC license, nearly all of which were for relatively minor infractions, such as failing to comply with the curfew conditions or for damaging the electronic monitoring equipment. He said that the if these new measures were to be agreed, this would result in around 50 extra prisoners on release under the scheme, all of whom would have been assessed as being low risk by the SPS. He said that the current situation of overcrowding would be alleviated by the three new prisons which are in the process of being built, however, the first one due for completion, will only be ready to receive prisoners in January 2009. He said that every single prison in Scotland was under pressure, there was no part of the system which could take any slack.

He was asked whether the government had considered the idea of a waiting list for prisons that operates in a number of other European countries. He said that, although he didn’t rule anything out he was instinctively against this idea, because justice ‘had to be seen to be swift’. He was asked about the cost of extending HDC, and he said that at £6,000 a year, it was always going to be considerably less expensive than prison. He was also asked whether there was evidence as to the efficacy of HDCs, and he said that that while there has been no research done so far on whether the scheme helps prisoners reintegrate, it is was a ‘no brainer’ that if an offender is back in the community with their family, and is able to apply for a job and so forth, then they are more likely to be reintegrated than if they had remained in prison.

Bill Butler (Lab) suggested the idea of a ‘sunset clause’, which would allow for the extension to begin now, and the curfew period would revert back to four and a half months again once the new prison at Addiewell is built. This would allow for the temporary alleviation of the prisoner population, and it would also allow for more evidence to be carried out into whether HDCs were effective in helping prisoners to reintegrate or not. Kenny MacAskill said he was unwilling to insert a sunset clause, because for this to happen, the order would have to withdrawn and redrafted, and have to work its way though the legislative process including being considered again by the Subordinate Legislation Committee. He said the whole process would take a number of months to complete, and that the current situation of overcrowding was such that no more time could be wasted. 

Instead, he said that he was willing to promise a full review of HDCs once Addiewell has opened and the pressures on numbers will not be so acute. He said that it would be simply negligent of the Government to ignore the situation in Barlinnie (which he had visited the previous day), and other prisons, saying that the current situation risked safety for everyone involved. He said that those who were arguing for the insertion of the clause had a problem with HDCs per se, rather than with the issue which was under discussion today, which was whether or not the maximum time for the orders ought to be extended or not. He said that either the HDCs worked or they did not, and it was unlikely that the difference of an extra six weeks of their maximum duration would make a difference or not.

In summing up, the committee convenor, Bill Aitken (Con), said that if the order where to be approved, then a four year sentence could be reduced in certain cases to 18 months, which, he said, would send out the wrong message. He said that he was persuaded that the order was acceptable, but only with the addition of a sunset clause, given that the problem of overcrowding is likely to exist only until the new prison is finished. The order was then voted on by the Committee, with all the SNP and the single LD member voting is its favour and Labour and Conservative voting against it. The Convenor had the casting vote, and Bill Aitken opposed the motion. The order was therefore not agreed to, so HDC remains at its current level.

There will now be a full parliamentary debate in the Chamber on Wednesday. 

You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, and watch it for up to one month on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the stories in the press, including the Justice Secretary’s furious reaction to the vote, in the Newsblog. 

The Chamber

Debate on rape and sexual offences

On Thursday there was a debate in the Chamber on the the Scottish Law Commission’s report on rape and sexual offences, which is currently under consultation and is expected to form the main part of future legislation. The Law Commission’s report was published last December, and recommended a range of changes to existing laws including widening the definition of rape, clarifying the coverage of protective offences regarding children and providing a range of new offences regarding coercion. The consultation will end on March 14th, and this debate in Parliament allowed for the first political exploration of some of its proposals. During the week running up to this debate, the Lord Advocate had caused some controversy in the media, by arguing that the rule of corroboration must also be examined as part of these considerations.

Opening up the debate for the Government, the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, welcomed the report, and said that as well as changes to the law which they are seeking to make, there is also a need for attitudes towards rape to change. She said that theproposals seek to change the existing societal norms by creating a greater focus on the responsibility of the accused to demonstrate what steps were taken to ensure there was consent, and also by proposing statutory indicators of situations in which consent will not apply. She spoke about the proposal to define consent as free agreement, which is a change from the current position in which a defence of consent requires only an ‘honest belief’ by the accused, regardless of how reasonable or otherwise that belief is.

She said that Scotland operated within one of the most restrictive legal frameworks in the world. She said however, that the power of the courts alone to bring about significant law reform is limited, and occurs at too slow a pace, and there was therefore a need for legislative change. She argued that the definition of what constitutes rape must be widened, and that part of Scotland’s comparatively low rate of prosecution is to do with its very narrow definition.

She then spoke about corroboration, saying that there a large number of reasons why rape is such a difficult case to prosecute, such as it takes place in private, there are rarely any injuries, and in many circumstances both the complainer and the accused are intoxicated. The requirement for corroboration in Scots law thus poses clear difficulties in the case of rape and sexual offences, and she said that the Scottish Law Commission has therefore been asked to examine the law of evidence and corroboration. She said that if the Government are serious about reforming the law in this area, the question is at the heart of the debate and cannot be avoided, but that any alteration to this area of law would need to be considered with the greatest caution and would be controversial.

Pauline McNeil (Lab) spoke about the need for Parliament to have adequate time to scrutinise the Bill when it is published, given that it deals with complex issues and took the commission three years to complete. She also spoke about the need to change the attitude of the public to rape, especially in areas when alcohol has been involved, and a level of intimacy has already been established between the victim and the accused. She said that she agreed with the majority of what the report suggested, although she said that there was some concern from Labour about the proposal to cut age from 16 to 13, in respect of statutory rape, because it might send out the wrong message. She said that the phrase of ‘free agreement’ was a good one, because it could be clearly understood by juries and the public

She said that the low rate of rape prosecution was a concern, but that this was the wrong place to start, getting the law correct should be the starting point for reform. She said that a change in the law will provide clarity, but it will not necessarily affect conviction rates, but that if the law is clearer to understand, it will be easier for juries to apply the law correctly. She also asked for more information about the Government’s decision to review the rules of corroboration, saying she had been unaware of this decision, and she said that she had strong reservations about the possibility of changing the law in this area.

Bill Aitken (Con) spoke firstly about consent, saying that juries had considerable difficulty with rape which was perpetrated by someone known to the victim, and he also welcomed the proposed requirement for consent to be demonstrated. He said that just as the owner of a car did not deserve to have their vehicle stolen if they left their keys in the ignition, so a scantily clad and flirtatious women does not deserve to be raped. The definition of consent will therefore be helpful in this regard, although the way that this is measured will have to be examined, particularly in cases which involve heavy drinking. He also welcomed plans to extend the category of rape to include a far wider range of offences including sodomy, which is currently not considered rape.

Regarding rules of evidence and the requirement for corroboration, he said that any suggestions that there should be radical change in the law in this area are fraught with danger, given that the requirement for corroboration is a protection against injustice where false evidence is given. He said that any wholesale change in the law in this area, no matter how well intended, would have the opposite effect of increasing the number of miscarriages of justice.

Margaret Smith (LD), also welcomed the Commission’s report, and said that rape victims’ experiences of rape is then often conpounded by their experience of the justice system. She said that while around 1,000 rapes were reported last year, it has been estimated by Rape Crisis Scotland that there were actually around 7,200 rapes in this period. She also welcomed work that is being carried out by the Crown Office and by ACPOS to standardise the responses to rape across the eight police forces. She welcomed the fact that the commission will be examining the laws of evidence and corroboration, and she acknowledged how controversial any changes to the law in this area would be.

She said that it was also vital that laws are not only clear to understand, but they must also be relevant to present day society. She said that much of the present legislation was passed when attitudes were very different, and that there was a need for example ensure the law affords equal protection to men and women, as the current laws often mean that there are much lesser penalties for sexual offences against men or boys, although such offences are no less horrific for their victims. She also voiced concern about the parts of the Bill relating to children aged 13 to 15, saying that it is vital to protect children who are at a particularly vulnerable stage in their sexual and emotional development. She said there was a need to balance protection and pragmatism and to deliver a system of rules that is clear to young people, parents and the police.

During the debate that followed, one member quoted from Rape Crisis Network Europe who said that “legal reform and changes in the investigation and prosecution of rape have had little, if any, impact on convictions”, and many members spoke therefore of the need to change the prejudice and social attitudes that remain towards rape and violence against women. Research from a survey carried out last year which revealed that 26 per cent of Scottish men and women thought that a woman bore some responsibility for being raped if she wore revealing clothing or if she had been flirting, was also quoted. The fact that juries often mirror this prejudice was also voiced, and there was praise from many different members for Rape Crisis Scotland for their work to help victims and raise awareness. Overall, the debate was consensual, although there were hints of fierce arguments to be had in future, over issues such as corroboration and evidence of previous sexual behaviour. These will be aired in the consultation to the report, and during Parliament’s scrutiny of the Bill, due later this year. You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, and you can also watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read stories in the press in the Newsblog.

See also

“The Scottish Law Commission Report on Rape and Other Sexual Offences” Scottish Government Consultation

First Minister’s Questions

During FMQs, Wendy Alexander accused the government of a mixed approach to tackling alcohol, given that the Finance Secretary said that he wanted to cut taxes on spirits, and the Justice Secretary said that he wants to double the cost of alcohol. Alex Salmond replied that it was the tax on products such as malt whiskeys which they would like to tax, and that it was cheap beer and cider which they would like to make more expensive. He was accused of simply picking a fight with the Treasury in London by calling for a tax cut, but he replied that all parties in the Scottish Parliament had been working together with London over the past 10 years for a cut in taxes on these products with considerable success, given that whisky is such an important industry for Scotland and the rest of the UK. You can read this question in the Official Report and you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

Written questions this week asked about intercept evidence, and a number of questions about legal aid. There were questions about the co-operation between the co-operation between the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) Forensic Services and police forces, and a number of questions about a murder that took place in a private prison
in 2006 (see also Newsblog). There were more questions about prisons, including the review in the open estate, what provisions the service makes for the children of prisoners, the practice of handcuffing female prisoners in hospital labour suites, prisoner education, prisoner suicide and self harm, the numbers of prisoners on remand and serving sentence in YOIs. There was a question about recruiting ex-service personnel to the SPS, and about funding for Rape Crisis, and finally about the amount of secure accommodation for children on remand.

Posted by KM on Mon 10th Mar 2008 at 6:16 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 25th to the 29th of February 2008

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Parliament debated child protection in relation to sexual abuse. There were also questions to the Law and Justice Officers, and an unusually large number of justice written questions. 

The Justice Committee

The Committee did not sit this week, they will meet again on Tuesday 4th of March. 

The Chamber

Protecting Children Debate

On Thursday there was a debate lead by Paul Martin (Lab) on protecting children from sex offenders. The motion of the debate referred to three related but separate issues. The first related to the Justice 2 report on the management of sex offenders (December 2006) which made 33 recommendations relating to issues such as the housing and registration and limited public disclosure in the event of a failure to co-operate with registration requirements. Paul Martin said that 17 out of the 33 recommendations continue to be outstanding, and he said that the Government must provide assurances that they will be implemented, or at the very least, must provide information of the progress that is being made towards their implementation.

The second point, related to the retention of DNA samples and fingerprints of all crime suspects, a policy which currently exists in England and Wales only, and is controversial because of the inclusion of DNA samples from innocent people on it.  However, the database has recently been credited as providing evidence which enabled two high profile murder cases to be prosecuted successfully in England. Mr Martin also referred to the recent statement from ACPOS saying that they would support the introduction of such a policy north of the border, and he argued that a total of 452 homicides, 644 rapes, 222 other sex offences and 18 other violent offences have been prosecuted in Scotland because of information that was held on the database in England and Wales.

The final point in the motion called on the Government to reconsider its reluctance to introduce so called ‘community disclosure’ schemes, which have recently been piloted in four police areas in England and Wales. These schemes allow parents to ask police authorities if someone such as a carer or a new partner, has previously been placed on the sex offenders register.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice began his speech by confirming that the Government continue to be committed to the full implementation of all of the recommendations of the sub-Committee’s report, and that a significant number of the 33 recommendations have either been delivered in full or are very near to being implemented, and he said that he would shortly be writing to the current Justice Committee with a more detailed progress report on these recommendations. Regarding the community notification pilot schemes recently established in England, he said that the Government would follow the results and evaluations of these schemes with interest. He said that the Scottish Government are part of the steering committee of these pilots, so he expected to be kept fully informed of their development, but that there was need to ensure that any possible benefits be outweighed by the potential risks of such schemes.

Regarding the retention of DNA samples, he quoted the previous Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson, who said that Scotland had struck a ‘sensible balance’ on this issue. Currently DNA samples taken after arrests in Scotland must be destroyed if the person is not charged or convicted, but they can be retained for up to three years in cases in which the individual is accused, but not convicted, of sexual or violent offences. He said that the Government did not believe it would be correct to copy the system currently in place in England and Wales, saying that it was ‘a matter of principle’ that it would be wrong for a person’s DNA to be retained indefinitely by the police if they have never been convicted of an offence, unless there was good reason. However, he also said that the Government have commissioned a review by Professor James Fraser, to look at the current law regarding the detention of DNA of people who are accused of a sexual or violent offence.

Bill Aitken (Con) said that child sex offenders needed to be regarded separately from other offenders, given their propensity to be ‘devious, cunning and predatory’. He was yet to be convinced that the various agencies that are involved with a prisoner following their release such as housing, social work, and the police, are adopting the best ‘joined up approach’, and there is therefore more work that can be done in this area. He said that it was vital to ensure that the existing sex offenders registration legislation works, and he also argued that technology such as global positioning tracking and lie detector equipment should be used when offenders disappear. Regarding the retention of DNA of all suspects of crime, he said that despite the obvious benefits of helping to detect and prosecute more crimes, he had ‘serious reservations’ about the suggestion, on the basis of the loss of privacy and ‘all the dangers that that would entail’. Finally, he said that he was not convinced that the systems of public notification in any community scheme would not drive offenders underground, so his party could therefore not support it.

Speaking for the Liberal Democrats, Mike Pringle highlighted areas in which he said there were gaps in the law, saying that at the moment, the police have no power to apply for the extension of a period of registration for a sex offender. He also said that far swifter procedures for securing of police warrants must be implemented, but that any such reforms must be tempered by due consideration for civil liberties. He also said that the concept of so called ‘Megan’s law’, which provides systems of public notification, was a step too far, and he also cited the risk driving offenders underground and also of leaving them open to the risks of possible vigilante action.

He said the suggestion of retaining the DNA of all suspects would go against one of the core principles on which Scottish society is built, namely the individual’s rights against the State, and he said that Parliament must not be allowed to let them be compromised. He spoke about ‘circles of support’ programmes, in which a group of volunteers meet regularly to help the offender resettle and to pursue new goals in life. He said that such programmes were particularly effective for work with sex offenders, and he quoted impressive results from schemes which are currently operating in England and in Canada.

In the debate that followed, members’ views largely followed party lines, with the greatest disagreement occurring over the topic of the retention of DNA samples. A case currently being pursued in the European Court of Human Rights about the legality of retaining DNA samples of two men, one of whom had been acquitted, and the other whose case had been discontinued, was also cited as reasons against the adoption of such an approach in Scotland. It was also highlighted during the debate that the great majority of sexual offences carried out against children are committed by members of their own families, or friends of their families, and therefore a scheme of public notification may have limited impact. Ian McKie (SNP) also said that ‘at least two’ members of the current parliament have been suspected of criminal offences in the recent past, and if Scotland were to adopt a database similar to that in England and Wales, their DNA would be on it.

This debate inspired many interventions during speeches, and the Presiding Officer struggled to keep everyone within their allotted time as members were eager to have their opinions heard.  The topic of child sex offenders is emotive in itself, but the debate was made even more heated and interesting by the discussion of DNA retention, which raised fundamental issues relating to the role of the State in society. At the end of the debate, only Labour voted in support of the retention of DNA, and the final amendment agreed by the Parliament, recognised that “appropriate utilisation of DNA samples and fingerprints can play an important role in identifying offenders but that it is vital to strike the right balance between prosecuting criminals and protecting the innocent and .. rejects the blanket retention of DNA samples and fingerprints”

You can read the whole transcript of this debate in the Official Report, and you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

First Minister’s Questions

The issue of the retention of DNA retention came back again during FMQs as Pauline McNeil (Lab) asked Alex Salmond whether he would had plans to extend the categories of people whose DNA can be detained following arrest. She again quoted the numbers mentioned in the morning’s debate about the numbers of crimes that have been solved because of information held on the database south of the border. The First Minister replied that the rest of the Chamber had voted against this proposal in the morning’s debate (see above), and that the previous Labour Justice Minister had also judged that the current arrangements strike the best balance. You can read this question in the Official Report.

There were a number of questions about the use of Scottish airports for rendition flights. Ian McKee (SNP) expressed his ‘deep concern’ that, despite previous statements to the contrary, the US have recently admitted that it had in fact used British territory for rendition flights. He said that although aviation policy is a reserved matter, justice is not, and he urged the Government to ensure that this cannot occur again given that rendition is illegal under international law. The First Minister replied that it was essential to make it ‘crystal clear that Scottish airports should not and cannot be used for rendition flights’. He said that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has written to the Foreign Secretary in Westminster for further information on this issue, and that he would ensure that Scotland be covered by the further assurances that must be sought from the US about their past practice. Robin Harper (Green) asked for assurances to be sought from London that action be taken given that Amnesty International report that three aircraft, known to be possibly associated with the Central Intelligence Agency, made 87 stops between them in Scottish airports. Alex Salmond replied that, although civil aviation is a reserved matter, if an individual was unlawfully transited through Scotland to facilitate torture, that would constitute a crime under Scots law. However, it would be for the police to investigate such allegations and for them to report the results of their investigation back to the procurator fiscal. He said that information on the flights has been passed to Crown Office and to Strathclyde Police, where it is still under consideration.

Robert Brown (LD) urged the Government to consider asking the Lord Advocate to appoint an independent investigator to fully examine all the evidence available, given the highly political nature of this issue. Alex Salmond said that the parliament should have confidence in the processes of the Scottish judicial system, and that allowing the police and the Crown Office to decide whether to proceed further with the issue was the correct way to proceed.
You can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV.

Questions for the Law and Justice Officers

The issue of police recruitment raised its head again during Law and Justice Officer questions later that afternoon. Margaret Curran (Lab) asked the Justice Secretary how many new police officers there would be in Strathclyde in 2008/09, and he replied that these decisions were taken by chief constables not by Government. However, he said that Strathclyde Police has been setting an excellent example in using innovative ways to free up officers’ time ‘so that they can police our streets’, and that the 150 additional officers that the Government have committed to providing, will be through by the end of the financial year.

In a supplementary question from Dave Thompson (SNP), he gave support to so called ‘blue-light discos’, which are alcohol-free environments for young people provided by the police and community organisations. He said that the Government had considered whether proceeds of crime funds could be used for such schemes, but that so far it appeared that they are operating well without the additional input. In another supplementary question, he was asked by Joanne Lamont (Lab) about the case of a man who had been sentenced to 3 years and 8 months for driving his van into a man who had threatened him with a knife when he was shopping with his family, in the mistaken belief that the man was connected to long running gang activity in his neighbourhood. Ms Lamont asked whether the Cabinet Secretary would be willing to discuss the issues that this case raised with her, particularly the importance of the public having confidence the criminal justice system, so that people do not end up taking the law into their own hands. He replied that he could not comment on specific cases which are subject to on-going appeals, but that the Government would offer as much support as possible to those who enforce the law in the fight against gangs. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Next, the Cabinet Secretary was asked a question about a possible police pension short fall by Jackie Baillie (Lab). She quoted from a letter from the head of finance and resources in Strathclyde police, which estimated a short fall of £104 million in money for police pensions across Scotland. He replied that funding for these pensions is included in each local authority funding settlement, and that it is up to police boards to negotiate budgets with their constituent local authorities. You can read this question Official Report.

The Cabinet Secretary was then asked by Richard Simpson (Lab) what steps are being taken to reduce the number of non-violent offenders serving sentences of six months or less, a pledge which is contained in the SNP manifesto. Dr Simpson said that projects which deal with the drug addictions of many female offenders are a more constructive way of dealing with these offenders than sending them to prison. He also urged the Government to reconsider its decision to halt community reparation orders, and lastly, he urged the Cabinet Secretary to invite the Sentencing Commission to examine the reasons for the massive increase in remand custody, given that there are so many alternatives now available.

Kenny MacAskill replied that ‘matters have been drawn to the attention of Sheriffs, who recognise that there is a problem’, and that the Government would seek to work together with the judiciary on this problem. He said that he would not reconsider the reintroduction of community reparation orders, saying that they do not work in practice, and he said he would consider whether to invite the Sentencing Commission to carry out Dr. Simpson’s suggestion.

He was then asked by Bill Aitken (Con) about the Government’s stated aim of reducing the population of offenders serving six months and under. Mr MacAskill replied that it was always up to the judiciary to impose the appropriate sentence, and that the Government will always remain committed to ensuring that those who commit serious and violent offences should be detained, but that those who have ‘underlying problems’ ought to be treated in a way that is cost effective for society and also better for the offenders, if it ends their cycle of re-offending. And you can read this question in the Official Report.

Next he was asked by Margaret Smith (LD) about the possibility of setting up a ‘national clear-up fund’, which would provide money for a home to be cleaned following a murder that had taken place there. Currently, if someone is murdered in a home, the residents of that home bear the responsibility and the cost for cleaning the property. The Cabinet Secretary replied that he was keen to establish such a fund as quickly as possible, and that this issue was about lessening the trauma for a family rather than the financial issues at stake, and that he has arranged a meeting with relevant stakeholders to discuss how such a fund could be established. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Next there was a question from Andrew Welsh (SNP) about what steps were being taken in the move towards establishing ‘drug-free environment in prisons’. The Minister for Community Safety (Fergus Ewing), replied that drug testing is carried out in all prisons, and that all prisoners who have a drug misuse problem are offered support. He spoke about the work that is being carried out in prisons across Scotland in their fight to prevent drugs from entering. He also said that there is insufficient time to provide a proper course of support in drug treatment for prisoners serving less than a 31 day sentence, and that this would be an issue that the Prison Commission would address. Read the question in the Official Report.

There was a question from Brian Adam (SNP), about provisions for people arrested who are under the influence of alcohol. Mr Adam said a scheme in operation in his Aberdeen constituency had proved successful, and he urged the Government to encourage local police forces and the local licensing trade to contribute towards the funding for dealing with people that are arrested while under the influence of alcohol. The Cabinet Secretary replied that ACPOS has recently established a sub-group to consider the provision of care in police custody, which was working with other agencies to identify the most appropriate and effective alternatives for the detention of drunk people. He also said that he remained committed to the polluter-pays approach in order to ensure that the licensed trade contributes to the cost of dealing with the consequences of alcohol misuse. However, until such a time that ‘polluter pays’ legislation can be introduced, he was asking the licensed trade to consider contributing voluntarily. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Finally, the Minister for Community Safety was urged by Jamie McGrigor (Con) to congratulate the Northern Constabulary on their approach to community policing, which has resulted 95% of people in that policing area saying they felt safe in their community according to a recent survey. Fergus Ewing replied that this force have indeed pioneered the approach to community policing, and that it provides an example which should be followed by the rest of Scotland. You can read this question in the Official Report.

You can also watch all these questions on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Written Questions

In written questions this week, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, gave a full breakdown of progress made so far on the national antisocial behaviour strategy. There was a question which revealed how much each local authority had received in funding for community safety partnerships, and about funding for victims of domestic abuse. There were questions about funding to tackle drug abuse in the Grampians, and there were more questions about a variety of issues to do withdrug abuse. There was a question about compensation to victims of human trafficking, and another question which revealed that there has only been one legal action taken against suspected human traffickers in the past four years, and this case did not proceed following a review of the evidence, and a final question about who the government has met in discussions on how to tackle human trafficking. There was a question about the two year reconviction rate for women serving community sentences, and a question which revealed that the two year reconviction rate for women serving a custodial sentence was 65%. There was a question about whether sheriffs allow the excuse in law of being under the influence of alcohol. There was a question about convictions for defrauding the NHS, and a question about the rate breaches of conditions of bail. There were a number of justice questions on topics from the number of cases dealt with by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, about changing the law on the age of criminal responsibility, about prosecutions for cruelty to cats and dogs, about the children of prisons, about prosecutions for crimes involving the transport of cash, about the numbers of summary custody trials held in sheriff courts over the past two years, about the number of motorists caught speeding, about information given to the victims of crime, and about the number of attacks on front line emergency staff. There were a number of questions about prisons including the educational provisions available within each prison, the number of prison officers assaulted, the number of prisons from each postcode area of Scotland, about the religious backgrounds are of prisoners held in prisons, about the turnover of prison governors, about facilities within Cornton Vale, and about circumstances in which a prisoner in an open prison may be escorted to events outside prison. There were a couple more questions about prison, including charges relating to an incident in Kilmarnock prison, and about the cost effectiveness of the support and supervision of female offenders, and more questions on prisons including on the subject of the proportion of women testing positive for drugs within prison, whether or not overcrowding within prisons is having an effect on the length of sentence passed, and how long each prison governor has remained in their post. Finally, there was a question about the number of places of secure accommodation for young offenders throughout the prison estate. 

Posted by KM on Tue 4th Mar 2008 at 8:00 pm
Crime Prevention Civil Liberties Prisons and prisoners • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 18th to the 22nd of February, 2008

Monday, February 25, 2008

This week in Holyrood the recent news about Scotland’s record high prison population prompted an interesting debate in the Parliament about prison policy, and the Justice Committee considered subordinate legislation concerning summary justice reform. 

The Justice Committee

Items of Subordinate Legislation

The Justice Committee was joined by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, in their consideration of a number of items of subordinate legislation.

The first instrument related to summary justice reform, and would allow for the maximum level that a Procurator Fiscal can issue for a fixed penalty offer, from £100 to £300. A fixed penalty can be offered for alleged minor offences in place of a prosecution, and if paid in full, will mean that the incident is not included in a criminal record. However, the accused can also chose to proceed to court if they wish. The Justice Secretary argued that increasing the maximum amount would release the courts to deal with more serious crimes, and that fixed penalty offers have proved appropriate and efficient way of dealing with low-level offending over the years.

Concerns were raised that by giving someone the option to accept a fixed penalty notice, they are missing their chance to ‘have their day in court’, but the Justice Secretary said that too many cases go to court in which a guilty plea is tendered and are simply ‘rubber stamped’ by the Sheriff, which cause unnecessary delays in the system, and that the fixed penalty offers are voluntary, an individual can proceed to court if they wish. He was also asked about the risk of somebody being issued with repeated fixed penalty notices, without the individual ever receiving a criminal record. He replied that whether or not to issue a notice was left to the discretion of the PF, and that they would more than likely allow the case to continue to court if this was the circumstance. 

The Committee agreed the motion.

You can read the full transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

The Chamber

Debate on prison policy

On Thursday there was a Conservative led debate which sought to attack the Government’s prison policy. This was in response to the recent record numbers in prison, and no doubt also as a rebuttal to the high profile attention that the Justice Secretary has making of this fact and his implicit message that prisoner numbers ought to be reduced.

Opening the debate, Bill Aitken (Con) accused the Government of seeking to take anyone serving six months or less out of prison, which would include offenders who are serving sentences for carrying knives, housebreaking, domestic violence, reckless driving. He said that the community sentences which the government seeks to replace custodial sentences with, are not held in any confidence by the judiciary, and he cited their high rates of breach as the main cause of this. He said that, although many people had sympathy with much of what the Justice Secretary had been saying about prisons, particularly their ineffectiveness if seen in terms of the high rates of recidivism, the answer must be to make conditions in prison better rather than have more of them spend their sentence in the community. He said that the level of drug abuse within prisons was unacceptable, and that all prisons should adopt a zero tolerance approach to drugs. He said that the failure in rehabilitation did indeed owe much to overcrowding, but that this could best be remedied by allowing the private sector to build another prison.

Speaking for the Government, Kenny MacAskill said that he wished to work together with other parties on this issue, saying they were all united by a desire to keep Scotland safer. He reiterated his support of a publicly owned prison system, saying that public safety, not private profit, must always be their priority.

He said that parties had been too quick to second guess what the Prison Commission is going to report, and that the Government looked forward to hearing its findings. However, he said that in the meant time there was a need to deal with the troubling present day situation, and he cited the figures about the number of prisoners with mental health and addiction problems, and the number of prisoners who have spent their childhood under State care. He said that there are a ‘hard core’ of prisoners which continue the cyclical pattern of serving a short custodial sentence, only to be released and then come back again into prison in the subsequent months. He also reiterated that Scotland has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Europe, and that the Government had already committed to building three new prisons.

Pauline McNeill (Lab) also welcomed the debate, and said that the rising prison population has fuelled the current debate on penal reform, out of necessity. She did not support the argument that there are people in prison who ought not be there, saying instead that there are people currently in prison who could have been given an alternative sentence if the court had thought that was the best option. She highlighted the huge increase in available sentences which offer an alternative to custody, and she said that sentences such as DTTOs should be extended further throughout the court system, and also said that more use should be made of payback schemes and reparation orders. She said that the prospect of either building more prisons, as the Conservatives suggest, or of emptying the prisons, as the SNP suggest, are both unappealing. She said that confidence in community sentences needed to be restored, and she suggested the idea of holding a cross party summit with sentencers in order to raise awareness of community penalties and what they can offer. She also urged the Cabinet Secretary to provide more information about the progress of the building of the new prison at Low Moss.

Finally, Margaret Smith (LD), also questioned the need for many of the people in prison to be there, saying that many of them could surely be dealt with more effectively elsewhere, both for their benefit and for the rest of the community. She also said that community penalties needed to be more robust, and that there was a need to improve treatment for those with mental health problems and drug and alcohol addictions.

During the open debate that followed, each member voiced their concern about the overcrowding and the escalating numbers in prison, however, the solutions that were provided to these problems, fell predictably along party lines. There was an interesting contribution from David McLetchie (Con), who argued that sentencing practices discriminate in favour of women, given that the proportion of women inside prison does not reflect the proportion of women who are charged with offences. 

Members were eager to say their piece on this important topic, and it is clear that the issue of imprisonment and sentencing will continue to feature highly on the Parliament’s agenda over the forthcoming session. 

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Questions

There was a question to the Justice Secretary about whether the Government had any plans to restrict the advertising of alcohol around retail premises. He said that the government intend to consult on their ‘long term alcohol strategy’ later this year, and at this stage they are not ruling anything or out. However, he said that Licensing Boards are required to consider all aspects of responsibility when deciding whether or not to grant a license to premises, and if a shop is advertising alcohol irresponsibly, then this ought to be taken into consideration in any decision on whether or not to grant a license.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

Later, there was a question for the First Minister about the monitoring of sex offenders from Paul Martin (Lab), who asked if there were any plans to adopt a similar pilot to that in operation in England and Wales, in which parents can ask police authorities whether a named individual such as a carer or a new partner is on the sex offenders register. Alex Salmond answered that the Government was implementing the proposals made by the inquiry into the management of sex offenders, which was carried out by previous Justice 2 sub-committee in 2006, and that one of the requirements was to tighten the sex offenders register to require more household and social data to be included. He said that he would ‘look closely’ at the pilot scheme south of the border, and he also welcomed the work carried out in Peterhead prison, saying that it is ‘outstanding international example’ of how best to deal with sex offenders.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

Written Questions

There was a question about creating legislation in order to prevent the being under the influence of alcohol during the commission of an offence, to be regarded as a mitigating factor, and there was a question which revealed the breakdown of a range offences in each local authority area, over the previous ten months. There was a question which revealed that funding will remain available for drugs courts until 2008/09, but that there are no plans to increase the numbers of these courts throughout Scotland in the mean time. There was a question about what the government is doing to tackle human trafficking and there were a number of questions relating to legalised police cells, and the government confirmed it had no plans to alter thestructure of the eight police forces throughout Scotland. There were a number of questions about funding for ACPOS, and there were a number of questions about prisons and prisoners, including the numbers of prisoners who self-harmed, the numbers of prisoners who were refused parole, and finally the number of prison staff who were seconded to other organisations. There were more interesting questions about prison, which revealed the average cost per prisoner per night to be £111, and the numbers of prisoners who were assaulted in prison, broken down by year and individual prison. Finally, there was a question about funding for each local authority for the National Accommodation Strategy for Sex Offenders.

Posted by KM on Mon 25th Feb 2008 at 6:11 pm
Prisons and prisoners • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 4th - 8th of February 2008

Monday, February 11, 2008

The close vote on the Government budget saw Justice policy concessions made for the sake of opposition support for the SNP minority administration. There was also the announcement of measures aimed at supporting survivors of sexual abuse. 

The Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation

The Justice Committee dealt with items of subordinate legislation. The first amended the Criminal Procedure Act 1995 by increasing the maximum amount of compensation offer that the procurator fiscal can issue to an alleged offender, to £5,000. The convenor of the Committee, Bill Aitken (Con), commented that although he was unhappy that this amount of money can be payable without a conviction being recorded against an individual, he did not regard it the task of the Committee to overturn the wishes of the Parliament.

The other matter discussed related to the discontinuance of legalised police cells in the Northern Joint Police Board. Some concerns were raised about procedural matters relating to the revocation of the order at short notice.

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill - call for evidence

The Committee have issued a call for evidence on the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Bill. This Bill aims to modernise arrangements for the judiciary and give it greater authority over the Scottish Court Service. 

You can read more details in the call for evidence

The Chamber

Budget Bill

On Wednesday, the Chamber voted on the crucial and final Stage 3 of the Budget (Scotland) Bill. Because of the Government’s minority status, the process of getting the budget cleared by Parliament has been particularly interesting in this present session. Prior to Wednesday’s vote, the Government had already made a number of concessions to the Conservative party in order to win their support.

Before the budget as a whole could be voted on, the Chamber debated the various amendments that had been tabled, including Government amendments which would increase the Justice portfolio by an overall £8, to be spent primarily on increasing police recruitment (a key concession to the Conservatives). The Government initially proposed to fund 500 new police officers in their draft budget, half the amount of 1,000 that they had promised in their manifesto, saying that this shortfall would be made up through a combination of ‘retention and redeployment’, a claim which has been challenged by police witnesses in evidence to the Justice Committee. However, the amended budget will now provide funding for another 300 officers in 2008-09, and money in the following two years to increase that total to 500.

Leading the debate on Wednesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, was quick to point out that the amended budget would allow the Government to ‘go substantially beyond’ their manifesto pledge to provide 1000 extra police officers, while Conservative members were naturally quick to point out that this was only because of concessions made on their behalf. The Cabinet Secretary also pointed out that the decision to put this extra money into policing has meant that ‘difficult decisions’ have had to be taken in order to free up money initially planned for other projects, which has resulted in a ‘reprofiling’ of the Prisons budget in order to release £2 million. This will be achieved partly through efficiency savings made within the SPS, and by rearranging the timetable of developments within the prison estate. There was also a hint towards savings achieved through a hoped reduction in the prison population, with the Government saying in relation to the prison budget: ‘we will also closely monitor the prison population during 2009-09’.

Pauline McNeil (Lab) accused the Government of being dragged ‘kicking and screaming’ to simply honour their own promise on policing, and she said that the government had failed to address the real issue which will affect the future of policing in Scotland, namely the police pensions black hole, which, she said, will require £100 million to fill. Bill Aitken (Con) was quick to take credit on behalf of his party and the Justice committee in securing these concessions, despite admitting that ‘the parliamentary arithmetic perhaps dictated that that was inevitable’. Tavish Scott (LD) also welcomed the changes to the budget regarding policing, however, he said that there had been no possibility for adequate committee scrutiny into these latter amendments, so the Chamber was forced to take the Government at its word. Patrick Harvie (Greens) said that his party also had no problem supporting the amendment for greater police numbers, saying that despite not being party to ‘gung-ho tough-on-crime rhetoric’, an increase in police numbers would do a great deal less harm than the ‘proliferation of preventive orders that we have seen in recent years’. At the vote, the amendment was duly agreed by the Chamber, with only the Liberal Democrats abstaining.

Following this, the final version of the budget was debated. During the debate, Conservative members repeatedly pointed to the effect of their involvement in the process, citing changes to policing numbers, business rate cuts, and ‘movements on drugs policy’. Margaret Smith (LD) voiced her surprise that there now seemed to be a drugs strategy that excluded the Liberal Democrats and Labour, saying that she had wanted to adopt a cross-party approach to this issue. The Government had floated stories about a new drugs policy to the press at the beginning of the week, however, no details have been made available to Parliament. Articles in the press said that the Minister for Community Safety promised that a review of drugs policy, due to be completed by spring next year, will include a greater emphasis on promoting abstinence, more residential rehabilitation, and a move away from the cheaper approach of using methadone to treat addicts. The Government also hinted at extending Drug Testing and Treatment Orders (DTTOs) in court sentences, and possibly extending this to Children’s Panels. However, details have as yet not been provided, and during the debate, Tavish Scott (LD) mocked the Minister for Community Safety, for a statement made to the press that the drugs strategy would be funded ‘when resources become available’.

However, the concessions made over policing number and the nod towards a shift in drugs policy, were enough to secure the Conservative support, and at the end of the debate, the Government won the vote comfortably, enabling the budget to be passed.

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Truth and Reconciliation Forum announced

On Thursday morning, the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, made a statement to the Chamber to announce the Government’s plans to set up a ‘Scottish Truth and Reconciliation Forum’, which will support adults who suffered childhood abuse, which would have an initial focus on the needs of survivors of historic abuse within residential care. This follows on from the recommendations contained in the Shaw report, which investigated abuse in residential homes across Scotland from 1950 to 1995.

Making his announcement, the Minister said that forum will be developed in conjunction with ‘SurvivorScotland’, the national strategy for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse which is being led by the Minister for Public Health.

He was also asked whether extra funding would be made for counselling for victims, and specifically for the 70% of female prisoners which research has shown have been abused, and he replied that he would speak with the Minister for Community Safety on the issue.

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Questions

In General Questions later that afternoon, there was a question put to the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, about the use of mosquito ultrasonic deterrents. These devices emit a high pitched noise which only young people are supposed to be able to hear, and they are aimed at dispersing groups of youngsters who congregate in public places. The member asking the question argued that such devices in fact penalise all young people, including the great majority who are going about their legitimate daily activities. The Minister replied that he agreed that the use of these devices was controversial, but that it is up to local authorities to decide what measures should be taken to tackle antisocial behaviour, and he said that this matter could be brought to the review of antisocial behaviour that is currently underway.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

During First Minister’s Questions, Annabel Goldie (Con), welcomed the Government’s decision to address the historic abuse of in care children care, which she said was a ‘period of blackness in Scotland’s history’. She raised the danger of potential future criminal proceedings into abuse being jeopardised by the forum, arguing that justice is as important for victims as truth and reconciliation is.

He replied that the forum will exist in order to address the crimes and the behaviour of the past; which would not necessarily preclude criminal action, and that if criminal action were also possibly, then it would progress separately and in the normal way.

You can read this question in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

There were a number of questions about various aspects of drug crime, including the number of people on methadone programmes, the quantities of seized drugs across Scotland, and numbers of convictions of drug dealing by geographical area. There was a question about the number of convictions for religious-aggravated offences, and about the number of drivers who have been banned from motoring over the past five years, and the numbers convicted of driving once banned. There was a question about the number of knives seized over the past five years, and there were a number of questions about prisons: firstly about the open prison estate and about Castle Huntly, and about the proposed new prison in the North East. There was a question about what the Government was doing to help women out of prostitution, and finally, a number of questions about meetings that have so far taken place in the Scottish Prison Commission.

Posted by KM on Mon 11th Feb 2008 at 5:19 pm
Children and justice • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 28th January to the 1st of February 2008

Monday, February 04, 2008

This was a very quiet week for Justice. There was brief consideration of EU legislation in the Justice Committee, and a minor point was flagged up in the Chamber in relation to a piece of UK legislation. 

The Justice Committee

Justice and Home Affairs in Europe

The Justice Committee held a relatively short meeting on Tuesday, in which they discussed their approach to the scrutiny of EU justice legislation. They had previously agreed that they would like to undertake closer scrutiny of a number of EU dossiers. The Scottish Government has three current EU priorities: EU family law proposals, Exchange of Information from Criminal Records and EU Institution Reform (EU Reform Treaty).

The Committee decided that divorce regulation is an issue of specific interest, given that the differences between the Scots law and English law in this area are often overlooked by Westminster, and one member made the point that the increasingly mobile nature of the UK’s population means that issues concerning the harmonisation of maintenance obligations and matrimonial property across Europe, will become especially important.

The Committee decided to give consideration to the dossiers concerning ‘matrimonial issues’, which includes the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations, and the green paper on matrimonial property regimes, and the dossier concerning ‘succession and properly entitlements’.

The Committee decided to request to be kept informed of developments from within the EU on other areas of justice legislation, and they also agreed to hold an evidence taking session on JHA issues with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in due course.

You can read the full transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

You can also read more details of European legislation relating to justice, in pages 4 - 29 of the Committee’s meeting papers.

The Chamber

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

This is UK legislation, which has already been considered by the Justice Committee in the Scottish Parliament (see previous Parliamentary reports on this page for more details). The Committee have already granted consent for the motion, and it was therefore approved by the Chamber. However, Elaine Smith (Lab) raised the point that the motion does not include legislation to deal with the possession of extreme pornography. This falls under the competence of the Scottish Parliament, and because it is covered in the Westminster Bill, the she wondered what the Scottish Government was doing to implement similar legislation in Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice replied that the Government had consulted on new laws to prohibit extreme pornographic images, and that legislation will follow in ‘due course’. He would be happy to meet with the member to discuss this in more detail if she wished.

You can read this short exchange in the Official Report.

Written Questions

This week, there were questions about the number of prosecutions for alcohol related violence, and the numbers of murders caused by alcohol-related violencein the highlands.

There were questions about the number of community service orders issued to people under 18 in the highlands, and about the numbers of charges of domestic violence in the highlands.

There was a question about the number of criminal prosecutions involving low copy DNA

There was a question about support available to survivors of historic in-care and institutional abuse. There were a number of questions about the police funding, and about what the government is doing to attempt to reduce the numbers of female prisoners. Finally, there was a question about the Scottish Prison Service’s contract with Reliance

Posted by KM on Mon 4th Feb 2008 at 12:25 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 21st to the 25th of January

Monday, January 28, 2008

At Holyrood this week, the Justice Committee published its Inquiry into the Effective Use of Police Resources and debated alcohol licensing fees. In Parliament there was concern about the management of the Prison Open Estate and questions were put to the Justice and Law Officers. 

Justice Committee Inquiry

Effective Use of Police Resources

On Thursday, the Justice Committee published their report into the ‘effective use of police resources’. The Inquiry was begun in September 2007 to focus primarily on the management and deployment of police officers, including the proposals in the SNP manifesto for an increase of 1000 officers (subsequently reduced to 500 police officers in the draft budget published in November).

They looked at how effectively police resources are being utilised, and highlighted areas where improvements could be made in the operation and governance of the police. The main points of the report are highlighted below.

Evaluating police resources

The Committee were unanimously of the opinion that, at current levels, police resources do not appear to be adequate to allow Forces to effectively meet all of their present commitments. They also said that the Government’s plans to identify a further 500 officers for front-line policing through a combination of retention and redeployment will be very challenging to deliver, and that the ability of the police to meet the annual 2 per cent cashable efficiency savings demanded by Government, will also be extremely challenging.

Reviewing the role, responsibilities, and public expectations of the police

The Committee noted that expectations of the police have changed significantly over the past 40 years, and that in order to secure the public’s support, it was vital that any future changes to the police role and functions must be effectively communicated to the public

Civilianisation and the changing nature of the ‘policing family’

Given the variation in the amount of civilianisation between the eight different forces in Scotland, the Committee recommended that the Government commission a study to identify best practice in staffing structures with regards to civilianisation throughout the eight forces

‘Community policing’

The Committee was concerned that there was no commonly agreed definition of community policing among Scottish police forces and the Scottish Government. They also thought that, because there is no commonly agreed definition and no baseline figure therefore exists, it is essential that such a baseline figure is established as soon as possible. The Committee considered that community policing is of such importance they intend to carry out as a second phase of this inquiry, a more in-depth review of community policing in Scotland, in order to establish a clear definition of community policing and identify baseline figures for community police officers.

The Scottish Policing Performance Framework

The Committee also welcomed the establishment of the Scottish Policing Performance Framework, and they recommended that similar reporting standards should be adopted at divisional and sub-divisional level within individual forces, in order to allow more detailed scrutiny of policing performance between local areas.

Reviewing and strengthening police governance, accountability and organisation

The Committee recommended that the current tripartite arrangements should be strengthened in order to clarify the role and responsibilities of each of the partners. They also recommended that police authorities should be given the assistance they require in order to be able to independently scrutinise the performance of their police forces.

See also :

Press Release

“Justice Committee Reports Police Resources as Inadequate” The Scottish Parliament.

Full Report

“Report on Inquiry into the Effective Use of Police Resources“The Justice Committee

The Justice Committee

Subordinate Legislation - Licensing (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2007

The Committee’s entire meeting on Tuesday was occupied with the subordinate legislation which will implement the final part of the Licensing Scotland Act 2005 which deals with the level of fees that Licensing Boards are able to charge premises that sell alcohol. At the end of the previous meeting, the Committee had raised concerns about the very tight schedule they had to deal with this issue, given that the regulations were due to come into force at the beginning of February. The Committee had received various submissions from the licensing trade arguing that the fee structure is excessive and will result in many small businesses having to close. The Committee therefore wanted to raise these issues with the Cabinet Secretary before agreeing to these regulations.

To put the regulations in context, this Government has made addressing alcohol consumption in Scotland central to its justice and community safety programme, and their decision to impose substantial fees on licensing premises could therefore be seen as part of this agenda. The Government’s argument for the higher than expected level of fees, is that they want licensing boards across the country to be self funding. Currently, fees paid by pubs cover only 63% of the licensing system’s running costs, with local authorities meeting the shortfall. The Committee’s main concern with the regulations was the lack of time they had been given to review them, especially in light of the volume of submissions they had received in opposition to them. At the end of last weeks meeting, the possibility of lodging an annulment was discussed, which would give the Committee more time to scrutinise the regulations, but which would also delay the implementation of the entire Act.

At the meeting last Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary argued that attitudes towards alcohol had to change, and that there was a need to move away from the mindset that selling alcohol is a right. He argued that it is not a right, it is a privilege, and that the privilege to profit from the sale of alcohol has associated costs which must be born by those who profit from it. He said that if the Committee rejected these regulations, they would be undermining the intentions of the Act, which he said were ‘to protect and improve public health; to prevent public nuisance; to secure public safety; to prevent crime and disorder; and to protect children from harm’. He said that members on the Committee would be sending their constituents the wrong message if they voted against them.

The Committee’s questions revolved primarily over the level of the license fees, and their feeling that they had been put in a ‘fait accompli’ by being presented with the regulations at the last possible moment. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the Government had only set the maximum level of the fees, and that each local authority had the ability to charge any level below this if they wanted. He also said that there was no point in having a longer time for consultation, given that everyone’s views had already been made known to the Government during the consultation, and extra time would not have changed the Government’s decision.

The tone of the meeting was rather combative to say the least, and the Cabinet Secretary’s refusal to be more conciliatory, even in tone, could well have made the possibility of a vote against them more likely. However, at the end of the meeting, the Committee agreed to the regulations, albeit reluctantly, primarily because the consequences of not allowing the regulations to go through would ‘severely hamper’ the operation of the 2005 Act, which had already been passed by the Parliament. The relationship between the Committee and Cabinet Secretary cannot have been enhanced by this meeting, a factor which may lead to interesting tensions as the new criminal justice legislative programme is introduced this year.

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

The Chamber

The Budget Scotland Bill: Stage 1

The Chamber was packed on Wednesday afternoon for the Stage 1 debate of the Budget Bill. The budget had to be voted through on Wednesday if it was to go ahead. In the draft bill published in November, the Government confirmed that they would provide funding for only a further 500 police officers, rather than the 1000 they had pledged in their manifesto. However, because the Government does not have majority within Parliament, they have had to offer concessions to other parties in order to secure their support to get the budget passed. This has lead to an unlikely alliance between the SNP and the Conservatives, which has resulted in the Government modifying the budget at Stage 1 to include, amongst other things, a promise to ‘address the issue’ of extra police officers, indicating they will provide funding for the original extra 1000 officers initially promised in the manifesto. However, at this stage, the Government only needs to indicate their intentions, which was sufficient for the budget to be narrowly voted through on Wednesday with Tory backing. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats voted against it, and the Greens abstained. The budget will now return back to individual subject Committees for more scrutiny.

This is another example of how Parliamentary mathematics has resulted in certain issues taking central stage, and in this session of Parliament it has been the issue of ‘policing in Scotland’ which has been put firmly at the centre of the political arena. This is because of a combination of a Justice Committee headed by the Conservative’s influential Justice spokesperson, and the Government’s need for Conservative votes in the Chamber in order to secure their budget.
You can read the full transcripts of the budget debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

First Minister’s Questions Time

First Minister’s Questions on Thursday was dominated by news of the conviction of absconder from an open prison who had raped. Wendy Alexander asked the First Minister what the Government was doing to ensure that this would not happen again. Alex Salmond said that the Justice Secretary was carrying out a review into this specific case, and also that the issue of imprisonment generally is currently being reviewed by the Scottish Prisons Commission. He also said that the issue of absconding prisoners is not new, and that there has been concern about Castle Huntly prison for some time. The Labour leader attempted to connect this incident with the Government’s decision to reverse the previous administration’s plans to abolish automatic early release, but the First Minster emphasised that this crime was committed by a prison who had absconded, not one who was on automatic early release.

The Conservative leader, Annabel Goldie, also used this story as a platform to attack the Government for not carrying out a review on Castle Huntly which her party’s justice spokesperson, Bill Aitken, had called for in October last year. She went on to give statistics about the number of violent offenders in the open prison estate, and the number of these offenders who have absconded.

The First Minister replied that the Cabinet Secretary will be looking at arrangements at Castle Huntly, and he said that although ‘systems are not foolproof’, public safety is uppermost in consideration when decisions are taken about who can be moved into the open prison estate.

At the end of FMQs, a Liberal Democrat member asked Alex Salmond about the Government’s decision not to roll out domestic abuse courts. There is currently one pilot court in Glasgow, which has been heralded as successful, however, the Government has so far refused to roll out the courts nation wide. The First Minister replied that what may provide exceptional results in one area of Scotland may not necessarily be the correct way of addressing the same issue for every area of Scotland. He also reiterated that the widespread review of the summary justice system in Scotland will affect the timing if any initiatives are to be rolled out, and it would therefore not be wise to extend domestic abuse courts while such the summary justice review is underway.

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch them on Holyrood.TV.

See also press on the Castle Huntly StoryNewsblog

Questions to the Law and Justice Officers

There was a question from the Greens about what the Government were doing to take account of prisoners’ children’s interests, given that an estimated 13,500 children in Scotland were affected by the imprisonment of a parent or carer. The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, replied that each accused’s personal circumstances are carefully considered when a sentence against them is passed, but that sometimes the public must be protected by a custodial sentence being passed. He also said that most prisons go to great lengths to ensure that conditions are made as pleasant as is possible for family visits and that families receive support.

Next, the Lord Advocate answered a question about what the Government is doing to support a national non-emergency three-digit phone number for the police across Scotland. She replied that there were no plans to create a new national non emergency number at this time.

Next there was a question about what the Government was doing about forced marriages in Scotland given that legislation has been introduced in England and Wales which make forced marriages illegal. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice replied that the Scottish Government will begin a consultation in Spring on whether civil legislation should be introduced to protect those affected by forced marriage in Scotland as well. He said that this ties in with the creation of the Scottish forced marriage network, which has been established in order to raise awareness of this issue within Scotland, and also to explore what the true extent of the problem is.

A related question was put to him about how the Government can monitor incidents of ‘honour killings’ when information on such crimes cannot be separately identified within the statistics collected centrally on homicides. He said that proving whether a murder was an honour killing or was ‘done out of badness and malice’ is difficult, not least because the Police and the Crown are dealing with sections of community that may not wish to co-operate or confirm that a crime has even occurred in some instances. He also said that the solution is not just enforcing the law, but tackling the culture that exists, and that if the consultation report that a new law is not required, then the Government will be more than happy to enforce the existing laws

Next, the Cabinet Secretary answered a question from Lord Foulkes about the Scottish Government’s relationship with British Transport Police, specifically regarding their use of stop-and-search powers. He replied that he had met with the BTP earlier that week in order to discuss concerns about its use in Scotland of stop-and-search powers under s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, but denied that he had only held this meeting after repeated requests from the assistant chief constable of the BTP, or after this question had been lodged by Lord Foulkes. He said that the BTP had been ‘staggered’ by the number of searches that had been carried out in Scotland, and that they had ‘agreed that matters were out of kilter’ and that is why they had agreed to undertake a review. He said that he has made it quite clear that the Government supports the use of s. 44 powers as long as they are used appropriately. He was asked by an SNP member whether the possibility of a national transport police service which would cover ports, airports and train services, had been considered by the Government. At the moment, Scottish railway stations are dealt with by the British Transport Police and bus stations and airports are dealt with by local constabularies. He said that he had discussed it with the police and that the proposal should be considered

Next, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, answered a question about what additional measures the Government proposes in order to extend existing community orders, or introduce new forms of community orders, to reduce short-term custody for non-violent offenders, especially women. He replied that a range of measures are currently being implemented that ‘have the potential to reduce’ the number of female accused and offenders who are sent to custody. He said that a number of ‘fiscal work orders’ will be piloted shortly, which will provide fiscals with an additional option for dealing with those accused of minor offences but who may be unable to pay a fiscal fine, to carry out between 10 and 50 hours of reparative activity.

He also said that the Government proposed to pilot a mentoring/link worker scheme for adult female offenders who have been given community sentences. He was also asked whether the Government would reconsider their decision to abolish community reparation orders, given that the recent evaluation of the orders showed that they had been poorly explained to the judiciary, and that numbers were therefore low, and arrangements for implementation of the orders were poor. He argued that just because the pilot was poor, that should not mean that the orders should be abandoned given that they had generally been welcomed by communities

The Minister said that the Government were willing to look again at the disposals, and that they had also been disappointed that the pilot had shortcomings and defects. He said that sentencers are not always convinced of the efficacy of community disposals, and that in order to ensure that the disposals are effective, an additional £500,000 had been made available to increase the capacity of bail supervision.

You can read all these question in Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

There was a question about the progress of the review of anti-social behaviour legislation, and a question about the number of calls to the pilot Child Protection Line. There were a number of questions about vandalism in the Grampians, and internet fraud, and about funding for victims of human trafficking. There were a number of questions about the so called ‘mosquito ultrasonic youth deterrents’, about the sentences given to sexual offenders, and the nature of sentences currently being served by prisoners in Castle Huntly prison. There were a number of questions about Government plans to increase the police numbers through the retention of officers about to retire, and a number of questions about prisoners and prisons.

Posted by KM on Mon 28th Jan 2008 at 5:02 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 14th to the 18th of January

Monday, January 21, 2008

The Parliament was back in full swing again this week. The Justice Committee considered a number of items of subordinate legislation, and in the Chamber there was a debate about firearms and questions put to the First Minister about youth courts.

The Justice Committee

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (UK Parliament legislation)

The Committee began their first meeting back in the new year by considering the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. This is UK legislation which relates in the main only to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, however, it requires assistance from Scotland if it is to be effective. It includes a wide range of criminal justice provisions, including the management of offenders, amendments to the criminal law, measures to combat crime and disorder, and measures on the mutual recognition of financial penalties. The issues that do require the consent of the Scottish Parliament concern bribery and corruption by foreign officers, violent offender orders (excitedly named ‘VOO’), and the repatriation of prisoners.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice spoke on the memorandum to the Committee. He said that the Serious Fraud Office may need to rely on information that is held in Scotland, and therefore there was a need for special investigatory powers to be available to it. The Bill also introduces Violent Offender Orders for England and Wales, and, as there would be a loophole if the breach of such an order were not an offence in Scotland, there is a need for such an offence to be created. And finally, by amending legislation on the repatriation of prisoners, the UK will allow prisoners to be transferred without consent in limited circumstances. This change has already been made for other parts of the UK and has now been replicated for Scotland, and will deal with cases in which a prisoner has fled from one state to his another, by enabling the sentence to be executed in his home state.

The Justice Secretary said that these matters are not expected to be significant practical issues in Scotland, but that foreign national prisoners are a more significant issue in England and Wales. He said that by allowing those amendments to be made to the Bill, the UK would be allowed to ratify the additional protocol and benefit from its provisions. Following a number of questions, the Committee agreed to the memorandum.

You can read the details of the Bill in pages 5 - 12 of the meeting papers.

Subordinate legislation - Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 (Modification) Order 2008 (Draft)

Next, the Committee were joined by the Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison, who spoke about subordinate legislation which seeks to modify the Emergency Workers Act. Currently, this legislation makes it an offence to assault, obstruct or hinder doctors, nurses and midwives who work in hospitals or anywhere else whenever they are responding to an emergency, and also to assault, obstruct or hinder ambulance workers, police officers and fire-fighters whenever they are on duty. However the Act does not cover doctors, nurses and midwives who work in the community, unless they are responding to an emergency, which is what this subordinate legislation seeks to do.

The Act make an offence of abusive behaviour that is falls short of assault: the Minister said that surveys showed that nurses are particularly vulnerable in this area. She was asked about a briefing the Committee had received from Unison, which says that the order has been drafted in haste and misses an opportunity for the legislation to cover all public sector workers. The Minister said that if legislation were to cover all the groups of staff that Unison mentions such as housing workers and traffic wardens, new primary legislation would be required rather than merely extending the existing Act. She said that those who are working in the health service in the community, should be accorded the same protection as they would be if they were working in a hospital setting. She denied that the high conviction rate of around 75% for charges brought under the Act was alarming, saying instead that it was preferable that people who behave in this way are held to account, and that the legislation can therefore be considered as successful. 
The Committee agreed to the motion. You can read about the extension of the Act in more detail in pages 13 -17 of the Committee papers.

Licensing (Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2007
Finally, the Committee discussed about what action they wanted to take in relation to regulations, which the Government hope to have in place by the 1st of February this year, which will implement the final parts of the Licensing (Scotland) Act. This Act overhauled the alcohol licensing system, and these final set of regulations will set the fees that Licensing Boards can charge the licensing trade. 

The Government want the fees charged to licensed premised to cover the costs of operating the Licensing Boards. However, the Committee has received correspondence from the licensing trade that the fees are disproportionate, and will result in small business closing down. The committee has until 28 January to consider the regulations, however, if any member wished to lodge a motion to annul them, they would need to do so before that meeting. Some of the committee members were unhappy that they were left with little time to adequately scrutinise the regulations, given the concerns they have received from the licensing trade. They agreed to ask to ask the Cabinet Secretary to the meeting next week to clarify some of their concerns, and they considered lodging a motion to annul the regulations, which would give them more time with their scrutiny.
Again, you can read more about the details of this Act, in pages 25 to 34 of the meeting papers.

Finally, the Committee continued with working on its draft report into the Effective use of police resources inquiry, in private.
You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

The Chamber

First Minster’s Questions

During First Minister Questions, Wendy Alexander challenged Alex Salmond over the Government’s decision to delay the planned expansion of the youth court system. There are currently two pilot youth courts operating in Airdrie and Hamilton, and before the elections last May, the previous Executive had already decided to establish a further three in Paisley, Kilmarnock and Dundee. The SNP Government had initially signalled it would follow through with these plans, but they changed their mind earlier this month, saying that they will wait until spring next year before reconsidering a roll out. The Justice Secretary said that in the light the wider summary justice reforms currently underway, and the completion of the evaluation of the courts due next year as well, it would not be a prudent use of resources to spend such large amounts of money before the Government were in possession of empirical evidence that the courts were effective. This decision has been met with anger, especially from Labour members, who placed juvenile justice at the centre of their policies when in Government.

Wendy Alexander said that these courts have a proven record in ‘taking young people causing chaos in our communities off the streets within a few days’, and that by not extending them, the Government was denying the same protection to other communities across Scotland

Alex Salmond replied that it was the previous Executive who decided that the courts should be reviewed in 2009, and he spoke about the Audit Scotland report published last year, which said that the cost-effectiveness of a range of different youth justice service interventions ought to be considered. Wendy Alexander replied by listing all the SNP members who were on record as being in favour of the courts, and pointed out that the Audit Scotland report did not include youth courts in its review of youth justice. She then went on to ask Alex Salmond about police pensions, urging the Government to publish the best estimates of the police pensions bill forecast for the next three years so that forces can plan ahead and deal with the pensions hole, which she said has been forecast to be up to £50 million next year. He replied that this issue would be dealt with differently than would have been the case under the previous Executive, because of the ‘historic concordat’ between central and local Government, and that discussions on the issue are continuing between central government, local authorities, and police boards.
You can read this question in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. . You can read the coverage of the Government’s decision on youth courts, in the Newsblog

Firearms Debate

Later that afternoon the Justice Secretary announced the Government’s decision to host a ‘firearms summit’ in Scotland, which aims to identify how best to reform the law on firearms, including air weapons. The event will involve gun control campaigners, rural and shooting groups, law enforcement and other interests. The Secretary said that the aim of the summit was to instigate a review of the law on firearms, in order to make them simpler to understand, administer and enforce. The summit had been trailed in the press, and Kenny MacAskill had met campaigners for tighter firearm laws including the families of those killed by air rifles, earlier that morning. Legislation covering firearms is reserved to Westminster, and the UK government recently refused to hand any of these powers back to Scotland. The Scottish Government’s announcement of this summit could therefore be considered as either a pragmatic way of acting on an important issue in a situation in which they have limited powers, or as a challenge to Westminster to either change the law on a UK wide basis, or to hand over the appropriate powers to Holyrood.

During the debate, the Justice Secretary said that he had written to the Home Secretary, inviting her to attend the summit, however, a Labour member reported that she had not received the invitation yet. Kenny MacAskill said that the Scottish Government wanted to work in collaboration with colleagues in Westminster, and that this issues was ‘not about the status of Parliaments or politicians, but about the safety of our communities’, however, he also ‘regretted’ that, ‘so far, the United Kingdom Government is not moving as far or as fast as we would like and as our communities need’. He went on to say that the issue is not which Parliament has the powers to act, but rather the issue is what any Parliament is doing about it. He said that if London wants to take action, and will take action, that is fine, but it must do so, and if it does not, it must give the Scottish Government the powers to act instead.

He then went on to give the case for why in his view, the law needed to be reformed. He said that Scotland has a particular problem with air guns, and that the proliferation of these weapons is damaging communities. He contrasted the checks that individuals must go through in order to apply for a shot gun, which involves an application to the police for a licence, with that which is required for an airgun, which involves walking into a shop and buying one. He said that current legislation is piecemeal and has been repeatedly amended to try and make it fit for purpose, and he argued that what was needed was a new single all-encompassing Act, which would be clearer to understand and easier to enforce. He said that the Home Office had not followed through on a promise to carry out a review following a consultation in 2004 entitled “Controls on Firearms”. He said that firearms casualties in Scotland rose by a quarter last year, and that one in three of those casualties was a child. He also said that the number of cases of attempted murder involving firearms was almost three times what it was a decade ago. He argued that for all these reasons, there was a pressing need to address this issue in Scotland, and by holding a summit, and inviting the Home Secretary to attend, he hoped to be able to make much needed changes in this area.

Speaking for the Labour party, Pauline McNeill argued that, while the issue of airguns is UK wide, it ‘has a distinctly Scottish trend’. She agreed that there was indeed a need for a review of existing legislation, but she argued that the review should be UK-wide, and she said it was no wonder that the Home Office had responded in the manner it did, because of the Scottish Government’s hostile way of acting towards it to date.

Speaking for the Conservatives, Bill Aitken also agreed that there was a real problem with firearms in Scotland which needed to be addressed, however, he warned against this issue being used as ‘just another device to drive the thin end of the wedge between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament’. He also said that while there could be a case for licensing air-guns, such legislation could only do so much, and that ‘gangsters in the east end of Glasgow will not be deterred by the absence of a little bit of paper’. He said that the real issue came down to one of policing, police resources and the enforcement of the current law.

For the Liberal Democrats, Mike Pringle listed all the recent pieces of legislation that have made some changes to firearm legislation. He also argued that more had to be done to ensure that guns do not enter into the UK in the first place, and that once guns that are used in crimes they are seldom recovered, and that once they are in the country they can travel easily, being used in one city for one crime, and then in another city for another crime.

During the open debate that followed, members spoke about high profile tragedies in which children have been killed by air guns or shotguns, and there were calls from across the Chamber for co-operation with Westminster on this issue.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Written questions

Written questions this week included on the subject of community meetings to discuss anti-social behaviour legislation, and about meetings held with women’s organisations to discuss thefunding for places in refuges for women suffering from domestic abuse. There was a question about establishing pilot schemes for the appointment of court facilitators, as promised as part of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, and a question about when intensive support and monitoring service, which enable children under 16 to be electronically tagged, will be available in every local authority area. There was a question about how much police time would be freed up if police were not required to undertake roadside checks, and a question in which the Justice Secretary said that the Government will support the proposed Sentencing of Offences Aggravated by Prejudice (Scotland) Bill.

Posted by KM on Mon 21st Jan 2008 at 7:03 pm
Criminal justice reform • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 7th to the 11th January 2008

Monday, January 14, 2008

In Holyrood’s first week of work in 2008, there was a debate led by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on serious and organised crime on Wednesday, and Alex Salmond was challenged about prisoner early release during First Minister’s Questions. 

Justice Committee

There was no meeting of the Justice Committee this week, but it will reconvene for business on the 15th of January. 

The Chamber

Debate on Serious and Organised Crime

On Wednesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, led a debate about Serious and Organised crime. Calling it ‘one of the major threats facing Scotland today’, he said that the rise of globalisation has meant that crime no longer obeys geographical and political boundaries. He highlighted the drugs trade as the single biggest threat to Scotland’s communities, although organised crime controls much human trafficking, fraud, pornography and money laundering. He highlighted recent successes in the prosecution of these crimes in Scotland and he spoke about the significant amount of assets that have been seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

He also spoke of changes the government wished to make to this legislation, saying that range of offences that are ‘indicative of a criminal lifestyle’ will be increased, and the time period for confiscation and asset recovery will also be extended. He said that government will also seek to reduce the ‘criminal benefit amount’ from £5,000 to £1,000, in order to tackle the lower-level offenders who are affiliated to larger organised criminal networks, and that for the first time, a proportion of the money that is recovered will be reinvested in experts in financial recovery work, which will allow even more assets to be recovered.

However, he awaiting a reply from the Home Secretary on how these measures can be implemented, as the Act is UK wide legislation. He also confirmed that currently around 50% of the money that is seized in Scotland under the Act is retained by Westminster.

He spoke about the need to ensure that ‘alternatives’ are available to young people so that they are not tempted to join the criminal economy, and of the need to support legitimate business in order that they can withstand the competition from businesses that act as a front for illegal activity: taxi firms, for example. He said he also wanted to ‘ramp up’ Scotland’s relationship with Europol, saying he wished to second more officers to the agency: and his motion welcomed the £17 million which had been seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Pauline McNeil (Labour) said that she looked forward to the ‘weekly discussions’ with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice continuing in the new year, indicating her party will maintain pressure on the government on criminal justice issues. A message must be sent to all criminals that Scotland is capable of challenging the highest level of organised crime. She said that the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA) has already established a reputation for itself, and that there is now talk within criminal circles that ‘the agency will get you in the end’. She said that for a small country, Scotland has done ‘exceptionally well’ in its response to organised and international crime: Scotland is the largest user of Europol, and has also shown expertise and professionalism in the use of covert intelligence methods. She said that the current disagreement about the relationship between the SCDEA and the new Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) must end, and she called for the SCDEA to be able to retain its professional autonomy. Her motion called on the government to ensure that the necessary resources be in place so that the Proceeds of Crime Act can be effectively implemented. 

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrats) said that organised crime has wide ranging and devastating impact on lives and business throughout Scotland, despite the common belief that it doesn’t affect day to day life. She said that while illegal drugs form the main part of organised criminals’ activity, they are also responsible for a significant amount of human trafficking into Scotland. She said that an estimated 4,000 women a year are trafficked into Scotland, many of whom are forced to work in the sex industry. She also called on the Scottish government to maintain good relations with Westminster in the fight against organised crime, saying that recent disagreements over handgun legislation, or with the British Transport Police over stop and search powers should not mar the cooperation that is needed on this important issue. She also said that there was a need for sufficient police in communities to pick up intelligence, and her amendment called on the Scottish Government not to renege on its pledge for 1,000 extra police, ‘which would contribute in the fight against serious crime’.

Bill Aitken (Conservative) argued that serious organised crime was the major threat that faced Scotland. He said that if it were not for the people ‘at the top of the tree’ there would not be the ‘shambling drug abusers pan handling on the streets, women prostituting themselves to feed a drug habit, or small-time property crime committed to get money for drugs’. He said that drug barons carry out criminal activity with a degree of sophistication that ‘would make an ideal study by Harvard Business School’. He also argued for the powers for seizing assets of known criminals to be strengthened, and he suggested options such as changing the onus of proof so that it fall on the criminals, rather than on the Crown.

In the open debate that followed, members from across the Chamber recounted tales from their constituents about the effects of organised crime, and speakers from the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties were keen to emphasise what the previous administration had done in this area. However there was cross party support for the Justice Secretary’s plans to change the rules surrounding asset seizure.

At the end of the debate, the Chamber voted against the Government by agreeing the Liberal Democrat amendment which noted the Government’s reversal on the pledge for 1,000 extra police officers.

You can read the full text of this debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for the next month.

General Questions

There was a question put to Justice Secretary about the Government’s plans to reform legal aid. He replied that the consultation on reforming summary criminal legal aid was launched last October, and it has recently been extended until the end of January. He said that discussions with representatives of the legal profession were on-going, and that further details will be provided following the conclusion of the consultation.

The Justice Secretary was then asked by the Member for Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, if there were plans to reconsider the police funding formula in relation to the Grampian Police, to take into account the responsibilities in relation to the protection of the royal family and the oil and gas industry. Kenny MacAskill replied that the spending review formula already takes these pressures into account, and that as a result, the Grampian Police will have an additional £1 million in the next annual year. He said that the Scottish Government was happy to co-operate with the Metropolitan Police over the policing of Balmoral, and he denied that there had been any favouritism expressed towards Lothian and Borders police over Grampian police, in the allocation of extra resources for the policing of additional duties.

You can read both these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

First Minister’s Questions

The first question in FMQs for the new year followed on seamlessly from dominant themes before the break, with a question about ring fenced funding, this time for vulnerable children. Wendy Alexander accused the government of removing money dedicated to nursery places for children at risk from alcohol or drug abusing parents. He replied that the new relationship between central government and local authorities will remove red tape and allow for much more efficient use of resources.

Next, Annabel Goldie (Conservative) engaged in rhetoric more familiar to exchanges under the previous administration. She referenced two high profile cases of sex offenders which had been in the press that week, and she said that the Government’s plans to extend home detention curfew by ‘emptying our jails’ and ‘having convicts in the community’, was ‘betraying victims and the public’. Alex Salmond said that HDC is not used for violent or sexual offenders, and that there were no plans to end automatic early release. He ignored suggestions for compulsory lie detection tests and GPS satellite tracking for sex offenders, and praised Peterhead prison for its pioneering work with this group of prisoners.

You can read these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Written Questions

There was a question about discussions that the Scottish Government has had with other European countries about human trafficking , and the justice secretary answered a question about police redeployment . And finally, there was a question about the number of positive drug tests in HMP Barlinnie over the past three months.

Posted by KM on Mon 14th Jan 2008 at 7:28 pm
Crime data Recording crime Prisons and prisoners • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 17th - 21st December 2007

Monday, December 24, 2007

An exceptionally quiet week for criminal justice in the last week in Parliament before the Christmas recess. There were a number of written questions, but otherwise, the Justice Committee met in private, and there were no relevant debates in the Chamber.

The Justice Committee

The Committee met in private this week, as they finalised the draft budget report and worked towards completing the police resources inquiry. Both reports will be published in the New Year.

The Chamber

General Questions

There was a question to the Minister for Public Health, Shona Robinson, about what the Government is doing to tackle underage alcohol consumption. She spoke about the success of the recent alcohol awareness week, and said there were no plans as yet to introduce an alcohol awareness week that is specifically targeted at young people. You can read this question in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV

Written Questions

This week there was a question about the removal of ring fenced funding to tackle anti-social behaviour, and the Lord Advocate answered a question about what the Crown Office is doing to prevent witness intimidation. There was a question about evaluating Alcohol and Drug Action Teams (ADATs), and a question about police funding

Posted by KM on Mon 24th Dec 2007 at 6:45 am
Courts • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 10th - 14th of December 2007

Monday, December 17, 2007

This was a quiet week for criminal justice news in the Parliament. In the Chamber there was a general debate about civil liberties and ID cards, and there were questions to the Law and Justice Officers. The Justice Committee spent most of its meeting in private, preparing their reports for the end of this week. 

Justice Committee

The Committee considered a number of petitions referred from the Public Petitions Committee.  The first called on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the operation and effectiveness of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Act 1976. This petition has been before the Committee already, and they decided that there were still a number of issues which remained outstanding. It was agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for more information before taking a decision to close the petition or make further recommendations.

The next petition, from Mothers for Justice, called on the Scottish Government to provide greater protection to the children and partners of abusive parents. The Committee noted the training that Sheriffs are able to take in order to better prepare them for cases which deal with children who have been abused, but the Committee decided to wait and see how the upcoming Judiciary Bill, due before Parliament in January, may answer the remaining outstanding matters in the petition. You can read more about these petitions in pages 3 to 20 of the meeting Papers.

Finally, the Committee heard from two of its members who had attended a Health and Sports Committee meeting in November, at which evidence was taken from three cabinet secretaries, including the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, on the budget for tackling alcohol and drugs misuse. They reported that, while the discussion had proved interesting, it had strayed beyond looking at the issue of budget scrutiny alone. However, there was a recognition that there could be more meetings between different committees to discuss subjects which fell between different subject portfolios, such as drug and alcohol abuse.

The rest of the meeting was held in private, as the Committee discussed the content of their reports, due at the end of this week.

You can read the transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Chamber

On Thursday there was a Liberal Democrat led debate in the Chamber on the subject of Civil Liberties and ID cards. Margaret Smith opened by saying that the recent loss by the UK Government of the personal data of 25 million individuals, had only re-emphasised that the Government cannot be trusted to handle such a large amount of personal data safely. She also said that attempts by the Home Secretary to extend the period during which suspects can be held without charge from 28 to 48 days, showed that the UK Government is determined to ‘attack civil liberties’.  She said that the Liberal Democrats acknowledge the threat that terrorism posed to the UK, but they supported changes such as the removal of the bar on the use of phone-tap evidence in terrorism prosecutions and post-charge questioning in terror cases, with judicial oversight, as more appropriate ways of tackling terrorism.

Her party does not welcome the prospect of compulsory ID cards, given their proposed cost of up to £300 for each individual. She also said that the Scottish Government should withhold all the information that is held by devolved institutions so that it can not be included on the database underpinning ID cards, and that Scotland should continue to resist any temptation to create a DNA database similar to the one in operation in England and Wales. She said that this database is on way to becoming the largest collection of DNA profiles of innocent people world wide, and it now holds the details of 1 in 20 of the population, a third of whom have never even been convicted of a crime. She said that the Scottish rules, which allow only the DNA of those convicted to be held and those charged with violent or sexual offences to be kept for a maximum of three years, strike the correct balance between ensuring public safety and protecting civil liberties.

Speaking for the Conservatives, Bill Aitken agreed that the terrorist attacks of both 9/11 and the London attacks of 7th of July meant that ‘some things would never be the same again’, however, he argued that ID cards were not the solution to the problem posed by terrorism: they would not have prevented these attacks, furthermore, they would not prevent illegal immigration, and they would not protect individuals[ against identity fraud. His amendment added that the money originally intended for ID cards would be better spent on ‘more worthwhile’ projects, such as a dedicated UK border police force, more prison places, and an increasing number of drug rehabilitation places.

Speaking on behalf of the Greens, Patrick Harvey noted that debate on the ID card issue often avoided where the real threat lay, which was in the national identity register, which is the database that will underpin the system. He said that while maintaining State security was important, it was only one in seven other principles which the Government ought to consider in these matters. His amendment included the need for the all information to be kept only as long as was required, and also that the audit of data under Scotland’s jurisdiction is independent of government and accountable to the Parliament.

Speaking on behalf of the Government, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, welcomed the opportunity to lay out the Government’s stance on these issues. He said that he supported the Liberal Democrat opposition to ID cards on the basis that they will be costly, infringe civil liberties, and not achieve their primary objective. He also sought to highlight the difference between the position of the two Governments in Scotland and in England and Wales regarding the storing and handling of data generally, and he also reiterated the Scottish Government’s decision to hold a review of information security policies and data handling arrangements in Scotland following the loss of large amounts of data in England and Wales. He said that the review was well under way and it would allow the Government to establish whether there is a need for further measures to improve the security surrounding the handling of sensitive information.

Paul Martin for Labour, suggested that legislation such as the Antisocial Behaviour Act and the Emergency Workers Act, protected the civil liberties of ‘the many’. He accused the previous speakers of arguing against ID cards without providing an alternative solution to the question of the need for greater checks on identities. He sought to correct a number of myths which he said surrounded ID cards, saying that individuals will not be required to carry them around with them at all times, and that the amount of information stored on them would in fact be less than the amount of information that his insurance company has on him. He also said that nearly every other European country has some form of ID card, and that the retention of DNA can help to prove innocence as well as their guilt.

During the open debate that followed, all parties apart from those from the Labour party spoke out against ID cards. On the issue of the DNA retention, the fact that a disproportionate number of those from ethnic minorities have their details currently held on the register in England and Wales was mentioned. The numerous cases of the loss of large amounts of personal data by the UK Government were also commented on throughout the debate, and the need for the Scottish Government to have more control of personal information was also raised by several speakers. At the end of the debate, the Green’s amendment was agreed to, and the Conservative’s was not.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Questions to the Law and Justice Officers

There was a question to the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, about the prosecution of ‘persistent and noisy drivers’ in residential areas. The Minister replied that the possibility of including ‘antisocial driving’ was being considered as part of the review of antisocial behaviour legislation which is currently underway, and he also agreed that the use of dispersal orders to deal with antisocial drivers in certain parts of Scotland had been very successful.

Next there was a question to the Solicitor General for Scotland about what the Government is doing to avoid potential industrial action by procurators fiscal. He replied that talks are ongoing between the Union representing PFs and senior government officials. He said that the current pay structure finishes in July 2008, and that an independent consultant is currently undertaking a pay and grading review for legal staff on behalf of the Lord Advocate. He said it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the matter before this review was complete.

There was a question for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice as to whether there were any plans to review the Corporate Manslaughter legislation, particularly since the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which is UK wide legislation, makes no provisions for individuals to be held responsible. He replied that there are other pieces of legislation under which individuals can be held responsible for work based crimes, but that he would ‘monitor how the act works out’.

There was another question for Kenny MacAskill, this time about a recent House of Lords decision on pleural plaques which affects those who have been negligently exposed to asbestos. He replied that the Scottish Government will introduce a bill which will reverse the House of Lords judgement, which would be retrospective and take affect from the date of the judgement in October of this year.

And finally there was a question about the review into antisocial behaviour, in which Fergus Ewing promised to work together with other parties and build a cross party consensus. He said that the Government aimed to provide young people with more ‘choices and chances’, rather than handing out antisocial orders which ‘plainly do not get to the root cause of the problem’.

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Written Questions

There were written questions this week about funding to tackle antisocial behaviour , in which the Minister responsible said that the removal of ring fenced funding meant that local partners are now free to spend money in the way that they deem most appropriate. There was a question about community wardens, in which the Minister for Community Safety said that the role of community wardens has been included in the recent review of antisocial behaviour, and there was a question about who is responsible for the decision to move business from sheriff courts to new JP courts in the Highlands and Islands. There were a number of questions about domestic abuse, and about the use of drug testing and treatment orders (DTTOs). There was a question about the number of stop and searches carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000, and about the number of murders committed in which alcohol was involved. There was a question about the percentages of police officers in each force throughout Scotland, and a question about the religious affiliation of prisoners throughout Scotland. 

Posted by KM on Mon 17th Dec 2007 at 7:58 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 3rd to the 7th of December

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

This week saw new levels of hostility expressed between the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Justice Committee during questioning over the draft budget. In a Government debate the first phase of the implementation of summary justice reforms was launched.

The Justice Committee

Draft budget scrutiny

On Tuesday, the Committee continued hearing evidence as part of their scrutiny of the Government’s draft budget from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

The Committee convenor, Bill Aitken, wasted little time in chastising the Cabinet Secretary for not provided enough information in the budget. He said it was not possible to tell how much money would be spent on policing because there was no separate identification in the budget of police expenditure and local authority grant-aided expenditure (GAE). He said the Committee was therefore very pressed for time as they were still gathering information at this stage, and they had to produce a report for the Finance Committee regarding the budget by the 19th of December. These opening remarks set the tone for the rest of the meeting.

Kenny MacAskill clarified that although the Government is giving more autonomy to local authorities in how they spend the money allocated to them, GAE funding will continue to be ring-fenced, and there will also be penalties for local authorities should they fail to spend their allotted amount given to them for policing.

He was questioned about funding for police pensions, which is projected to increase significantly over the spending review period. He said that more details on this would be made by the Finance Secretary ‘during the budget process’, however, he confirmed that funding for pensions would come out of the £54 million already announced for over all policing, and he confirmed that the current ‘pay as you go’ approach to police pensions is unlikely to change in the current spending review period. He also disagreed with sentiments expressed by Professor Arthur Midwinter in last week’s meeting, that £54 million would not be sufficient to cover both salaries and pensions.

He said that the Government remained committed to increasing the visible capacity and ‘visible policing in communities’ by 1,000 through recruitment, retention and redeployment, although he admitted there were no specific targets for how many officers will come from retention and redeployment.

He revealed that he had had no advice from officials about the approximate numbers of police officers that could be retained through the retention of officers otherwise due to retire. He said that the Government are not in a position to make any officer continue working if they do not want to, they can only provide the means by which they can continue to work if they chose, and they were working towards creating more schemes which would help to persuade some of the 2,300 officers due to retire, to continue in employment

He said that matters of redeployment of police was one for individual police constables, and he disagreed with evidence already heard by the Committee that there was little scope for further police redeployment.

He also argued that there was no baseline of police numbers for the Government to work from, as national police numbers are not held centrally, and furthermore, there was no definition of ‘community policing’ which was agreed between all members of the tripartite agreement.

He said that there would be no exceptions made to the requirement of 2% efficiency savings from all public service bodies, and he compared the Scottish requirements favourably with the 3.4% that has been required of the UK Government of public services in England and Wales.

He was asked about funding for capital improvements throughout the criminal justice system, and he said that the decision to integrate this funding into the local authority settlement was the outcome of an agreement between COSLA and the Government. In response to evidence heard last week about the lack of police accommodation for prisoners, he said that it was the responsibility of each chief constable to spend money in the most appropriate way to cover their capital expenditure needs.

When he was asked about prisons, he emphasised again that this Government had inherited an old prison estate which had suffered from years of under-investment, and also that costs were still having to be met for historical issues such as slopping out. Asked about the decision to move from a public-private partnership to a public procurement process for the new prison at Bishopbriggs, he said that this decision may result in a ‘modest delay’, but that this would be ‘months not years’.

He refused to be drawn on the issue of price by price comparison between cost is per prisonera private and a public prison, saying that it was meaningless to attempt such a comparison unless you were comparing ‘like with like’. Added to which, new-build private sector prisons do not carry the historical legacy of an ageing estate, for which the SPS still had to pick up the cost. He also said that any savings that the private sector did make, was done by employing ‘custody officers’ instead of ‘prison officers’, and he said that this Government would prefer to have a ‘workforce that is professional and well resourced and which will work with us’.

A committee member quoted evidence which argued that the difference in cost per prisoner between private and public-procurement estimates for Addiewell was in the region of £15,000. It was put to him that even if taking into account the terms of employment of those who look after prisoners, and the nature of the old estate which may lend itself to additional expense, was still a very considerable difference. The Cabinet Secretary promised to return to the Committee with information explaining these differences.

He was also asked about the Government’s recent announcements on community penalties, and he said that he wanted a more flexible approach, which would abandon some of the trial schemes which he said were not working, and develop others, such as DTTOs and community service orders.

This concluded evidence heard as part of the Committee’s scrutiny of the draft budget.

Over all, this was a fairly acrimonious meeting, with the hostility between many of the members of the Committee and the Cabinet Secretary, barely concealed beneath the usual polite parlance of politics. You can read the full transcripts in the Official Report, or watch it for up to one month on Holyrood.TV.

The Chamber

Debate on Summary Justice reform

On Thursday afternoon, the Cabinet Secretary was in action again, this time leading a debate in the Chamber on summary justice reform, in which he announced the first phase of implementation of the Criminal Proceedings (Reform) Act 2007.

He began with his own recent experience of summary justice. He said that, more than a year after he witnessed an assault, the case had still not come to trial, despite it having already been scheduled to be heard on two occasions. He said that the repeated delays and cancellations had not provided closure for the victim and had caused considerable inconvenience for himself and the other witnesses involved.

Currently one third of all summary cases (which are the non-jury trials that occupy over 90% of court cases) are not resolved within 6 months, and that, because contact with the summary justice system is often the first encounter that individuals have with courts, as part of the need to tackle rates of re-offending, it is necessary to reform the system at this first critical stage of contact.

The Act will also reform the procedures of Sheriff courts throughout Scotland to make them operate more efficiently, and will also hand the responsibility for the running of the JP courts to the Scottish Court Service. It will also help free up police and court time by giving procurator fiscals more powers, and it will allow fine enforcement officers to take on the responsibility for the collection and enforcement of fines.

He also said that legislation was only part of what was planned, and that many of the reforms which will take place over the following years are non-legislative in nature, and will ‘anticipate a change’ in the culture of the summary courts and in other parts of the criminal justice system. He said that since October this year the Crown has also provided a disclosable summary of evidence to enable the defence to be able assess the weight of evidence against their client, and the hope is that this will result in a reduction in the number of guilty pleas entered at just as proceedings begin.  He said that the main objectives of summary justice reform was for cases to be resolved sooner, and that he does not want preparation to be done for trials that do not go ahead because there has been too much delay and inefficiency in the system.

He said that he had recently held a meeting with the Law Society of Scotland in order to discuss proposed changes to Legal Aid, and that he had agreed to extend the consultation period until the end of January in order to be able to continue these discussions.

The reforms which will begin to be implemented immediately, concern changes to bail and remand. A Sheriff must now take public safety into account when deciding whether to issue bail or not, and they must also state openly in court the reasons for their decisions. There will also be increased penalties for breach of bail orders, and also tougher enforcement. Changes to the system of Lay Justices will also take place immediately. He concluded by saying that more of the Act will be implemented in March next year, and the Parliament will have a role in scrutinising the effects of the Act as they take effect.

In the debate that followed Bill Aitken, said that although his party felt the Act was ‘on the whole, worth while’, he had certain misgivings on several areas of it. He welcomed the move to increase the maximum sentence available to Sheriffs from 6 months to 12 months, however, he was unhappy with the increased number of diversions available to procurator fiscals.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also welcomed the main aims of the Act: she welcomed the Government’s decision to monitor the impact of the guidelines and legislation, and to extend the consultation period. She raised some concerns about changes to legal aid however, saying that these changes could have far wider consequences than at first envisaged.

The Labour member was adamant that the previous Lib/Lab Executive should receive credit for this legislation. However, she said that the SNP are responsible for implementation of the legislation, and the Parliament will play an active role in scrutinising how the changes are implemented and the effects they have.

You can read in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

See also:

“Summary Justice System Model” The Scottish Government

First Minister’s Questions

There was a return some familiar party political rhetoric during FMQs this week, as Annabel Goldie (Conservative) accused Alex Salmond of making ‘early release even earlier and putting more criminals in the community’. This was in response to the Government’s recent announcement to extend home detention curfew available for long-term offenders. She accused the First Minister of being ‘the law breaker’s best buddies and criminals new best friends’, and that the Government’s policies had more to do with the number of available prison spaces more than a desire to manage the offenders better. The First Minister ignored the question entirely and instead praised the Justice Secretary’s announcement that day to award Scottish police a full pay award, and he quoted the welcome given by the Scottish Police Federation to the Government’s decision to the Chamber.

You can read the question in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read about the Police pay award in the Newsblog

Written Questions

This week there were written questions about local authority funding to tackle anti-social behaviour, and funding for community safety partnerships, the transfer of business from Sheriff courts to new JP courts in the highlands, and the extent of JPs powers under the Criminal Proceedings Act. There was a question about what the government is doing to tackle age discrimination, and the amount of money for domestic abuse. There were a number of justice questions including the Government’s views on children in prison, and the numbers of murders committed in different locations throughout Scotland, and about what the Government is doing to identify the victims of human trafficking brought into Scotland. There was a question about the funding for criminal justice social work, and finally, a number of questions about the management of sex offenders .

Posted by KM on Tue 11th Dec 2007 at 9:01 pm
Courts Summary Justice Legislation Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 26th to the 30th of November 2007

Monday, December 03, 2007

This week in Parliament, the Justice Committee continued its scrutiny of the draft budget hearing evidence from the Scottish Police Federation and the Scottish Prison Service. In the Chamber there was a debate about equality and diversity, and questions about funding to tackle domestic abuse. 

The Justice Committee

Draft Budget Scrutiny

Last Tuesday the Justice Committee continued with its scrutiny of the justice portions of the draft budget. The first panel of witnesses was comprised of Joe Grant, General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation and Professor Arthur Midwinter.

Joe Grant was asked about his understanding of the Government’s proposals for extra police, and he said that the promised 500 extra recruits by the year 2011 was relatively straightforward, but that it was less clear how an extra 500 officers would come from ‘retention and redeployment’. He said that given that it costs £30,000 for a new recruit, and £45,000 to retain an experienced officer, then forces are more likely to recruit new officers, if they are under pressure to meet targets. He also pointed out that retaining existing officers does not in itself increase police numbers, it only retains a particular type of experience. He also indicated that a great deal of redeployment within police forces has already occurred, and it would therefore be difficult to see that much extra police capacity could be achieved through these means. He also said that it was currently not in officers’ best financial interest to continue working beyond the age they receive their pensions, and also that, even if police who were about to retire chose to continue with the force, they would be unlikely to be deployed ‘walking the beat’.

Regarding the 2% target for cash-releasing efficiency savings that the budget also required from all public services, Grant argued that because police funding had not benefited from the same level of funding in comparison with other public services since devolution, a special exception should be made for the police with regards to the efficiency savings. If police forces are required to meet the efficiency savings as they stand, the quality of police provision will be compromised. He said that overtime will not be available to help forces cover seasonal fluctuations, and also that an inability to increase capital funding would mean that the situation whereby there are no police cells and prisoner-handling areas, to put offenders, will be made even worse. He said that there is already an unacceptable situation whereby prisoners are driven round to various police cells across Scotland, until one becomes free and is able to accept them. 

Professor Arthur Midwinter said that this budget was less transparent than budgets under previous administrations. Lack of detail in the draft budget reduces the opportunity for Members to move amendments when it comes to getting voted through in the Chamber, because they can only move amendments within a specified portfolio chapter of the budget document. He also raised concerns about where the funding for police pensions will come from, given that pension spending has latterly increased year on year and is projected to continue in this direction. He said that if spending to cover pension costs was to come from the money in the budget for extra policing, then forces would not be able to recruit enough new officers to meet the Government’s target.

He was also asked about his report on police funding, which concluded that spending on policing in Scotland is significantly lower than in any other part of the UK, a situation which has been continuing since the 1970s. He said that he had been very surprised to discover this fact, given that the rest of the public services in Scotland had benefited from the so called ‘Barnett advantage’, and there is no obvious reason why the same factors such as higher levels of poverty and the scarcity of the population, should not apply to policing as well. He concluded by bluntly saying that within the current draft budget it is not achievable for police forces to produce the extra 1,000 officers, whilst also making the required efficiency savings and meeting pension requirements.

The second panel were able to provide some more optimistic views of the draft budget to the Committee. This panel comprised of the Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service, and his Director of Finance. They began by saying that the budget appeared to ‘provide a satisfactory level of funding’ for the spending review period, which included funding to cover the proposed building of HMP Bishopbriggs to replace Low Moss Prison, and a new prison in the Peterhead area to replace Peterhead and Aberdeen prisons. Asked about the recent decision to make the prison at Bishopbriggs publicly run instead of private, the panel said they were unable to speculate on the exact cost differentials between public and private outcomes, because private tendering had not actually taken place by the time the process had been halted. They said that the whole of the Prison Service had been charged with aligning their spending to match spending within the private sector, and they believed that the SPS had delivered significant efficiency savings as a result. They said they believed that the gap between themselves and the private sector has been closing, but that they have not had the opportunity at this stage to quantify this through competition.

They were asked about the decision to build a new prison in Peterhead, and the general issue of housing prisoners either in a central establishment, or in so called ‘community-facing prisons’. The Chief Executive, Mike Ewart, said that this was a live debate within community justice authorities at the moment, and he was therefore unable to say whether his preference was for the new prison at Peterhead to be used solely for sex offenders, or if they should be spread throughout the prison estate. He said that the benefit of having central establishments for particular types of offenders, means that expertise is kept together so that services are effective, and that the strategy of housing prisoners in central establishments also means that the right accommodation is available to manage the relatively small but significant numbers of dangerous and violent offenders. However, it is considered more beneficial to efforts to rehabilitate short-term prisoners, to put them in prisons which are closer to their communities

He was asked about the Cabinet Secretary’s announcement that morning for the Government to undertake a review of community penalties, and the effect of if a proportion of the short-term prison population were given community sentences instead. He said that this would be highly beneficial, not only for reducing the overall numbers of prisoners, but more also for reducing the daily ‘churn’ in the population. He said that prison staff currently spend a great deal of activity in managing the receptions and liberations of people who may only be in custody for a number of days. He said that reducing the number of short term prisoners would also enable resources to be freed up so that prison staff could concentrate rehabilitation resources on those longer term prisoners, which would be more likely to have a positive impact. He also welcomed the Cabinet Secretary’s announcement to extend Home Detention Curfews. He made a plea for Scotland to reconsider the number of people they lock up, saying that despite the fact that we lock up a relatively few number of foreign nationals in comparison to other countries, Scotland still has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in Europe.

You can read the full transcripts of this interesting meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage of the meeting in the Newsblog.

See also:

“ “Justice Secretary announces extension of Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme”

“"Review of Community Penalties report published”

The Chamber

Equality and Diversity Debate

On Wednesday, there was a debate in the Chamber on equality and diversity opened by the Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell. He stated the Government’s support for working towards equality in Scotland, however he also detailed how long there is still to go in achieving this goal and he listed instances of female discrimination in the home and in the workplace, racial discrimination, and age and disability, and sexual orientation discrimination. He announced the £61 million in the draft budget for tackling this issue, saying that this represents an increase of £11 over three years. He said that the significant increase in the equality budget will be directed primarily at tackling violence against women, including work on women and children who are affected by domestic abuse.

He said that the Government had developed an equality impact assessment tool for use across public services, and that this will be viewed as a key mechanism for ensuring both that policies respond to the different needs of people, and that those needs are reflected in the resources that are allocated. He said that although the recent acts of terror may have tested public attitudes, Scotland is at the forefront in the fight against racism, sectarianism and Islamaphobia. He said that the Government will begin work on an action plan on race equality early in the new year, and he said that this will include work carried out by the Equal Opportunities Committee on Gypsy Travellers.

Speaking for the Labour Party, Johann Lamont said it was easy to express the sentiment of a desire for equality and a reduction of discrimination, however, rhetoric had to be matched with resources, and it was therefore imperative that the equality impact assessment tool be used to ensure this occurs. She accused the Government of reducing the money for addressing these issues in order to fund their tax cuts, and she urged them to consult with stakeholders who work with the groups affected by discrimination, as they know better than anyone else how the money should be spent.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson also reiterated that well-meaning words are not enough from the Government, and he accused them of regarding the issue of equality as no more than a ‘bolt-on’ to existing policies. He said that the budget’s target of 2% efficiency saving across the public sector will inevitably result in the voluntary sector being the mechanism through which these savings are achieved. 

During the debate that followed, issues such as the failure of the Equal Pay Act were discussed, and the Green’s proposed hate crime bill was welcomed across the Chamber. Although the newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission was welcomed, there was concern raised about its large remit, with one member saying that there was a risk of gender issues becoming marginalised. The issue of the link between pornography and sexual violence was also raised, and there was a plea for the issue of age discrimination to not be ignored.

You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Appointment of Chair of the Scottish Commission for Human Rights

The next day, the Parliament announced that the chair of the new Scottish commission for human rights would be Professor Alan Miller. He is a human rights lawyer with considerable experience in developing human rights legislation and compliance both in Scotland and internationally, and he was appointed by a cross party selection panel of MSPs. 

The post arises from the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Act, which was had a controversial journey through the previous session of Parliament. It was felt by the former Justice 1 Committee, who were tasked with its scrutiny, that there were already several bodies in existence to deal with this issue, and the small gap that did exist, made the position of a Scottish commissioner for human rights difficult to justify. However, the then Scottish Executive was persuaded to make considerable changes to the Bill so that a human rights body that would fill the remaining gap the field, and be better able to respond to the everyday issues that affect the lives of ordinary Scots. The Commission’s main function is to promote human rights and an understanding of what human rights are, and unlike the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which was set up by Westminster, the Scottish Commission for Human Rights will be accountable to Parliament and not to ministers.
You can read the transcripts of this announcement in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV.
See also:

Press Release

“Parliament to approve appointment of Chair of Scottish Commission for Human Rights” Scottish Parliament

General Questions

There was a question put to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, about what plans the Government had in relation to an enquiry into the Shirley McKie fingerprint case, which it had promised to undertake in its manifesto. Kenny MacAskill replied that he would be making a statement on the details of the review to the Parliament in a few weeks time. He said that something had gone ‘seriously agley’ in the handling of the whole affair, and that it was necessary to find out why it happened so it cannot be repeated, but he wouldn’t be drawn on the details of the review at this stage. You can read this question in the Official Report.

The Justice Secretary also answered a question in which he confirmed that the new police campus at Gartcosh would go ahead. He said that the proposals were at a preliminary stage, but that he would make an announcement as soon as a timetable was drawn up. You can read this question in the Official Report.

You can also watch these questions on Official Report

See also “Domestic abuse statistics published: events mark 16 Days campaign”

Next, he was asked a question by Annabel Goldie (Conservative) in which it was pointed out that foreign nationals do not undergo the same level of scrutiny when it comes to screening them to work with vulnerable individuals. She said that Disclosure Scotland currently has no jurisdiction to obtain criminal records from other countries, and that even within the EU a possible solution is at least three years away. The First Minister replied that she had ‘raised a number of interesting points’, that he would consider them and write to her. He said that some of these issues fell within the UK responsibility for immigration, but he would nonetheless look into this matter.

And you can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch all the First Minister’s Questions on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

This week there was a question which revealed the number of children on the child protection register in Scotland, and a question about funding for community safety in which the Government revealed they are not intending to increase the number of community wardens. There were a number of questions about funding to tackle drug misuse , see also here. There was a question about the numbers of offences of drunkenness recorded in Dundee and Angus since 1997, and there were a number of questions about the Government’s plans for extra police officers , and a question about the numbers of police officers who were released from prisoner escorting duties as a result of the contract with Reliance , and a number of questions about the prison population including a table showing the showed the year on year increase in the prison population, the amount of prisoners who come from each local authority area, and a table which showed that there was around 50 prisoners in custody each day during 2006 for non payment of fines There was another question about the funding for capital expenditure within the prison service . There was a question about the Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse Reference Group , and finally a question about the number of stop and searches that have been carried out under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 by local authorities.

Posted by KM on Mon 3rd Dec 2007 at 7:51 pm
Gender and crime Domestic abuse • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 19th to the 23rd of November 2007

Monday, November 26, 2007

This week in Parliament there was a debate in the Chamber on domestic abuse, and there were questions put to the Law and Justice Officers. In the Justice Committee, evidence was taken as part of the scrutiny into relevant parts of the Spending Review (budget). 

The Justice Committee

Draft budget scrutiny

On Tuesday, the Justice Committee began their scrutiny of the justice sections of the Government’s Draft Budget, delivered to Parliament by the Secretary for Finance earlier this month. This announcement marked only the beginning of the budget’s passage through Parliament. Each subject committee now undertakes a thorough scrutiny of the relevant chapters of the budget, including taking evidence from relevant key stakeholders. Committees then report back to the Finance Committee, who will then publish its budget report at the end of January. The Finance Secretary then decides whether to accept or refuse any of the proposed changes.  Conservatives have already hinted that they will attempt to include amendments to increase the budget for funding for extra police officers.
You can read the specifics of the Justice commitments contained in the draft budget in the SPICe briefing on the subject in pages 20 – 32 of the meeting Papers.

The first panel before the Committee was comprised of two members of Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. They spoke about the tension that may arise as a result of the budget’s 2% efficiency savings, combined with the need to meet the changing demands on police and the legislative requirements for more officers based on new areas of work. They argued that the impact of new legislation and procedural change is rarely if ever assessed in terms of its impact on operational resourcing, and they said that as soon forces are faced with new demands, they invariably react by drawing from their operational core to meet these additional needs. They spoke about the cost of implementing new legislation, saying for example, that it will cost them approximately £4 million to implement the Licensing Act 2005, which is the equivalent of paying for 130 police officers. They argued that the service had worked hard to meet the efficiency savings from previous years, which they were able to do through by overcoming bureaucracy and improving processes. They argued that the 2% reduction could only be sustained if consideration is given to the role of the police officer in the 21st Century. They warned that if budgets are dispersed to other organisations and if chief constables’ authority is undermined, then problems may arise. They acknowledged that they must be smarter in proving efficiency in order to show the actual cost of detecting crimes and thereafter show the savings achieved by prevention programmes. They also highlight the problem of duplication of work across the 8 Forces, and welcome the creation of the SPSA as a good opportunity to reduce this. Finally, they said that they welcomed the proposed 1000 extra officers, and the first 150 in the following year. They said that, while they welcome the following 350 recruits, they have some difficulty understanding how the extra 500 officers can be retained without additional funding being made available.

The next panel comprised two speakers from the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland. They said that they welcomed the extra £54 million for extra police officers but raised concern about the 2% efficiency saving in the total police budget, saying this would be extremely difficult, especially because there is a commitment to maintaining policing levels. They said that there was a need for a more judicious approach to funding police pensions, arguing payments should be centralised as the current ‘pay as you go’ system leads to volatility in forces’ budgets. They argued that there was a need to move away from the obsession with numbers of police, and with police having to be ‘visible’. One of the speakers said that intelligence led policing was a more prudent use of resources, and that ACPOS are committed to delivering a ‘policing service’ which could include for example, greater use of technology. They also said that, although reforms may make savings in the long term, it is difficult to predict the form and extent that they will take, therefore it is difficult to include potential savings in budgeting.

The panel was asked about the ‘three Rs’ of recruitment, retention, and redeployment, that the Government has spoken about in order to increase policing numbers. The speakers said that retention will not increase police numbers, because if a police officer retires, they would just recruit another officer to replace them. If the officer stayed, they would then be unable to recruit, because they would use the money to pay the retained officer’s salary. However, they said that while retention does not add to the absolute numbers of police, it does add in terms of experience quality of service, particular skills and expertise. They also said that they consider efficiency, redeployment and civilianisation all the time and are in a constant process of cutting out unnecessary bureaucary to free up officers’ time. The question that remains is how to reallocate that time to other police functions.

You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the
Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month

The Chamber

Debate on Domestic Abuse

Later that afternoon, there was a debate on domestic abuse, led by the children’s minister Adam Ingram. The debate coincides with the UN 16 days of activism against gender violence, and was also an opportunity for the Government to announce plans to invest £40 million over the coming three years to ‘improve the lives of children and young people who experience domestic abuse and to tackle the wider issues of male violence against women.’

He set the issue in context, saying that research has shown that as many as one in every four children is growing up in households affected by domestic abuse. He said that the matter is not only about increasing enforcement, attitudes, understanding and awareness, have to be increased, and support and protection also be provided to those affected.

He said that of the £40 million, a ‘substantial amount’ will be spent on the implementation of the national domestic abuse delivery plan for children and young people, the ‘getting it right’ pathfinder, and on an annual domestic abuse campaign. Work will be undertaken to tackle the attitudes and behaviours that perpetuate domestic abuse, and to improve the early identification of abuse. This will include providing toolkits to teachers to advise on how to deal with the disclosure of domestic abuse which will be piloted in the four pathfinder areas, and rolled out nationally in 2009. He said that the relevant ministers will develop and implement the delivery plan with external partners, including COSLA. He said the government were also determined to tackle the low rape conviction rate, and the upcoming Bill based on the Scottish Law Commission’s report on the subject, will help in this matter. He said that the debate would help consideration of the way forward on tackling domestic violence, and he was therefore looking forward to hearing members’ views.

In response the Labour justice spokeswoman argued that the justice portfolio had to ‘share responsibility rather than pass the buck’ when it came to dealing with domestic abuse. She argued that the domestic abuse court in Glasgow should be rolled out nationally, and also that it was vital that funding for support groups is ring-fenced at a local level. She also highlighted the need for support for women who are attempting to move out of prostitution, and sought assurances from the Minister that the three-pronged approach of protection, prevention and provision, continues.

The Conservative speaker was supportive of both the Minister and of the Labour amendment. He also said that, while there may be much to be gained by separate domestic abuse courts, Sheriffs in all courts should have sufficient training to deal with cases of domestic abuse. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson highlighted the fact that the impact of domestic abuse on children goes beyond that of schooling or health, but also has long-term effects on the way that children view the way that men and women should behave toward one another. She also voiced concern that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice had decided not to roll out the domestic abuse courts further, and she also brought up the issue of ring fencing money for this area. She said that the funding currently ring fenced for domestic abuse will be rolled up with the children’s services and women’s aid fund into the local government settlement, which would result in variations of priorities throughout Scotland. She also spoke about research which showed that, on average, a woman does not come forward for help until after the 35th time she has been assaulted, and that women contact 11 agencies before they receive the help they need.

During the debate that followed, there were calls for more men to become involved in campaigns against domestic violence. There was also a harrowing account of a victim of a forced marriage read to the Chamber, with a call to tackle this problem through education as well as legislation.

Summing up at the end of the debate, the Minister for Communities and Sport insisted that the funding for domestic violence was a ‘good news story’ and that fears about the removal of ring fencing were misplaced. He said that funding for organisations who work with victims of domestic abuse will continue, as will funding for the domestic abuse court in Glasgow. He also said that the Government intended to work together with partner agencies, however, it will ‘stand back from micromanaging service delivery’, which he said would reduce bureaucracy and will free up local authorities to meet the varying needs across Scotland.

You can read the full transcripts of the debate in the Official Report , or watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. See also the press in the Newsblog

Questions to the Law and Justice Officers

There were questions for the Law and Justice Officers in the Chamber this week.

There was a question for the Solicitor General, Frank Mulholland, about co-operation with other agencies in order to combat child abuse on the internet. Gil Patterson of the SNP argued that the United States is reluctant to close internet sites that involve child abuse, and in the considerable time that it takes to close a site down, the site is able to move to another jurisdiction. Mr Mulholland said that this issue was reserved to Westminster, but that the CEOP would continue to work together Governments and agencies to combat this worldwide trade.

Next, there were a number of questions for the Justice Secretary about policing. Firstly, he was asked about the Government’s plans to bring officers out of retirement as part of their strategy to retain more police in active service. He replied that the Government are not planning to re-recruit police officers who have already retired but to persuade those who are about to retire to reconsider. He agreed that the 30-plus scheme (a UK wide programme aimed to persuade officers about to retire to continue working while at the same time being allowed to receive some of their pension) has not been as successful as the Government would have liked it to be, but he said he was happy to retain it nonetheless. He reiterated that the extra numbers of police would be achieved through a combination of the three ‘R’s: the recruitment of new officers, the retention of existing officers, and the redeployment of officers who are not on the beat because they are ‘stuck behind desks doing bureaucratic jobs that could be dealt with in other ways’.

There was a question about late night policing on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. MacAskill reconfirmed that he remained committed to the ‘polluter pays’ principle, whereby those who profit from selling alcohol bare some of the costs for policing drunken behaviour.

Finally, there was a question in which the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that there were no plans to extend the open prison at Castle Huntly.

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Written Questions

There were written questions this week about the number of offences for drunkenness in Scotland in the past ten years , and there was a question about what evaluation the Government has carried out into the effectiveness of community wardens. There was a question about the amount of money the SPS spend on reoffending reduction strategies , and a question about the law on culpable homicide , and there were a number of questions about the deployment of the new 150 police officers . There was a question about the sale of cigarettes in vending machines to underage people following the increase in the legal age to buy tobacco , and finally, there was a question about the introduction of a young offenders institution at HM Prison Gateside in Greenock.

Posted by KM on Mon 26th Nov 2007 at 7:20 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 5th - 9th November 2007

Monday, November 12, 2007

The Justice Committee continued with its inquiry into the effective use of police resources, hearing interesting evidence about the pressures of modern day policing from the SPF, ACPOS, and others. And in the Equal Opportunity Committee, Patrick Harvie MSP cleared the final hurdle before his member’s Bill on hate crime can begin its Parliamentary scrutiny. In the Chamber there were more questions of the First Minister on the additional police officers row. 

The Justice Committee

Police Resources Inquiry

On Tuesday, the Committee held its third session taking oral evidence for its police resources inquiry.

Their first panel heard from two officers from the Scottish Police Federation (SPF). During questioning, the speakers said that police funding had not risen with the expansion of the number and variety duties that the police are now expected to perform, and they said they were now so overstretched that it was impossible for them to be where the public needs them to be. They also spoke about research which showed that spending on policing per capita was lower in Scotland than in any other area in the UK. The research said that this was because policing had not been regarded as high enough a priority by previous administrations. Asked whether visible policing is an effective use of resources, they said that visible neighbourhood policing provided a ‘comfort blanket’ to the public, and that a visible police presence is in fact vital to so called ‘intelligence policing’. They also said that they would prefer to spend resources reducing and preventing crime than simply to respond to incidents. They said that by the time an incident has occurred, there has already been a failure along the line somewhere.

Regarding civilianisation, they said that the increase of non police officers now working for forces had in fact not freed officers to patrol the streets, rather it has merely soaked up some of the additional responsibilities that have been given to the police over the years. When asked about community wardens, their view was that, while they were not opposed to them, their role required central clarification. They also said that police powers should not be given to non-police officers, arguing that if police officers were to only carry out duties which required powers or which involved conflict situations, this would fundamentally damage the relationships between the public and the police which underpins the principle of policing by consent. They also said that Scotland could draw on an idea from New York, in which each police force would publish monthly statistics on policing performance, which each Chief Inspector would then have to publicly defend.

The second panel was comprised of members of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS). Similar to the SPF, they also argued that the demands on forces have stretched the finite resources that are available, until the Service had become a ‘mile wide and an inch thick’. The members of the ASPS also argued that a full review should be carried out into what core policing activity should entail, given that officers now carry out a myriad of functions from counter-terrorism to the provision of social and emotional care. They also said that the public wanted more ‘harder-edged enforcement policing’ as opposed to more ‘softer-edge policing’ which includes diversionary work in youth clubs and liaison with community groups. They said that the role of policing has diversified to the extent that in the largest force in Scotland, Strathclyde, only 45% of their officers are currently in community or response policing, the rest are in specialisms, and the number of officers seconded to agencies such as the SCDEA has doubled in the past 10 years. They said that if Scotland were to receive an extra 1000 officers, they should be ‘red-circled’ so that they could remain in communities.

They were asked about the model of community policing which exists in England and Wales, and they said that they were yet to be convinced of its over all value, though they conceded that it may have some value in areas such as increasing the visibility of officers. They also spoke about the modernising programme in England and Wales, involving studying a ‘mixed economy’, which attempts to determine precisely where police powers are required and where non-police officers can be used more efficiently. They said that the purpose is to get individuals to perform a function at a cost lower than that of a police officer, however, problems arose given that the distinction between the work that the different groups carry out is often so marginal, and the savings therefore so minimal, that their preference would be to employ a police officer who can bring flexibility and additional enforcing powers.

The third panel before the committee comprised of speakers from ACPOS. In a similar vein to previous panels they also said that police are now more overstretched than ever before. They said that a combination of an increase of official duties officers have to fulfil, together with a growing amount of reporting of day-to-crime due in part to better communication with the advent of mobile phones, and an increased reliance on police to intervene in situations that in the past would have been resolved in the community, have all lead to a significant increase in the demands placed on police over the past decades. They said that each new item of legislation that they have to contend with also requires upfront spending which has not been provided, even though it may result in savings in the longer term. They also said that in the area of custody the health service needs to take a greater responsibility, saying they were a police force, not a health force. They were also clear in their support for community wardens, although they did not wish to see their powers enhanced or for their numbers to increase.

They said that modern day policing is still founded on the 1967 Act which states it is the police’s duty to ‘guard, watch and patrol in order to protect life and property, prevent crime and detect offenders.’ However, modern day policing is more orientated towards ‘safer communities, enhanced quality of life, community well-being, a safer and stronger Scotland, crime reduction and harm reduction.’ Furthermore, police are now expected to work in co-operation with the ‘extended police family’, which includes community policing, response policing, specialist policing, wardens, special constables and the voluntary private and public sector. As such, they said now would be good time to hold a review, or perhaps even a commission, into the services that should be provided by the police.

The final panel in front of the Committee were the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and his deputy. They also argued for a ‘rearticulation of the purpose of policing’, given that their role has diversified to such a large extent over the previous decades. They also said that it was virtually impossible to gain a real sense of what the public actually want from policing from public surveys, given that they all ask different questions and are of varying standards. They said that the police have not been effective at communicating to the public the very broad range of activities that they are engaged in, and the difficult choices that need to be made in prioritising them all. They also argued that visible policing is a relatively inefficient use of trained and expensive police officers, and that if the public were to rely solely on the proximity to, and visibility of, police officers to suppress crime, then they are ‘doomed to fail’ given the geography of Scotland. They argued that there are other ways of achieving the perceived benefits of visible policing; the issue was not so much one of ‘visibility’ as of being the ‘reassuring presence’ that the public wants.

The Committee will take their final session of evidence next week.

You can read the full transcripts for this meeting in the Official Report, or you can also watch it on Holyrood.TV. Also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

The Equal Opportunities Committee

Sentencing of Offences Aggravated by Prejudice Bill

The Equal Opportunities Committee also met on Tuesday, and in their meeting they heard from Patrick Harvie MSP of the Green Party about his proposed Bill, which would require the aggravation of an offence by prejudice on grounds of disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity, to be taken into account when sentencing. This would give discrimination on these grounds the same treatment under the law as that of racist and religiously aggravated attacks. 

Parliamentary procedures dictate that before a Member can introduce a Bill to the Parliament, they must first produce a draft proposal of the Bill, accompanied by either a document to form the basis for a public consultation on the Bill, or a written statement of reasons why they consider a case for the Bill to have been already made, and therefore not to require a public consultation. Patrick Harvie decided to provide a statement of reasons, and it therefore fell to a Parliament Committee to decide whether there was a strong enough case or not for allowing the Bill to proceed without a consultation.

During the Committee meeting, Mr. Harvie outlined the points made in his statement of reasons as to why there is no requirement for further consultation. He argued that the proposals in his Bill have already been subject to a considerable degree of scrutiny by the Working Group on Hate Crime, established under the previous session of parliament, which held a year long consultation on this very issue. The result of the consultation was that a large majority of respondents said that legislation was needed, and there was a clear preference for an aggravation covering malice and ill-will on the grounds of disability, and sexual orientation. He said that since the consultation there had been no significant change in the law, and there was therefore no need for a further consultation to be carried out.

At the end of the meeting, the Committee agreed with him that no further consultation was required, and the Bill will now therefore proceed to the parliamentary scrutiny process immediately.

You can access the full statement of reason in pages 5 - 7 of the Papers to the Committee. You can also read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

First Minister’s Questions

Nicola Sturgeon stood in for Alex Salmond this week to answer FMQs in the Chamber. (Be warned some of some of the questions may sound familiar.. )

Wendy Alexander began by asking Nicola Sturgeon about the Government’s plans for 1000 extra police officers. She quoted a spokesperson from the Scottish Police Federation who gave evidence to the Justice Committee on Tuesday (see above), who said that ‘new officers, not reconditioned, rehashed, second hand, slightly used, but new’. She asked it was fair that any officer not now retiring will be counted as a new officer, as had been asserted by an SNP Member that morning. Nicola Sturgeon replied that, despite the ‘fiscal reality’ of the recent comprehensive spending review, the SNP would deliver the extra police throughout Scotland. She pointed out other evidence given by the SPF that only 7% of officers are out on patrol at any one time, and that it was therefore time to get them ‘out from behind their desks’. She also said that it would be wrong to be dismissive of police officers with 20 years’ police experience, as this is exactly the sort of experience that police forces would like to retain.

You can read this question in the Official Report.

The Liberal Democrats used their question to chase the issue of extra police officers further, quoting a statement made by Nicola Sturgeon in 2005 in which she said that Scotland needed ‘1,000 more police officers than we currently have’. He said that this ‘person promise’ was ‘stronger, clearer and more adamant’ than those made by either the First Minister or the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

And you can read this exchange in the Official Report. You can also watch all the questions on Holyrood.TV. for up to one month.

Written Questions

Written questions this week included a question about the numbers of people against whom court proceedings took place on drink-driving related offences by local authority area. There was also a question about charges against parents who use physical discipline against children, and there was a of question about what the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is doing to support employees who have been victims of domestic violence . There were a number of questions relating to parents who are drug abusers, and a questions about the numbers of firearms offences in Strathclyde since 1997. There were a number of questions about the deployment of extra police officers , and a question about the numbers of probationary police officers in the past eight years. There was a question about the prison population each month sine May this year, and a question about the police use of stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. There was a question about compensation for victims of crime, and finally, a question about overcrowding at Polmont YOI .

Posted by KM on Mon 12th Nov 2007 at 7:27 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 29th October - 2nd November 2007

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

The Justice Committee continued its inquiry to policing, hearing from police authority representatives and also on the community warden scheme. In the Chamber there was a Child Protection debate, and there were also questions to the Law and Justice Officers. 

The Justice Committee

Police Resource Inquiry

On Tuesday the Committee continued its inquiry into police resources. The first panel of witnesses consisted of a number of representatives from police authorities and joint police boards across Scotland and a member of the Scottish police authorities conveners’ forum. Police authorities and joint police boards form one part of the tripartite system of responsibility for policing in Scotland (along with Scottish Ministers, and Chief Constables). Police authorities are made up of local authority councillors and their main tasks are setting the budget for its force, appointing senior police officers and holding them to account, determining the numbers of police officers and civilian support staff for its area, and they also play a role in securing the best value and continuous improvement within their force. 

You can read more detailed information about Police Authorities in the SPICe briefing paper in pages 8 –12 of the Committee Papers

The panel began their evidence by stating that they valued this inquiry as “an opportunity to consider the traditional functioning of the policing role in light of present day requirements.” They spoke about the difficulty in managing the ever increasing expectations the public has from police forces, saying that although it is right and important that local people have an opportunity to feed into what local priorities are, they must do that within a framework in which they have information about what the expectations are. They also spoke about how they ensure that policing priorities have the backing of local communities, saying that boards have close relationships with their local authorities.

The speakers on the panel said that annual and quarterly reports on crimes and detections for each police force form an effective starting point to monitor the work of Chief Constables, though they are also able to ask for formal reports on specific areas of concern, say on knife crime for example. They also said that Chief Constables can expect often robust questioning about the performance of their force, though relationships were co-operative and positive. They also spoke about how they manage the budgets for each police force, and made the argument that the current system of ‘grant-aided expenditure’ ought to revised.

They said that police forces throughout Scotland are currently significantly under resourced, and that the extra police officers that the Government have promised (in whatever composition that will take), will be extremely welcome. They also spoke very warmly about the benefits of civilian support staff, saying that they are able to release front-line officers from routine activities, although the number of tasks that civilians can do is limited.

They also spoke positively about the community warden scheme, (see the second panel below for more information on the community warden scheme) (See also FMQs below)

One speaker said that their experience had been very positive, they had built up strong and positive relations with the communities that they serve, and are able to provide high levels of reassurance to the public. Another speaker said that, although they also appreciated the good work that community wardens were able to provide, given that their funding beyond Spring 2008 is in doubt, he would prefer for the money to be spent on police officers who would not be restricted in the tasks that they could carry out

The second panel to give evidence to the Committee comprised officials from the Scottish Government Police and Community Safety units. Community wardens were established in 2004 by the previous administration and were funded to tackle anti-social behaviour. There are currently over 500 community wardens throughout Scotland, although future funding is the subject of the current spending review and the current arrangements will cease at the end of March 2008.

The speakers said that wardens’ work revolves around the three themes of community liaison, security and safety, and environmental issues, although there is increasing flexibility in their use and deployment. They said that wardens have been most useful in areas of high deprivation and crime, and are increasingly considered useful in addressing town or city centre disorder. They said that the research suggests that wardens have been particularly welcomed by the older population for whom wardens are able to provide reassurance. They said that, despite the slant taken in recently published research, the relationship between the wardens and the police was in fact, largely positive. They said that the police were often grateful for the existence of wardens, not least because of their frequent ability to operate as official witnesses, given their likelihood to be at the scene of a disturbance before the police. The speakers said that in some local authorities, wardens had been given certain enforcement powers, but that they tended to be restricted to issuing fixed penalty notices for littering and dog-fouling. They said that it was up to individual local authorities to decide the extent of wardens’ powers, but that the Government did not have a view as to whether it would be preferable for a consistent use of powers across authorities. The Scottish Community Safety Network, who speak on behalf of all wardens, are in favour of flexibility so that wardens are able to respond to the particulars of their local authority’s requirements. They also said that wardens themselves did not want increased powers.

The speakers said it was difficult to know the wardens’ impact on levels of low level crime, because evidence has shown that the reporting of anti-social behaviour increases significantly with their presence, due to the fact they both encourage the reporting of incidents, and they also report incidents themselves.

That concluded the evidence taking session for the day. The final session of evidence taking will be heard next Tuesday.

You can read the full transcripts for this meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

See also

Evaluation of the Impact and Implementation of Community Wardens (Scottish Government 2007)

The Chamber

First Ministers Questions

The issue of community wardens cropped up again during FMQs. Annabel Goldie (Conservative) quoted Nicola Sturgeon’s 2004 comment that community officers were no more than “policing on the cheap”, and that the £30 million that it costs to fund them would be better spent on extra police officers. Alex Salmond replied that his deputy agreed with him that community officers were not a replacement for fully qualified police officers, and that they had a valuable role to play.

You can this question in the Official Report, or you can watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV

Law and Justice Officer Questions

Later in the afternoon there were questions put to the Law and Justice Officers. The Minister for the Environment, Michael Russell, firstly answered a question about the possible harm to humans that can be caused by the harmful chemicals that are often used in cases of wildlife poisoning, and he agreed with the questioner that this harm is often not adequately reflected in the prosecution charge. 

Next, the Justice Secretary answered a question about whether there were plans to establish a domestic abuse court in Edinburgh, similar to the pilot that is currently operating in Glasgow. He replied that there were no such plans as yet, and that tackling domestic violence required more than a court approach alone. He said that the matter was not only one for Governments, but it also depended on what sheriffs are capable of providing, and what core service facilities are able to deal with. He was questioned further on the subject by Members from different parties, and he said that while the Government would like to establish such a court in Edinburgh, they were constrained by resource issues that were beyond their control.

Next he answered a question about what the Government was doing to tackle underage drinking. He mentioned the summit that will be convened to consider alcohol misuse, announced last week, and he said that this problem was one for families, police, and local authorities, supported also by the Government. He did not agree that a so called ‘zero tolerance’ approach, as has been adopted in Sweden, should be introduced in Scotland, and he spoke about the difficulties in addressing the problem when the young people involved are often as young as ten.

Following this, he answered a question the extension of funding for community wardens beyond Spring 2008. He did not answer the question directly, but spoke positively about the role they have to play in tackling low level crimes. 

The Cabinet Secretary was asked whether he would support fines imposed by the courts to be taken directly out of wages or benefits, in the light of the fact that around 20% of fines imposed remain uncollected. He replied that only 1.5% of fines are written off, the remaining are discharged following either a prison sentence or completion of a supervised attendance order.

Finally, he answered a question about the new prison planned to replace Peterhead outside Aberdeen. It was put to him that the prison visiting committee’s concerns has not been listened to in the decision to build a new prison, and would he would consider plans to build a new remand centre in Aberdeen City. The Justice Secretary replied said that any decision that had to be taken was not going to please everyone, and that he believed that the correct decision had been taken.

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

Debate on child protection

Later in that afternoon, there was a debate in the Chamber on Child Protection lead by the Minister for Children and Early Years Adam Ingram. He began outlining the challenges that everyone faces in this area, and said it was crucially important to strike the right balance between providing a safe and caring environment for children and giving them space in which to grow up to be confident individuals.

He said that a particular issue that emphasises the dilemma on risk is that of vetting and barring, which was debated at length in the Chamber during the passage of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act in the previous Parliamentary session.

He said that while disclosure checks can be cumbersome and time consuming, every parent would want the assurance that the staff at their children’s schools have undergone a thorough process of assessment. He said that disclosure checking should be undertaken in the most streamlined, efficient and unobtrusive way, and so that swift action can be taken against people who pose a risk to children and protected adults.

He said that the Protection of Vulnerable Groups Act delivered the framework for a robust vetting and barring scheme. The consultation on the secondary legislation required to implement the provisions of the Act, (required because large sections of the Act were so poorly drafted), had just been published, and he said that the Government can now move closer towards implementing the strengthened vetting and barring scheme, with hopes it will go live in the summer of 2009.

He also mentioned the case of the Kerelaw school in Glasgow, in which children were subject to abuse by staff over a 30 year period. He said that lessons must be learnt from this case, and that he wanted to be assured that abuse and allegations of abuse on such a scale and over such a long duration cannot ever happen again in a residential setting in Scotland. He announced that the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council will jointly commission an independent inquiry into Kerelaw, which will secure comprehensive insight into the circumstances that led to the abuse at school, examine Glasgow City Council’s stewardship of the school, to consider the steps taken by Glasgow City Council subsequent to the closure of Kerelaw, to identify recommendations relevant to ensuring that the contributory factors that led to abuse at Kerelaw never arise again. He said he would announce the final remit of the inquiry in the New Year, following discussions with the Lord Advocate and Glasgow City Council. He said that the various other reports into the abuse at the school from Glasgow City Council, HMIE, the Social Work Inspection Agency and the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, would all be placed on the Government website.

You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

See also: Press release

Better safeguards for vulnerable groups

Written Questions

There were written questions this week about the numbers sentenced to six months or less for alcohol related offences, a question about prosecuting drinking in public places, and a question about the number of fixed penalty notices issued for littering, and a question about support for women experiencing domestic abuse, and a question about the number of people convicted for six months or less for offences linked to drug misuse and a question about legal aid which detailed the types of work that legal aid firms carry out, and more questions about the specifics of the extra police officers the Government is planning, and finally a question about whether there are plans to extend the victim notification scheme.

Posted by KM on Tue 6th Nov 2007 at 8:00 am
Children and justice Legislation Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 Police Civilians Victims and witnesses • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 22nd - 26th October 2007

Monday, October 29, 2007

The issue of policing numbers and the SNP manifesto was debated in Parliament this week. This issue was also brought up during First Minister’s Questions. The Justice Committee continued hearing evidence as part of its inquiry into the effective use of police resources.  There was also a general debate about alcohol misuse to tie in with alcohol awareness week. 

The Justice Committee

Items of Subordinate Legislation

On Tuesday, the Justice Committee were joined by the Justice Secretary, who spoke to move a number of pieces of subordinate legislation, including the implementation of a statutory instrument which will implement the Scottish provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 that affect pubs and clubs. These will enable Scottish ministers to make provisions to licenses in Scotland, even though gambling is primarily a reserved matter. The motion was moved with little debate.
He also hinted that there will be a new Criminal Justice Bill next autumn. 

Inquiry into the Effective Use of Police Resources

The rest of the meeting was taken up with the continuation of the Police Resources enquiry, now in its third week. The first panel to be questioned by the Committee consisted of the Vice President of ACPOS, and a number of officials responsible for policing from the Scottish Government.

Pat Shearer (ACPOS VP) opened the discussion by talking about the implementation of the Scottish policing performance framework. This was developed in response to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s thematic inspection on managing improvement, which recommended the development of a range of performance indicators. He said that the framework was developed in collaboration with other police and government agencies, and will increase the police’s accountability at a national and local level, and also help individual forces to measure and understand their own performance.

During questioning, he said that historically, the police had probably been too occupied with monitoring performance in areas that were easy to measure, such as crime and public order, and that they had also focused too much on measurement rather than on management. He said that the new system would allow for measurements to reflect the breadth of policing activity, and will cover issues such as service response, public reassurance, and how matters are dealt with in the criminal justice system. He went on further to say that in order to improve accountability, the context of the way in which the police work must also be understood, and that the police can only improve performance if factors that affect measurements are understood. For example, in the past they may have focussed too much on ‘crime detections’, but the range of police ‘inputs and activities’ that may have influenced this was not taken into account. He said that the task of the framework was to identify what was important, and that it would contains ‘indicators’ as opposed to ‘targets’, and would allow for flexibility for forces to set and agree their own local priorities. 

He said that part of the performance measurements will aim to evaluate how the public feel about the police, and that a question to evaluate this will be included in the Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey. Another of the priorities will be to increase the level of crime that is reported to the police, so that it more accurately reflects the amount of crime that is reported in crime surveys.

The second panel consisted of two academic experts, Daniel Donnelly and Kenneth Scott. They spoke about the difficulties in increasing the numbers of police officers, saying that there are problems with the ‘numbers of officers going out as well as with those coming in.’ They said that a straightforward increase in police numbers will not translate into an automatic increase in police performance. In relation to the effective deployment of officers, forces are in many ways hostages to fortune, they must respond to external event and demands, and they are often deployed on essential other tasks that take them away from policing the streets, such as gathering intelligence, or responding to events such as policing football matches.

They also said that the gradual expansion of auxiliaries such as community wardens will help to free police so they can spend more time on higher priority tasks, but that it was very difficult for anyone to come to a consensus on what consists of ‘core’ police duties , and which can be considered as ‘ancillary’. Different types of civilianisation have been implemented and a number of roles within criminal investigation could currently be undertaken by civilians. They spoke about the many advantages of having a civilian presence within the police, and in particular the benefit of community wardens who have a permanent presence on the street and along with managing more minor offences, have been central to bringing some major trials to court as well.

In relation to the tripartite system of police governance, the three elements of national, local, and independent control has tipped considerably towards central Government since the devolution settlement. They said that while this was understandable, given that policing is a popular electoral issue, this had also eroded the constabulary’s independent control of policing, and significantly eroded the local control of policing to the extent that there were questions as to whether police boards can effectively carry out what is expected of them. Around a third of the legislation so far passed by the Scottish Parliament impinges on police activity, and that, while centralising may not have been done consciously, there has been a centralising process in that matters that are enshrined in statute will to an extent determine police priorities.  That concluded the oral evidence for this meeting. However, you can also read the written evidence submitted to the Committee so far in meeting Papers (pages 12– 59). You can read the full transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV.

The Audit Committee

Police call management

On Wednesday, the Audit Committee met to consider a number of reports from the Auditor General of Scotland. Firstly they received a briefing from the Deputy AGS on the report “Police call management, an initial review”, which was published in September. Over the past four years all eight forces in Scotland have centralised their call management functions, and this report looks at the way police forces now manage calls from the public, and examines performance, costs, and the experience of callers.

Following discussion, the Committee agreed to write to the Accountable Officer seeking further information on a number of issues.

See also

Police call management - An initial review | Summary

Dealing with offending by young people

The Committee also considered the AGS report “Dealing with offending by young people: performance update” which was published in August. The Committee have already written to the Accountable Officer regarding this report, and the correspondence in reply said that Ministers have indicated a strong preference for embedding their youth justice approach within their broad preventative agenda for all young people at risk, including increasing positive opportunities and strengthening early intervention. The correspondence also includes a commitment to develop more effective performance measures, including a decision by Ministers to move from the problematic ‘persistent offender’ target to seek a more efficacious approach to measuring the impact of youth justice. You can read this correspondence in pages 8–9 of the Papers.

The Committee decided to ask the Accountable Officer to give oral evidence to the Committee.

See also

Dealing with offending by young people: performance update | Summary

In line with established practice, this meeting was taken in private. However, you can access the Papers, and the Minutes of this meeting.

The Chamber

Debate on Police Numbers

Cleary wishing to prove the point made to the Committee that the issue of policing still provided rich political currency, on Thursday morning there was a Conservative led debate in the Chamber on policing numbers. This was led by Bill Aitken, also the convenor of the Justice Committee, and in the motion he ‘noted with serious concern that, almost six months after its election, the Scottish Government has made no progress towards the SNP’s manifesto commitment of 1,000 more police officers’, and challenged the Government to raise the numbers of officers from 16,234 to 17,234 by the end of the parliamentary session. He began by quoting the promises made during the election campaign for the recruitment of an additional 1000 extra police officers, and the subsequent change to pledge for ‘the equivalent’ (see previous Parliamentary reports for the by now familiar arguments). He claimed this was ‘little short of an unforgivable attempt to con the people of Scotland’. He went on to argue that there was incontrovertible evidence of the need for extra numbers of police, citing findings from the most recent Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey which, he said, showed public confidence in the police was at an all time low, proved by the fact that the majority of non-serious offences are not even reported to the police. He said he believed that the Conservative’s promise of an extra 1500 police officers would have a major impact on the levels of crime.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice said that he welcomed the chance for this debate, and he reiterated that the Government will deliver an ‘increase in capacity’ of 1000 officers, and this will be done after the upcoming strategic spending review. He quoted evidence given to the Committee on Tuesday that looking at the gross numbers of officers alone would not provide the complete solution to the problem of improving policing. He went on to outline three ways in which the Government would improve how policing is delivered. Firstly they would provide funds for substantial additional recruitment for ‘new bobbies on the beat’, secondly by retaining officers who might otherwise retire early, and lastly, by allowing the police to ‘maximise their potential by cutting the red tape that has enmeshed them in recent years’. His amendment added that the Scottish Government ‘will deliver an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment’.

Pauline McNeill (Labour), and said that members of her and other parties ‘will not tolerate such manipulation of the parliamentary process of misleading of members’. She accused the SNP of making the commitment ‘just to capture the popular vote’, and went on to list the reforms that her party had made to policing and urged the SNP not to take credit for them.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrats) reiterated many of the points made before, and also mentioned the increase in police numbers that had occurred in the coalition administration.

The debate that followed was enhanced by Members who sit on the Justice Committee who were able to talk on the issue of policing in a relatively informed way. One member pointed out that although ‘bobbies on the beat’ may be publicly appealing, they may be less able to respond to incidents than if they were patrolling in vehicles, or at the station with a vehicle on standby. The extent to which civilians are able to perform roles traditionally carried out by the police was also mentioned, as were innovative ways in which police forces are working to tackling anti-social behaviour. However, these issues were all largely irrelevant to the overall debate, which referred to the particulars of an SNP manifesto pledge for extra officers, and their subsequent pledge to increase officer overall capacity instead.

The Government were defeated in the vote that followed the debate, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats supporting the Conservatives, and the Greens abstaining.

You can read the full transcripts of this debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. Also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

See also First Minister’s Questions below.

Debate on Alcohol Misuse

Later that afternoon the Cabinet Secretary for Justice lead a debate on alcohol misuse which coincided with the alcohol awareness week in Scotland. In his speech, Kenny MacAskill was keen to emphasise that the Government are not prohibitionists: pub culture has been an important element of social life in Scotland for hundreds of years, and breweries and distilleries form major contributions to the Scottish economy. He said that the issue was not the drink but how we drink, and that drinking to get drunk is now seen as acceptable behaviour. He said that the Government are committed to tackle this problem and that the solution lay with both voluntary and legislative action. He quoted stark figures which illustrated Scotland’s alcohol problem, and said that they were working across the Government and willing to look at new and innovative ideas to tackle this problem. He spoke about the changes that the Government has already made, particularly in relation to alcohol off-sales, and he hinted that if the devolution settlement allowed it, the Scottish Government would increase the tax on alcohol. He said that although controlling the price of alcohol would not in itself lead to more responsible drinking, it may act as the catalyst for the broader cultural change that is needed.

During the largely consensual debate that followed, it was argued that ‘test licensing’ schemes should be increased given a recent survey which revealed that 20 per cent of 13-year-olds acquire their alcohol in off–licences, and the figure rises to 44 per cent for 15-year-olds. Paul Martin for Labour spoke about the benefit of anti-social behaviour legislation in tackling alcohol fuelled problem behaviour, and also pointed out that Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Community Safety, voted against legislation which would allow for premises to be shut down if they sold alcohol irresponsibly while in opposition, and then voted in favour of such legislation when in Government.

Bill Aitken for the Conservatives said that the problem lay with the way that alcohol is depicted to young people by schools, the media, and their families. He said that the solution was education and not the implementation of ‘rigid alcohol-unit systems, which dictate prohibitive and arbitrary limits’ on acceptable levels of alcohol. He went on further to argue that the Government’s moves to ban cheap sales of alcohol could be ineffective and possibly unjust, because if an individual has a problem with alcohol then they are likely to buy it no matter how expensive. Furthermore, those who take advantage of cheap deals on alcohol are only likely to be those who are able to spot a good deal when they see one, and he refused to agree with evidence quoted by the Minister for Public Health, Shona Robinson, that there was a correlation between the price of alcohol and its consumption.

The Liberal Democrat’s health spokesperson said that the misuse of alcohol is a key public health priority. He took issue with the wording of the Government’s motion however, arguing that the cultural element of Scotland’s alcohol problem was not taken seriously enough in their approach. He said that his party were opposed to the polluter pays principle whereby those who profit from alcohol sales would be liable to cover the costs incurred. He said that profit should be the criterion to decide who should pay for the costs of alcohol misuse, rather the licensing boards and the courts should be dealing with the people who create the problem.

On the whole the debate was largely consensual, with Members from all parties wishing to put on record their support for this issue. You can read the full transcripts of this debate in theOfficial Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV

Questions

General Questions

There was a question for the Solicitor General for Scotland about the handling of a case of Anthrax by the Crown Office. He replied that the case is ongoing, and it was as yet undecided as to whether there should be a fatal accident enquiry or a criminal investigation. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Extra Police

The issue of extra police numbers still appears to have some way to run, with both Wendy Alexander and then Annabelle Goldie questioning Alex Salmond on this issue again during First Minister’s questions. Mr. Salmond reiterated the points that were made in the debate that morning, saying that they will increase police capacity by focusing on the ‘three Rs’ – increasing recruitment, improved retention, and redeployment, and that more details would be provided in the Comprehensive Spending Review on the 14th of November.

You can read these exchanges in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the press in the Newsblog.

Written Questions

There were written questions this week about the Government’s plans to roll out the test-purchasing of alcohol throughout Scotland following a successful pilot in Fife. There was also a question about how children who are alleged to have been abused are treated by the court system. There was a question about the number of court cases involving internet fraud in Scotland since 1999, and a question about funding for the Intensive Support and Monitoring Service in the Highlands.  There was a question about the process for commissioning and paying police informants, and a question which revealed an updated list of members sitting on the Scottish Prison Commission , and the Justice Secretary also said in his answer that the Commission is still seeking to recruit a Scottish criminal justice commentator. And finally, there were a series of questions about possible legislation which would change whether juries would be allowed to hear about the previous convictions of those charged with sexual offences. 

Posted by KM on Mon 29th Oct 2007 at 8:06 pm
Drugs and alcohol Police • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 1st - 5th October 2007

Monday, October 08, 2007

The issue of policing dominated news from Parliament this week. The Justice Committee got underway with their inquiry into police resources, and in the Chamber, the Government was accused of backtracking on its manifesto promise to provide an extra 1000 police officers. 

The Justice Committee

Inquiry into the management and deployment of Police

The Justice Committee reconvened last Tuesday to proceed with its inquiry into the management and deployment of police throughout Scotland, including the Government’s proposals to increase numbers by an extra 1000 officers. The report is expected by the New Year, and will be the main focus of business until then. You can read more on the Committee’s call for evidence page.

This week the Committee interviewed senior members of the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA). This organisation was established by the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice Act 2006, and has been in operation for just six months. Its main task is to provide a range of common services to Scottish police forces on a national basis, including providing training through the Scottish Police College; providing justice intelligence support services, and managing the national technology systems, and the new national forensic science service. The SPSA is also responsible for the maintenance of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, although it maintains operational autonomy.

Representatives of the SPSA began by outlining to the Committee what they have achieved in their first six months. They said that their founding principle was to drive efficiencies in policing by eliminating duplication and replication of services. This would enable police forces to focus on their core activities rather than on operational support and back-office services. They have been charged with achieving financial savings for police operations equivalent to 1.5% each year for three years, which they said they are on track to achieving: also, they were on track to establish a single information and communication technology system, due for completion by spring next year. Currently there 25 different call management systems in place in the 8 different police forces, and there was therefore a strong need for a standardised approach.

The Scottish Police College is continuing its development of a national training programme for the Scottish police service.  Currently, much officer training is run on national standards, but duplicated in each individual force, and operational officers are abstracted to run the training, thus reducing the force’s capacity. Their recommendation was that a nationally co-ordinated central group of non-police officer personnel, who would move around and deliver the training to each force locally, should be established. They hoped the training strategy would be ‘well underway’ by April next year.

They were asked if there were any plans to share the Scottish Police College with other blue light services, as had been recommended in a recent report on Government spending. Witnesses said they were in favour of such a move, but lacked the capacity to deliver it by themselves.  They said there were synergies between the training required for police officers, and that required for other agencies such as the prison service and the fire service. This was true for both front line and management level workers.

The SPSA are also responsible for integrating the existing Scottish fingerprint service into a Scottish forensic science service, which will provide a single service from crime-scene-to-court. Previously this was carried out by the crime scene examiners and fingerprint and forensic science services, which were sitting at separate locations and in different structures. One of the SPSA members said there was a tangible desire in the service to move away from the events surrounding the Shirley McKie case. He was asked about hints from the Government that a further inquiry into these events might be carried out, and he said that if there were to be a further inquiry, it should not focus on the question of whether or not the fingerprint identification was correct or not, he said this question could really never be resolved.

The SPSA members spoke about their working relationship with ACPOS, which they operated along a customer – service provider model: it was their job to ensure a consistently high quality product to meet the needs of their clients. Finally, they were also asked about the development of the Serious Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency. They said that the SCDEA is demonstrating its commitment to operational policing, with an emphasis on class A drugs, money laundering and human trafficking.

Regarding cost savings, they said that this could be achieved by the civilianisation of current police posts currently involved in back office duties. The saved resources could then either be pushed back to front-line duties in the SPSA and the SCDEA, or alternatively, the number of officers seconded to Scottish Police College and forensic services could be reduced.

That concluded the first session of evidence gathering as part of the Committee’s inquiry. You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

The Committee will reconvene after the autumn recess, in two weeks time.

The Chamber

1000 extra police – ‘broken promises’ debate

In its last sitting before a two-week autumn recess, the Parliament had a day of particularly ill-tempered debates on Thursday.

This began in the morning with a Labour led general debate on ‘broken promises’ in relation to a number of issues across a range of policy areas. Labour accused the SNP of backtracking on their manifesto pledge to provide an extra 1000 police officers in Scotland, saying that this had now been converted into ‘the equivalent’ of 1000 extra police officers.

Both the Justice Secretary, Kenny MasAskill and his deputy, Fergus Ewing were absent from the debate, so it was Nicola Sturgeon who replied for the SNP, saying that the Government had in fact ‘hit the ground running’ in regard to their manifesto promises. However, she avoided any opportunity to clarify the Government’s plans for extra police. Labour challenged the Government to say exactly how many police officers would be in place over the coming years. Nicola Sturgeon said simply that that the answer to the question could be found in the manifesto, and did not clarify further.

The Conservatives agreed that the Government were correct to have a new look at the way police resources are used, however, they accused the Government of ‘slippery equivocations’, saying that the SNP were wrong not to increase the numbers of police officers as they had promised.

Labour said that the SNP’s manifesto was clear: it would deliver 1,000 extra police officers, and not ‘the return of Rebus and Taggart from retirement’, or ‘virtual or kiddie-on police’. Referring to the Government’s failure to publish a Criminal Justice Bill this year, they accused the SNP of being ‘terrified’ of having a debate on justice, because it would reveal that the Government was ‘soft on crime’. Labour also hit out at the Government’s decision to discontinue community reparation orders, saying that this was not in keeping with their promise to work together with other parties.

In what was a particularly bad tempered debate from all parties in the Chamber, it was perhaps notable that the Government did not clarify their plans for policing. Furthermore, the absence of the Justice Secretary and his deputy meant that they could not be challenged directly on this issue, although they were questioned on it again during questions, see below.

You can read the transcripts of this debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Debate on Wildlife Crime

At the end of the day, there was a Government led debate on Wildlife crime. The debate coincided with the announcement of a review into the current arrangements for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime. It will be carried out by HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary in association with HM Chief Inspector of Prosecutions in Scotland, and will report by spring next year. This is in the context of the fact that 2006 was the worst year ever for recorded wildlife poisoning incidents, and figures so far for 2007 show no improvement.

The debate was opened by the Solicitor General for Scotland, Frank Mulholland, who laid before the Parliament the current facts of the law in this area, stressing that his contribution was in no way political. He spoke about the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s consideration of the public interest when making decisions about prosecutions. He said that wildlife crime affects Scotland’s ‘unique and precious natural heritage’, and that prosecuting bodies are aware of the strength of feeling that such crimes cause and the widespread public concern that there should be effective enforcement of the law. He said that wildlife crime present particular difficulties for investigation and prosecution, in that it covers a wide range of criminal behaviour and with widely varying motivations ranging from financial gain to plain cruelty. He said that the joint review will consider leadership, policy and strategy, partnership and resources, and processes. He said that the Lord Advocate and himself were committed to act on the recommendations that are made.

The debate that followed was consensual, and a labour amendment which urged each Scottish police force appoint at least one full-time police wildlife crime co-ordinator, and that wildlife crime cases are prosecuted wherever possible by fiscals with specialist training, was agreed by the Government.

You can read this debate in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Organised Crime Debate

At the very end of the day, there was private members’ business debate on organised crime and the Glasgow Milton and Chirnsyde community initiative. The motion to be debated called on the local community in Glasgow Milton to be praised for standing up to organised crime, thanked community activists who have worked to ensure that community facilities provided in the area are safe to use, and looked forward to the reopening of the Chirnsyde Community Initiative. The MSP leading the debate detailed the problem of organised crime that the Milton area had experienced, saying that there are two main crime families who have significant city wide presence, and who may also be part of a national organised crime network. The alleged head of one of these families used to be the co-ordinator of the Chirnsyde community centre, which over its period of operation had received a significant sum of Government money.

The MSP said that seeming inaction on the part of the local council and police meant that public concerns that the centre was being used as a base for organised crime where not acted on. Indeed, the community initiative was only closed following a triple shooting in the area, in which the nephew of the co-ordinator of the initiative was killed, and two others seriously injured. He praised the courage of those in the community who had stood up to the intimidation that resulted from the presence of organised crime, and to those who have campaigned for the centre to be re-opened under new management.

Speakers from all parties welcomed the debate, and the need to stand up to organised crime was spoken about, and the ways in which communities can be strengthened to enable them to stand up to organised crime were also touched upon. Members also spoke about the way in which legal aid is distributed and possible mechanisms by which monies could be clawed back following a conviction for involvement in organised crime.

This was an opportunity for all the parties concerned to be able to voice their support for the fight against organised crime in a debate that fostered broad cross party support.

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also press coverage in the Newsblog.

Questions

Extra police

The Cabinet Secretary was in attendance for question time however, and the Conservatives used this opportunity to ask how the Government’s plans for the promised extra officers was progressing. Kenny MacAskill replied that the equivalent of 1000 officers would be provided over the parliamentary session, and that these numbers would be comprised of a mixture of additional recruitment, improved retention and a freeing up of existing officers’ time. He said that too many officers currently leave their jobs when they still have much to offer, and that work was being done to allow officers to use their time more efficiently, and he accused the previous Executive of burdening officers with excessive paperwork and bureaucracy. He reiterated comments he has made before, saying that increasing numbers would require a co-ordinated, carefully planned and innovative approach involving both central Government and police authorities and Chief Constables. He said finally that an announcement would be made in the context of the upcoming spending review. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Following this in questions to the First Minister, first Annabel Goldie (Conservative) and then Nicol Steven (Liberal Democrats) persisted with the issue by challenging Alex Salmond again over extra police officers. He gave the same answers as the Justice Secretary had given earlier, adding that the previous Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson, had also used the word ‘equivalent’ in the same capacity in the previous session of Parliament. You can read this question in the Official Report

Anti-social behaviour

There was a question for the Minister for Community Safety about anti-social behaviour in rural areas. He replied that the Government funds community safety partnerships which protect communities from unacceptable behaviour. He said that the Government also aims to provide more choices and chances for young people to engage in positive rather than negative behaviour. And you can read this question in the Official Report.

Community Reparation Orders

There was also a question to the First Minister regarding the Government’s decisions to end community reparation orders. Reiterating a point that had been made in the debate that morning, the Government was accused of ignoring the views of the rest of the Chamber by deciding to end the Orders without consulting the rest of Parliament. The Government was also accused of undermining the credibility of all community sentences by its decision to scrap CROs, and it was put to the First Minister that it would have been more sensible to encourage Sheriffs to use the orders more than to scrap them completely. Alex Salmond replied that CROs in their current form had proved unattractive to courts and had hardly been issued during their pilot.  He said that he was committed to the principle of offenders giving back to their victims and communities, and that he would announce further plans in this area as part of a review of community penalties, which will report later this year. You can read this question in the Official Report

See also the Newsblog.

Enforcing smoking age law

Finally, there was a question about how the Government intended to enforce the prohibition of tobacco sales for those aged between 16 and 18. He said that there are currently an estimated 23,000 people aged 16 and 17 who smoke cigarettes, and that the Minister of Public Health had already met with trading standards officers to discuss the compliance of the raised permitted age for buying tobacco. He said that there is a £2 million budged for helping people to stop smoking, which has been prioritised to help those young people who are already addicted, for whom buying cigarettes is now illegal. You can read this question in the Official Report

You can also watch all FMQs on Holyrood.TV for up to one month

Written Questions

There was a question about the number of prosecutions for the consumption of alcohol in public places over the last five years, and a question about the numbers of children who live with a parent who has a drug or alcohol problem. Finally, there was a question about the age of people who are charged with fire raising.

Posted by KM on Mon 8th Oct 2007 at 11:13 am
Crime Prevention CCTV • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 24th to the 28th of September

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

This week the First Minister supported the Lord Advocate’s stance on the issues presented by the abandonment of the World’s End trial: questions for Law and Justice Officers were answered.

Justice Committee

The Justice Committee did not meet this week.

Chamber

Parliamentary questions

During general questions this week, there was a question for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, about the support given to organisations which tackle violence against women. She said that tackling gender violence, including a commitment to try and help women leave prostitution, was a high priority for the Government. She assured members that the recent research which showed the use of sexual history of complainers in rape cases (read about this report in the Newsblog), would be taken into account in the formulation of the upcoming Bill on reforming the law on rape. You can read this question in the Official Report, or watch in on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

During First Minister’s Questions, Annabel Goldie questioned Alex Salmond about the high rate of breaches for tagging orders. He replied that these orders had been substantially successful, and whenever non-compliance did occur, these cases were dealt with. He argued that tagging is just one tool in the toolbox for dealing with criminality, and he also pointed out the consensus that had emerged between the Conservatives and the Government over the support for the use of electronic tagging for sex offenders. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Later, Bill Aitken, the Conservative Justice spokesperson, challenged the First Minister over the controversy surrounding the Lord Advocate, in the wake of the public row between the Lord Advocate and the Lord Justice General about her statement to the Parliament on the prosecution of the World’s End trial (see this Parliamentary report). He argued that there is a potential conflict of interests in the role of the Lord Advocate, who sits both as the head of the prosecution service and as part of the Government. Alex Salmond denied this, but conceded that the exchange of correspondence raised some ‘fundamental issues’. He promised that the independence of the judiciary would be reaffirmed under the forthcoming Judiciary Bill. He defended the Lord Advocate’s statement to the Chamber, saying that she was not directly criticising the trial judge’s decision, rather she was responding to public concern and subjecting herself to parliamentary scrutiny. Read the press coverage of Alex Salmond’s defence of the Lord Advocate in the Newsblog. You can also read the transcripts in the Official Report, and you can watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Law and Justice Officers’ Questions

Later, during themed questioned time, the Justice Secretary was asked about what the Government was doing to tackle underage smoking and drinking. He said that this area was a priority for the Government, and he spoke about the raising of the legal age to buy tobacco to 18, which would come into force on the 1st October. He also confirmed that the test purchasing scheme for alcohol, which was successfully piloted in Fife, will be rolled out nationwide. He said that the new Licensing Act which came into force on Monday, also enshrined a duty on those who sell alcohol. He said that the responsibilities for the law in this area are tripartite, involving the Government, the police and the licensing board. You can read this question in the Official Report and read about the Licensing Act in the Newsblog.  See also: Cigarette sales age check

The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, was asked whether the Government would commit funding to enable the continuation of the community warden scheme operating in Dumfries and Galloway. He replied that the amount of funding given to councils to spend on tackling antisocial behaviour would be dependent on the forthcoming spending review, and that it was up to each individual council to spend this money as they chose. He spoke further about the Government’s approach to tackling antisocial behaviour, saying that they aimed to take a different approach to that taken by the previous Executive. He said that rewarding good behaviour was as important as punishing bad, and that the Government would use money obtained under the Proceeds of Crime Act to promote alternatives for young people. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Kenny MacAskill was asked about his decision to halt the previous tendering process for a privately built and operated prison at Low Moss, and the resulting delay in the new building that this caused. He repeated the Government’s arguments in favour of publicly run prisons. He also blamed the previous administration for the handling of the initial tendering process, in which the SPS had to bid alongside the private sector. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Next, he was asked about Legal Aid funding for women who are involved in cases against alleged abusers. It was put to the Cabinet Secretary that because of the way legal aid is structured, solicitors had withdrawn from civil legal aid work, and that this had resulted in victims now facing a diminishing supply of family law lawyers who offer civil legal aid services. MacAskill replied that the Government has improved the payment scheme for work such cases, and that the new regulations also take on board concerns that were expressed by the Family Law Association. He said that the Government will make changes to the Legal Aid Board to ensure that adequate services can continue, and that he will also listen to work carried out by Lord Gill, who is reviewing the way that legal services are structured. You can read this question in the Official Report.

See also:
Consultation on summary justice legal aid reform published.

Finally, Kenny MacAskill was asked about progress made towards creating a system of integrated assessments to ensure that the needs of children of substance-misusing parents are identified at the earliest opportunity, following on from recommendations made in the report . He replied that the Government is working together with all agencies including the police, and that discussions had taken place with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in order to work towards a ‘holistic and joined up approach’. And you can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch all these questions on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

Written Questions

In written questions this week, the Justice Secretary revealed the Government’s decision on the continuation of a number of community sentences pilots. He said that funding for the piloted Community Reparation Orders will cease at the end of December, following their evaluation which showed that they were not well understood or used. He said that the Government is still committed to principle of reparation in community penalties, but that they will attempt to create a more workable sentence in place on the CROs. He also said that the evaluation into bail with electronic monitoring also concluded that it was rarely used and of limited effectiveness, and therefore the funding for this pilot would also stop at the end of December. He also said that funding for the Structured Deferred Sentences pilots should continue until the end of March 2008 to allow for their evaluations to be finalised, and that funding for first instance Supervised Attendance Orders should continue for a further 12 months, until the end of October 2008.

See also:
Bail tagging and community reparation orders to be abandoned

There was also a question about funding for CCTV which revealed that funding comes from local authority-led Community Safety Partnerships, and from other streams, such as quality of life funding. There was a question about the SNP’s manifesto promise to establish a Scottish Drugs Commission, to which the response was that the possibility of establishing a Commission had not been ruled out, but that Government did not want to delay work in this area by setting up new structures at this stage.

There was also a question about funding the police force in rural areas.

Data on prisoners’ previous custodial experience showed that 77% of those currently in prison have been in custody at some point in the past. There were also a number of notably curt answers to questions about the SPS’s involvement with the International Correction and Prison Association.

There was a question about the number of private security guards licensed to operate in Scotland.

Finally, there was a question in which Kenny MacAskill announced details about a review into certain aspects of the procedures relating to the destruction of DNA and fingerprint data in Scotland. The review will be carried out by Professor Jim Fraser, Director of Strathclyde University’s Centre for Forensic Science. It will report within six months and will help to inform future policy developments.

Posted by KM on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 at 7:26 pm
Legislation Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 Prisons and prisoners Service privatisation • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report for the 17th - 20th September 2007

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The main justice events to take place this week in Parliament were a debate on penal policy in which the Justice Secretary announced the creation of an independent Prisons Commission, and the announcement by the Justice Committee of an enquiry into policing in Scotland.

The Justice Committee

The Justice Committee is to undertake an inquiry into the effective use of police resources. The remit for the inquiry is to review the use of police resources throughout Scotland, including plans by the Scottish Government to provide for an additional 1000 police officers. The Committee has issued a general call for evidence, which you can read here.

Committee members had been on visits to Cornton Vale and Barlinnie prisons the previous week. A number of Committee members spoke about their impressions following these visits in the debate on penal policy which took place in the Chamber on Thursday (see below).

Chamber

Debate on Penal Policy and Prison Commission announcement

Further announcements on penal policy were made by the Scottish Government. This is in the context of the SNP’s support both in their manifesto and in subsequent speeches for custodial sentences of six months and under to be replaced with community alternatives. However, they have so far not specified how this could work in practice; there was not a Sentencing Bill included in the recently announced legislative programme.

Given their minority status, the Government must seek policy change through means other than primary legislation. This has resulted in a relatively uncontroversial set of Bills announced in their legislative programme, and the possibility of more radical policy changes may therefore have to wait. However, the groundwork for such changes may be taking place through the creation of various reviews and commissions.

The debate on penal policy was led by the Cabinet Secretary on Thursday.

In his opening speech, Kenny MacAskill said he wanted this debate to provide ‘an opportunity to reflect’ on the challenges that the nation faced regarding penal policy. He framed his arguments by questioning why Scotland’s rate of imprisonment is so proportionally high in comparison with other Western European countries, saying ‘the Government refuses to believe that the Scottish people are inherently bad or that there is any genetic reason why we should be locking up twice as many offenders as Ireland or Norway’. He argued that the percentage of the prison population affected by mental health problems, drug and alcohol addiction and mental health difficulties, prompted the need for ‘tough questions’ to be asked.

He also pointed out contradictions in the current situation, saying that while crime has fallen over the past 10 years, the number of prisoners has increased by over 1000 during the same time. Simultaneously, public attitudes also show that the Scottish population feel as though crime is rising and that prison is not used enough.

He argued that, although community penalties are often seen as the ‘soft option’ by the public, they actually result in a lower rate of re-offending than a prison sentence does. However, he also said that prison was the correct place for serious or dangerous offenders, who may be required to serve long sentences in order to ensure the public is protected.

He commended the dedication, commitment and professionalism of the staff in the Prison Service, but he said that too much of the prison system’s energies are spent on managing the churn of prisoners serving short sentences; there is little that can be achieved in the way of lasting rehabilitation with these prisoners, and prisons are constantly working to ‘keep a lid on a difficult situation’.

He said that, for all these reasons there was a need to re-frame the debate around imprisonment, and to move away from the old arguments over ‘soft’ versus ‘tough’ sentences, saying that penal policy should instead be focused on what works. While not mentioning the ‘six months and under’ tariff, he said that for many minor offences, a short custodial sentence ‘does not constitute a smart sentence.’

When questioned on sentencing policy and judicial independence, he insisted that the Administration’s policies would in no way interfere with judicial discretion. He said that while the judiciary will always have the right to impose a short sentence should they wish to do so, his Government can say that ‘there are good reasons in relation to punishment, cost and safety why they might care to reflect on the possibility that that would not be appropriate.’

He said that although he believed it was not the intention of the previous Administration that their policy lead to such an increase in the number of people in prison, this was nonetheless the outcome, and that this direction had to be halted. He hinted at the Government’s unhappiness with the controversial Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act (although it was pointed out later in the debate that the SNP voted for it when it was going through Parliament). This Act sought to end automatic early release, but will in fact result in a very significant increase in the prison population. He said that, although supporting the principle of ending automatic and unconditional early release, it was necessary to ‘ensure that any change does not compound current problems and put intolerable pressures on prisons and justice services in the community.’ (For a critique of this legislation see Cyrus Tata’s article (CjScotland March 2007) The End to ‘Dishonesty’ in Sentencing? The Custodial Sentences Act will be Fogged by Confusion).

Consequently he has decided to establish an independent prison commission with a remit to ‘consider the purpose and use of imprisonment in contemporary Scotland’. This will look at how imprisonment fits in with the wider strategic objectives of the Government, and also to raise public awareness of the ‘options, outcomes, and costs’ of imprisonment. It will also compare the ‘underpinning rationale’ of imprisonment with current law and practice, and its impact across all of the justice system. It will also look at the impact of the yet to be implemented Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act.

This Commission is to be headed by Henry McLeish, a former First Minister and a Justice Minister.

The Labour party’s new Justice Spokesperson Pauline McNeill (the convener of the Justice 1 Committee in the previous session of Parliament) responded by welcoming the opportunity for debate and the establishment of the Commission. However, she said that Labour opposed SNP’s policies because they would ‘expose communities by moving away from short-term spells of custody to wholesale community sentencing.’ She said that their proposals would seriously undermine public confidence in the judicial system, and would fail to address public concerns about crime.

She pointed out that sentences of six months and under are imposed for offences such as housebreaking, the repeated breaking of bail conditions, and on many persistent offenders. She said the notion that such offenders may escape a custodial sentence would not be acceptable to many, and that any assurance that the Cabinet Secretary gave about not interfering with judicial discretion went against his Party’s manifesto promises on short prison sentences. She also highlighted the problem of unintended consequences such policies may create, by citing the example of Western Australia when the removal of all sentences of three months and under resulted in longer sentences being imposed. She said that prison should not only be a place to protect the public from dangerous or serious offenders, but it should also exist as a deterrent to potential future offenders. She concluded by saying that Labour was willing to ‘work constructively’ with the Administration on some issues, although there are limits to what they would agree on. Her amendment welcomed the creation of the Commission, and the continuation of community sentences and other alternatives to custody, but also noted concern about any removal of judicial discretion.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Mike Pringle, agreed about the need to reduce the number of short sentences in prison, but challenged Kenny MacAskill to provide more specific information about proposed savings from the prison estate to go into community penalties and rehabilitation. He said that a policy of replacing custodial sentences of three months and under with community penalties would be more sensible than the SNP’s preference for six months and under, and he highlighted the problem of fine defaulters receiving custodial sentences. He said he supported existing community penalties, but they had to be ‘toughened up’, and he also suggested looking at the idea of removing certain rights at weekends for those convicted of driving and similar offences. He also proposed the idea of ‘dual sentencing’ in which offenders serve part of their sentence in custody and part in the community.

The Conservative spokesperson and convener of the Justice Committee, Bill Aitken, also acknowledged there was of a need for review of imprisonment, however he cautioned over those who argued there may be one easy answer to the problem. He said that the primary drive behind prisons policy must be public safety, and any review that is carried out must not be merely an excuse to empty prisons. He highlighted the high breach rate for community disposals and argued that they had little public legitimacy. He also said that fines should be deducted directly from income and benefits as a way to reduce the number who default over payment, and he spoke of his support for specialist drug courts and questioned whether these could be rolled out nationally. He also spoke out about ‘community courts’ in New York, where community punishment is immediate and visible, and can be physically taxing if the individual is fit enough.

Members from across the Chamber used the open debate that followed as an opportunity to discuss their own views, concerns, and experiences of the prison system. There were calls for immediate funding to be given to relieve overcrowding pressure in Inverness prison, and members of the Justice Committee commented on the visits to Cornton Vale and Barlinnie prisons that they took at the beginning of the week. Several members mentioned the narrow social background that the majority of prisoners come from, and the importance of ensuring that adequate housing support exists for prisoners on release. There was wide support for the Commission across the Chamber, with one MSP saying it has the same potential for innovation and radical policy development as the Kilbrandon Commission which led to the creation of Scotland’s juvenile justice system.

At decision time, all the Members voted along party lines, apart from the Conservatives, whose coalition with the SNP gave the Justice Secretary’s motion a majority, and it was therefore passed by the Chamber.
You can read the full transcripts of this debate in the Official Report, and you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Stockline Explosion Public Enquiry

Later that afternoon there was a short debate in the Chamber about Corporate Homicide legislation and the need for a public inquiry into the ‘Stockline’ explosion which killed 9 people in 2004. The two companies involved were charged with health and safety offences and fined £220,000 each, after admitting responsibility in court.

The debate in the Chamber was lead by Patricia Ferguson, MSP for the Maryhill area of Glasgow where the explosion occurred. She argued only through a full judicial inquiry would all the facts surrounding the case be uncovered. She called for the inquiry to have the scope to examine whether there is a need for new legislation, and to consider the level of fines that can be imposed for such offences. She said that the victims’ families also wanted to address the issue of why the number of accidents and injuries in workplaces in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the UK, and why the number of prosecutions in these cases is so low.

Such an enquiry would need to be jointly initiated by the Scottish Government and Westminster, given that health and safety legislation and the laws on the the conveyance of gas through pipes, rests with the UK Government. The Lord Advocate has already met with the victims’ families and their supporters, and she said the decision on the nature and scope of the inquiry will be made by the end of the September.

There was support for a full public inquiry from across the Chamber in the debate that followed. Karen Gillon, who has long campaigned for tougher corporate manslaughter legislation in Scotland, argued that the recently passed UK Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, which covers Scotland, is not sufficiently robust to deter companies who take risks with their workforce’s safety. The debate concluded with the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, saying that the First Minister and the Scottish Government were committed to the idea of a full inquiry, however the decision on which sort of inquiry to hold rested with the Lord Advocate.

You can read this debate in the Official Report, watch it on Holyrood.TV, and read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Questions

During general questions this week, the Cabinet Secretary was asked about plans to centralise the court system in the Grampians and Highlands. He said that these reforms were initiated by the previous Administration and that he was unable to make further comment until the consultation which is taking place on this issue is complete. You can read this question in the Official Report.

Written questions this week included a question to the Justice Secretary about the Government’s plans to implement the Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act.  There was also a question about the number of drug-related deaths per year in Scotland, about the number of charges for driving without insurance, and about the evaluation of non-bench serving Justices of the Peace. There was a question about the number of murders committed with knives and blades, and a question about the cost of legal aid, and the Government’s plans for 1000 extra police officers. There was a question about the number of prisoner escapes while under escort, and a question in which the Chief Executive of the SPS said a direct cost comparison between a privately and publicly run new prison at Low Moss is not possible. There was a question which revealed that there were 623 people in prison for defaulting on fine repayment, and finally a question about the timetable for the tendering process at the New Low Moss prison.

Posted by KM on Tue 25th Sep 2007 at 8:01 am
Legislation Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report, 10th - 14th September 2007

Monday, September 17, 2007

This week the Parliament heard an unprecedented statement from the Lord Advocate following the collapse of the World’s End murder trial. The end of the trial also led to further calls to reform the law of double jeopardy. The Justice Committee heard important evidence from the authors of the Howat Report on the funding and organisation of the criminal justice system .

The Justice Committee

Subordinate legislation

Kenny MacAskill, Secretary for Justice joined the Committee for the second week running on matters of subordinate legislation. The first concerned extending the laws surrounding intercept powers to allow for the newly established Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to apply directly to ministers for the authorisation of warrants. The supporting motion was passed without debate.

The next matter forms part of the Government’s current drive to encourage responsible alcohol consumption. It will make provisions for all pubs to put clear signage by their entrance that no-one below the age of 18 is permitted on the premises unless accompanied by an adult (currently such signage must only be displayed behind the bar); and also for all on-sales premises who permit under fives, to have baby changing facilities. This motion was also passed.

Howat Report

The next business concerned the Report of the External Budget Review Group (’the Howat Report’).  The purpose of the Review was to identify where resources could be used more effectively to achieve Scottish Executive priorities or ‘aims’.

It was commissioned by the previous administration and completed 18 months ago, but its contents were not made public until May this year, when the SNP published it in order to ‘inform the decisions’ needed to meet their ambition to ‘establish a smaller, more efficient and more focused government.’ The Scottish Government has stated that they will consider this report as part of its financial planning for the next Spending Review 2007. Some of the themes of the report, for example in relation to inter agency co-operation, have begun to be implemented quite separately from the Review since its completion

You can read press coverage of this report when it was published in the Newsblog.

The Committee were joined by three of the authors, and before talking more precisely about the parts of the Report concerning Justice, they made comments about some of the generic points. They highlighted their opinion that any Government should look for clear outcome-based priorities and targets, and that they had found instead a ‘mixed bag of targets, aims and aspirations’. They said that both current and future spending should be subject to ongoing ‘robust and rigorous challenge’, and that the Scottish Executive should move from a risk-averse approach, to a risk-management approach. They said by taking a more holistic view of spending between the various portfolios, it was possible to achieve significant savings.

There was a need to review Scotland’s ‘crowded landscape’ of public sector provision. However, they said that caution should be exercised regarding large scale structural reorganisation, and that a better way of bringing about change would be to encourage better co-operation and sharing of services within existing boundaries.

Regarding policing, they said that the back-office functions of police boards should be merged, and boards should be encouraged to share services, although they stressed that police forces should be kept at an individual and local level. They also spoke about the ‘civilianisation’ of the police, saying that where possible tasks and activities should be shared across the whole criminal justice spectrum. They spoke about the complicated funding structure for police services, given that policing is a local authority function with some national duties. They spoke about the benefits of performance targets for police, and who should have the powers to create such targets. 

There was scope for standardisation. For example, there should be a standardised IT system throughout different criminal justice agencies; the police and the fire service could have a common radio communication system; and Scotland may even want to have a national procurement service, as opposed to one for the NHS and another for the police for example.

The reports’ authors spoke about the SPS as a good example of being able to see their place holistically within the system, to be able to ‘take the horizontal view’. They said that the SPS is very good at working in its silos and doing the job it is asked to do, however, they have also recently expanded their role and responsibilities, so for example they can now provide more detailed information about the backgrounds and needs of the prisoners, and the different factors that can help reduce re-offending in the future. 

The authors said that, although much had moved on the 18 months since the report’s completion, there were still some issues which demanded immediate attention. They spoke about the pressing need to come up with alternatives for short-term prison sentences. They also spoke of the very high volume of prisoners who have drug and alcohol problems, and the obvious opportunity to impact on the high recidivism rate should more adequate and longer term services be provided to address these problems. One of the authors argued that the problem of recidivism means that the more people that are put in prison, the more prison places will be required as a result, unless some mechanism is put in place to stop the cycle. He suggested the possibility of so called ‘family support plans’ which would target the families most in need as one possible solution.

It was argued that the solution was not necessarily more money, but a wiser use of existing resources. The cost of £50,000 to imprison an individual for one year, could be used instead to create a greater number of people skilled in supporting families in need.

They also said that greater use should be made of technological advances, for example electronic tagging, to create community penalties as alternatives to short sentences. They also spoke about ways in which the budget for Legal Aid could be cut by reforming the courts to work in more efficient ways.

The priority that the Scottish Government has given to Howat may be indicative of the outcome of the imminent Spending Review later. You can read the story in the press regarding this part of the meeting in the Newsblog.

Public Petitions

Finally, the Committee considered a number of petitions which had been referred to them from the Public Petitions Committee (PPC). The first one was to urge a review of the fatal accidents and sudden deaths inquiry system. The Committee agreed to write to the Justice Secretary to find out the progress of reviews already under way.

The second petition concerned providing greater protection to the children and parents of abusive parents. The Committee decided to recommend that greater training be in place for members of the legal profession in dealing with children involved in these cases.

Finally, they considered a petition from a secondary school, which called for the public health implications of cheaply available alcohol to be investigated. Given that the Licensing Act (2005), will not be fully implemented until 2009, it may still have an impact on some of the issues raised in the petition. The Committee therefore decided to close the petition and to consider undertaking post enactment scrutiny of the legislation.

This concluded the meeting. You can read the full transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month.

The Chamber

First Minister’s Questions

All of Thursday’s Justice events in the Parliament were taken up by the fallout following the collapse of the World’s End murder trial in Edinburgh on Monday. This was a trial of Angus Sinclair for the notorious murder of two teenagers 30 years ago.

Because it is widely believed that Mr Sinclair ‘escaped justice’ on this occasion, one of the consequences of the end of this trial has been a renewal of calls for the end of the double jeopardy rule in Scotland. This rule, which states that the same person cannot be tried twice for the same case, was abolished in 2003 in England and Wales, following pressure which has arisen in part because of the possibilities for new prosecutions that arise with new developments in DNA evidence. There was a debate on the subject in Parliament in February (see Parliamentary report, 19th-23rd February 2007). Labour MSP, Paul Martin, is also currently bringing forward a private member’s bill to change this law.

Cathy Jamieson, in her position as the temporary leader of the Scottish Labour party, was the first to raise this issue during First Ministers Questions, saying there was a ‘growing mood in Scotland that double jeopardy should end’. Alex Salmond hinted that a change in the law was possible, saying that the Scottish Cabinet had already discussed the matter on Tuesday but that such radical changes must be considered carefully, and not be made as a knee jerk reaction to particular high profile events. He was also quick to point out the Labour party had argued against such a change in the law during previous debates in the Parliament, when they were in power. Cathy Jamieson went on to attack the SNP’s failure to introduce a Criminal Justice Bill in their legislative programme, despite a manifesto pledge, saying that they had ‘turned their backs on the victims of crime.’ The First Minister replied that the different proposals which may have been included in the Bill, such as making changes to community penalties, are indeed being introduced, albeit not in the form of a single piece of new legislation. 

Annabel Goldie for the Conservatives pursued this point further, quoting a promise by Kenny MacAskill in February this year to address the law surrounding double jeopardy should the SNP form the next administration. Alex Salmond again hinted that such moves were under way, saying that previous statements made on record also indicate that new legislation on this area is imminent. He also suggested the Crown could be given the new right to appeal an acquittal, as is also the case in England and Wales.

You can read the transcripts of these questions in the Official Report, or watch them on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also read the stories in the Press in the Newsblog.

Statement by the Lord Advocate

These questions were however, overshadowed by the extraordinary events in the Chamber later in the day when the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, made a statement in response to criticisms of the way in which the case against Angus Sinclair was prosecuted. It is unprecedented for the Lord Advocate to speak to the Parliament about a court case, but on Thursday the Chamber heard her recount the details surrounding the decision to bring about the case against Sinclair, and the decision by the judge to rule that the case could not proceed due to insufficient evidence

She said that the decision to bring about the prosecution against Sinclair had not been taken lightly by the Crown, and she strongly refuted any suggestion that this decision was in any way a political. She spoke at length about the detailed work that was undertaken by the Crown in preparing the case for trial, and she robustly defended the senior advocate depute who had been chosen to prosecute the case, saying that ‘armchair commentators, however eminent, are just that.’

Although maintaining that there was enough evidence to lead to a conviction in the case, she said that the decision by the judge to rule that there was insufficient evidence to lead to a conviction was ‘one for the judge and the judge alone’, saying ‘the judge’s decision is final and we all have to respect that.’

She said the reason for her statement was to answer the criticism that the Crown should not have proceeded with the case due to insufficient evidence, or that more evidence available to the Crown should have been presented to the jury. She then went on to describe, in explicit and often gruesome detail, the circumstances surrounding the case. She said that, although circumstantial, the different pieces of evidence when taken together, clearly pointed to the guilt of the accused.

She denied that the case had not been properly prosecuted in court, and defended the way that evidence had been presented by the advocate depute. She said that trials are ‘fluid and dynamic’ and it is impossible to predict exactly how evidence will emerge regardless of the preparation that has gone before. She defended the decision to not present certain DNA evidence, saying that it was problematic and may not have been compelling to a jury. Furthermore, it was unlikely to have changed the decision by the judge to throw out the case.

She concluded by underlining the need to keep the prosecution system free from political interference and public desire that someone, anyone, be charged for a heinous crime. She said that there will be occasions when persons accused of a crime are acquitted, because the purpose of a trial is to independently test the evidence that the public prosecutor puts forward.

During questioning after her statement, she said that it was a matter for the Government and not for the public prosecutor to press for changes in the law to allow for the Crown right to appeal. However, she hinted that had such powers existed now, she would have invoked them in relation to this case. She said she had already raised her concern over the absence of such a right of appeal with the Justice Secretary on a previous occasion. not in relation to this case. She repeated the dictum that ‘hard cases make bad laws.’ She also said a review of the case will be carried out by a senior prosecutor, and that a public inquiry would not now be necessary given her full statement to the Chamber.

You can read the full transcripts of her statement in the Official Report and watch it on Holyrood.TV for up to one month. You can also read the press in the Newsblog.

Written Questions

Topics addressed in written questions this week, included: charges for driving without insurance, there were questions about Lord Coulsfield’s review of disclosure in criminal proceedings (also read the stories in the Newsblog), and the increase in the amount which can be claimed in small claims court. There were questions about the time taken to match a DNA profile to an individual, and the number of deaths by dangerous driving when the driver has been under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

An extensive answer is provided to a question about changes made to the administration of Legal Aid, and a question about the number of police officers involved in enforcing traffic laws.

There is a question which confirms that no penalty payments will be made to the four private sector firms that had reached stage two of the original tendering process for the new Low Moss prison, and finally a question about the The Prostitution (Public Places) Act 2007, which says it will come into force on the 15th of October this year.

Posted by KM on Mon 17th Sep 2007 at 7:00 pm
Courts • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Parliamentary Report, 3rd - 7th September, 2007

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

It was all change as the new session of the Parliament got underway last week, as the old ‘Scottish Executive’ was rebranded as the ‘Scottish Government’, and opposition politicians finally had the chance to scrutinise the SNP policies more closely.

In brief: at the Justice Committee’s first meeting on Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary was questioned about the Government’s prison policy, and in particular on its preference for publicly owned and operated prisons. On Wednesday the new legislative programme was debated. The proposed legislation includes two Justice Bills, one to reform the law surrounding rape and sexual offences, and one to reform the management of the judiciary.  On Thursday there was a good debate in the Chamber on how to tackle drug misuse. Later that day, the Law and Justice Officers answered questions from the Chamber, and there were also several Justice questions put to the First Minister.

The Justice Committee

This was the first meeting of the Justice Committee since it was established just before the summer recess. The Scottish Government decided to reduce the number of Justice Committees to one, which was taken to be an indication that there would be a lower volume of justice legislation from the new administration. The Committee convenor is Bill Aitken MSP, Conservative shadow cabinet secretary for justice.

Prison Privatisation

The Committee were joined by the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill for their meeting. First on the agenda was discussion of a discontinuance order for the old Low Moss Prison.

The closure of the prison at Bishopbriggs is relatively uncontroversial, as it was widely recognised as unsuitable and was often criticised in inspection reports. Far more contentious was the decision by the previous administration to open bids to build and operate the new replacement prison, to the private sector. This would make one quarter of prisoners in Scotland held in private prisons, five times higher even than involvement of the private sector in the prison system in the United States.

The SNP have long had a commitment to publicly owned and run prisons throughout Scotland, and following their election, the new administration hoped to return all three private prisons to public ownership. This was soon deemed untenable, however, not only because of the large upfront expenditure required, but also because of the significant prohibitive costs that would be incurred should existing contracts be terminated early. The SNP thus decided to halt the procurement process for the replacement prison at Low Moss, and although the private sector will be invited to bid for the design and construction of the new prison, it will be publicly operated. Plans to build a new prison to replace HMP Peterhead and HMP Aberdeen were also recently announced.

The SNP have made an explicit commitment to reduce the use of prison throughout Scotland, and along with the review on community sentences which is already underway, the Justice Secretary also aims to set up a commission which will ‘challenge existing assumptions and preconceptions about the use of prison.’ He promised more details about this commission shortly. You can read more about the recent announcements on the administration’s prison policy in the Newsblog.

The approval of the discontinuation order was largely a technicality as the prison has been closed since May this year, so most of the meeting was spent questioning the Secretary over the administration’s prison policy generally.

Kenny MacAskill restated his belief that publicly owned and operated prisons were ‘the best way’ to operate a prison service, saying that the Scottish Prison Service could offer a more ‘holistic’ service while still looking after the public purse. He refused to answer questions about price by price comparisons between public and private prisons, saying that any attempt at such a comparison would be like comparing apples with pears: it is impossible to compare like with like in the prison estate, as so much depends on factors such as the age and condition of the estate, and the security level of the prison. Besides, as contracts were awarded for periods of 25 years, it was impossible to make cost predictions so far into the future.

He argued that, because private prisons are bound by the same ground rules that apply to all prisons, any profit that is made through their operation is through the employment of staff. He argued that private prisons employ ‘custody officers instead of prison officers’, which would undermine public sector wages, and reduce the quality of staff. Morale amongst prison staff must be high and they must believe in what they do, if they are to make any difference in a reduction of levels of reoffending.

When the Committee put it to him that that the reason that privatisation was underway within the Sector was because it represented best value for money, he responded that the pursuit of private profit should not be an ethos behind the operation of prisons, and that he believed his approach to be the best one. He also enjoyed reminding Labour Committee members on several occasions that the party’s new leader, Wendy Alexander, has herself in the past stated her preference for publicly run and operated prisons.

It is fair to say that many of the Committee members seemed sceptical about the decision to move away from privatisation in the prison service on economic grounds. The Justice Secretary refused to answer questions about costs head on, citing the old adage of the danger of getting caught up in the ‘price of everything and the value of nothing’.

The Government’s freedom to move away from the issue of cost and value for money as one of the central drivers in prison policy, is no doubt aided by the hope that their policies will also lead to an eventual reduction in the prison population, and therefore a reduction in prison expenditure. You can the Newsblog for reaction to his views on privatisation in the prison sector.

Alcohol ban at rugby matches

The Committee also questioned MacAskill about the removal of the ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol at Murrayfield sports stadium during international Rugby matches.

In the context of the Government’s recently announced initiatives to crack down on the sale of cheap alcohol in a bid to tackle Scotland’s culture of ‘binge drinking’ (see stories in the Newsblog), the Secretary was at great pains to emphasis that the removal of this ban was not a licence for people to binge drink during matches, or to go to the Rugby to get drunk. He said the issues to be tackled was not drink in itself, rather it was the way in which people drink. He emphasised the fact that the police had given their backing to the removal of the ban, and that the Government would not be pursuing it otherwise. He also said that he would monitor how the removal of the would work in practice, and that it could be reinstated if necessary. The removal of the ban would not guarantee that Murrayfield would be able to serve alcohol, the final decision will lie with local council licensing authorities.

He was asked by several Committee members about a number of Cabinet Secretaries who while in Opposition, had stated their opposition to the removal of a ban. Kenny MacAskill said that he was neutral on this matter, and that he was merely following the advice of the police, who now believed that the removal of this ban should proceed. Regarding why such a ban should remain for football matches, he replied that there had been a resurgence in football related violence, but that the recently introduced football banning orders were beginning to tackle this problem.

The Committee were content with the orders before them, both in relation to the closure of the old Low Moss prison and the removal of the alcohol ban in Murrayfield. However, the main interest of the meeting was the opportunity to question the Secretary on broader policy areas, and to get a sense of the legislative priorities of the new administration.  From this meeting, it would be fair to say that the issue of prison privatisation will be one that the Scottish Government can expect to face some robust debate on from the rest of Parliament.

You can read the transcripts of the meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it for up to one month on Holyrood.TV.

In papers submitted to the Justice Committee before the meeting, the Justice Secretary outlined progress made so far on some of the reviews on existing criminal justice legislation. These included reviews on community sentences and on anti-social behaviour legislation. The letter lists the agencies that have so far been consulted as part of the review in community sentences. The review into the anti-social behaviour legislation will be undertaken by the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, however, the scope of this review was still to be decided. See his letter in pages 15 and 16 of the Committee papers.

A letter to the Committee also revealed that the Scottish Government will establish a public judicial enquiry into the Scottish Criminal Record Office and the Scottish Fingerprint Service. The previous administration had refused to establish such an enquiry, arguing that the numerous investigations which had already been carried out were sufficient to uncover the facts surrounding the Shirley McKie fingerprint case. One such investigation was undertaken by the previous Justice 1 Committee, who made a number of recommendations as a result of their yearlong inquiry. You can read the progress that has been made so far in the implementation of the report’s recommendations in pages 18-23 of the Committee papers.

Petition on airgun ban

Later that afternoon in the Public Petitions Committee, the parents of a boy who was killed by an airgun in 2005, presented a petition which called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support a ban airguns. They were joined by Tommy Sheridan, who has campaigned on this issue in previous sessions of Parliament.

Legislation concerning firearms is currently reserved to Westminster. However, the Scottish Government is in talks with the Home Office in London to find a way to acquire legislative power over airguns in order to be able to pass such a ban. At the end of the meeting, the Committee agreed to seek views on the petition from the Secretary for Justice, the UK Home Secretary, and other relevant parties. You can read the transcripts of this part of the meeting in the Official Report, or you can watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

The Chamber

The new legislative programme

On Tuesday the new administration finally unveiled the 11 Bills that will form their legislative programme. The Government’s need for cross party support in order to pass any legislation in the Parliament, means that most of the Bills proposed were relatively uncontroversial. Indeed, both of the Justice Bills were finishing off proposals that were initiated under the previous administration.

Alex Salmond said that the minimal volume of their programme (called ‘legislation lite’ by Wendy Alexander), was a response to the excessive amount of legislation pushed through the Parliament under the previous administration. However, it may also be a pragmatic solution to the Government’s weakness as is the declaration that it will be pursing policy objectives through means other than new legislation.

Of the two Justice Bills, the most important is the Rape and Sexual Offences Bill, which aims to address what many see as Scotland’s unacceptably low rate of conviction in rape trials. The Bill is supported by extensive work carried out by the Scottish Law Commission, and the details of the Bill will be made clear when the Commission publishes its recommendations. However, it is expected to include a broadening of the definition of rape, and a requirement for proof that consent for sex had been given. 

The Judiciary Bill also completes work which begun under the previous administration. This Bill will put the Judicial Appointment Board on a statutory footing, and give the Lord President the role of managing sentencers throughout all of the courts in Scotland. Arrangements to enable the removal of judges and sheriffs will also be revised.

Alex Salmond also indicated his commitment to legislating for ban of airguns in Scotland, saying that discussions continued with Westminster to transfer firearm legislation in this area to the control of Holyrood. 

The SNP manifesto promised to provide 1000 extra police officers, and in his speech Alex Salmond promised funding ‘for the equivalent of 1000 extra police officers’. This was questioned by Cathy Jamieson who asked whether an individual should ask for ‘the equivalent of a police officer’ when dialling 999. Alex Salmond refused to be drawn on specific wording however, saying that Government policy would ensure there were 1000 more police officers than there would have been had the previous administration remained in Office. (The Justice Secretary clarified this point during questions in the Chamber the next day. He said that that the extra number of police would be comprised of both new recruits and through an increase in the retention of existing staff, many of whom currently retire from work early)

During the debate that followed, there was relatively little comment about either of the Justice Bills. Critics were quick to argue that what was missing from the proposals was as important as what was included. For example, the SNP manifesto promised reforms to the Children’s Hearing System, plans to create an international arbitration Centre in Scotland, and the creation of a sentencing council which would provide sentencing guidelines for the judiciary.

The Bills contained in the legislative programme are largely considered to be ‘deliverable’. The Government has clearly decided to steer clear of issues which may have been considered too risky for an administration who is seeking to establish its competence in governance.

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, and watch the exchange on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

Debate on drug misuse

The Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, led a debate on drug misuse in the Chamber on Thursday morning. The debate came a week after statistics were published which showed a record high number of drug deaths in Scotland last year, and that recorded drug crimes had also risen sharply.

In what is set to become a recurring theme from this Government, the Minister called for collaboration across the parties in formulating policies to respond to this problem. In outlining the Government’s strategy, he said that there was a need for a better range of services throughout Scotland, and that treatment had to be more focused on recovery as opposed to stabilisation or harm reduction. There was also a need for more robust information on the types of treatment people are receiving, and the results of this treatment, which would allow for an increase in quality and accountability across the board. New national outcomes for tackling drugs misuse will be published, and the responsibilities and functions of all the agencies involved in reaching these outcomes will be set out.

He also expressed a desire for greater early intervention, for better drugs education within schools, and to continue to tackle the supply of drugs. He also wished to see drug testing and treatment orders expanded to include their use within District Courts, and so they can meet the needs of a broader range of offenders. He said that the current review of community penalties would explore this possibility further.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, while agreeing with everything that the Minister had said, thought that he did not go far enough. She called for at least a doubling of spending on drug and alcohol treatment in the first year of the spending review, for treatment to recognise the close link between drug and alcohol misuse including the possibility of extending DTTOs to address alcohol abuse.

The Labour spokesperson spoke about the strong correlation between poverty and drug addiction, and the need to provide a holistic response which addressed the social as well as the medical needs of drug users. She also asked about a manifesto commitment from the SNP to establish a Drugs Commission, and concluded by remarking that if the SNP were to abolish all prison sentences of less than six months, as per their manifesto pledge, then they would lose the option of tough sentences for drug offences which were also required if the issue of drugs is to be addressed. 

The Conservative spokesperson spoke warmly about the new political environment in which there was a new political will to address drug abuse. She expressed the need for a rapid change in drugs policy, but she said this could be achieved if the Chamber agreed to co-operate on this matter. She also welcomed the expansion of DTTOs throughout the courts, however, she said it was imperative that adequate rehabilitation services be put in place before this could take place. She also spoke about the need to address the very high amount of drug abuse that occurs within prisons throughout Scotland. She also endorsed the position taken by the Secretary to reduce the reliance on methadone as treatment for addiction, and said that progress could be made on the issue of drugs, but the emphasis had to move from ‘managing’ it, to being prepared to tackle it.

During the debate that followed, the extent of the Government’s commitments to providing resources for this issue was questioned The point was made that in the opinion of the director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, between £7,000 and £10,000 for each addict would be required to properly address the issue but that this would be worth it, considering the cost of imprisonment, or looking after children in care. There were also calls to introduce trials in which heroin was prescribed to those addicts for whom all other treatments had failed. At the end of the debate, the Justice Secretary stated his continued support for the drug courts, which would continue to be piloted at three sites throughout Scotland. He said he was committed to providing ‘appropriate resources’ for drugs policies, although ring fencing money for them would be difficult.

Over all, the debate was striking in its degree of cross party consensus, and acceptance for the need for changes in policy, and also for an increase in resources to do so. In many ways it was a fitting opening debate of this new term of Parliament: it emphasised the new air of co-operation that is required in order to create new policy. It was also a refreshing move away from the arguments which to marked similar debates in the previous session.

You can read the transcripts in the Official Report, watch the debate on Holyrood.TV, and read the press coverage in the Newsblog.

General Questions

Following on from the earlier debate on drug misuse, there was a question about support for children living in families where there is parental drug or alcohol misuse, you can read it here.

First Minister’s Questions

The outbreak of cross party consensus ended during FMQs, when old sound-bites where exchanged as Annabel Goldie attacked the Government’s criminal justice policies. She said that the Government were more interested in emptying prisons than in protecting the public, and that they were openly dogmatic in their prejudice against the private sector. Alex Salmond repeated the administration’s support for publicly run prisons, and also highlighted that this policy had the support of the incoming Labour leader Wendy Alexander. You can read this question in the Official Report.

The First Minister was asked by a Labour Member about a judicial enquiry into the Stockline explosion in which nine people were killed in 2004. The prosecution of the Glasgow based plastics company recently resulted in the imposition of a fine of £400,000 for breaches of health and safety. He replied that he had given support for a full inquiry into the case, but that the decision on what form the inquiry should take would be taken by the Lord Advocate, who has responsibility for investigating deaths in Scotland. You can read the press coverage of this story in the Newsblog, and read the transcripts of this question in the Official Report.

You can also watch all of the FMQs them for up to one month on Holyrood.TV.

Law and Justice Officers Questions

There was a question put to the Justice Secretary about the forthcoming report from the Law Commission on rape and other sexual offences: the need to change not only the law in this area, but also to tackle social attitudes which believe that women can be blamed for rape if engaging in behaviour such as dancing provocatively or acting flirtatiously. The Secretary replied that the Government would work together with the Law Commission to tackle this issue in the upcoming Rape and Sexual Offences Bill. He was also asked about the low rate of custodial sentences for those prosecuted for sexual offences against children, and he replied that the Government would continue to review the issue with members from different parties. He also said that the he remained committed to a Sentencing Council which would ‘have teeth’, and that he was not convinced that the introduction of specialist courts was an answer to addressing the problems of prosecuting rape.

The Minister for Community Safety was asked about the review the Government is undertaking into anti-social behaviour legislation. He said that the Government remained committed to tackling anti-social behaviour, but that this would include promoting good behaviour and giving young people something else to do, as well as cracking down on problematic behaviour. He indicated a move away from the use of ASBOs, saying that foremost in the strategy against anti-social behaviour should be good policing, which would rely on their professional skills and not necessarily on legal orders.

There was another question about the upcoming Rape and Sexual Offences Bill in which the Lord Advocate replied that there were no plans to downgrade rape so that it could appear in courts other than the High Court. She also underlined the need for a robust testing of the facts of a case before it gets to court. She said that the forthcoming Law Commission report is expected to contain proposals to change the way that this precognition takes place in order that a case is resilient when it proceeds to court. 

Finally, the Justice Secretary was asked about his party’s manifesto pledge for an extra 1000 police in Scotland, and the cost of training new police recruits. He clarified the confusion that had arisen during the debate on the Government’s legislative programme, in which the First Minister promised to increase police capacity by ‘the equivalent’ of 1000 extra officers. Kenny MacAskill said that this figure would include not only new recruits, but also an increase in the retention of existing officers many of who currently retire early. 

You can read all these questions in the Official Report, and watch them for up to one month on Holyrood.TV.

Posted by KM on Tue 11th Sep 2007 at 10:49 pm
Courts Drugs and alcohol Gender and crime Rape Police • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

MacAskill proposes higher fees for late licences to cover policing of alcohol disorder costs

Thursday, August 30, 2007

“Late night drinking licences could help fund extra policing” Holyrood.com
“Pubs and clubs may have to pay for police” Courier
“‘Bevvy culture’ warning to police” Evening Telegraph
“Pub owners face extra charge to pay for policing” Herald
“Late-night bars face police costs” BBC
“Pubs and clubs in trouble hotspots could face higher licence fee” STV
“Plan to create extra police funds by raising late-night licence costs” Scotsman
“Late-opening pubs and clubs could pay for policing” Law Society Journal Online

Press release

“Tackling Scotland’s ‘bevvy’ culture” Scot. Exec.

See also

Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 - consultation on draft regulations - fees and vessels. Responses to the consultation are due by Monday 17th September.

Posted by MM on Thu 30th Aug 2007 at 7:30 am
Drugs and alcohol Police • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission’s Annual Report 2006-07 published

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

“Prisoner complaints fall” Holyrood.com
“Watchdog questions inmates policy” Herald
“Prisoner complaint numbers fall” BBC

See also

Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission’s Annual Report 2006-2007

Posted by MM on Wed 29th Aug 2007 at 7:26 am
Prisons and prisoners Inspection reports • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Report on prison after-care and women offenders published

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

“How is it possible to rehabilitate prisoners on £47 and a travel card?” Herald
“Mistakes oft repeated” Herald

Posted by MM on Tue 28th Aug 2007 at 8:20 am
Gender and crime Prisons and prisoners • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Evaluation published of first instance use of supervised attendance orders in place of a fine

Monday, August 27, 2007

Evaluation 0f a Pilot to Test the Implementation of Supervised Attendance Orders as Disposals of First Instance (S236 SAOS) | Research Findings

Posted by MM on Mon 27th Aug 2007 at 12:23 pm
Sentencing Fines Sentencing reform • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Community Reparation Order pilot evaluation published

“Uncertainty over community orders” BBC
“Community reparation order pilot not a success” Law Society Journal Online

See also

“Forced to Make Amends”: An Evaluation of the Community Reparation Order Pilots | Research Findings

Posted by MM on Mon 27th Aug 2007 at 11:18 am
Antisocial Behaviour Sentencing Community sentences Sentencing reform • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Full criminal legal aid fixed fee research report published at last

Update

No current media comment.

Following posted on 11.01.07

“Legal aid cash saving plan is a flop” Scotsman
“No ‘guilty’ plea on legal aid” Scotsman
“Opposition challenge silence on legal aid research” Law Society Journal Online

Following posted on 20.10.06
“Legal aid reform ‘harmed justice’ ” BBC
“Legal aid reforms failing, report says” Law Society Journal Online

See also

Impact of the Introduction of Fixed Payments into Summary Criminal Legal Aid: Report of an Independent Study |
Research Findings
Tata C, Stephen F (December 2006). Fixed payments: a real impact? Law Society Journal

Posted by MM on Mon 27th Aug 2007 at 9:28 am
Courts Miscarriages of justice • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Protection of children of drug misusing parents in focus: CCTV proposal

“‘Put CCTV in addicts’ homes to protect children’” Herald
“To protect our children” Herald
“CCTV in homes plan attacked” Evening Telegraph
“Bid to put CCTV into addicts’ homes to help kids ‘won’t work’” Evening Times
“Save addicts’ children with home CCTV” Sunday Herald

See also

Scottish Executive (August 2007). Letters of Assurance 2: Children Affected by Drug-Misusing Parents and Drug Misuse. Report on the Child Protection Letters of Assurance exercise

Posted by MM on Mon 27th Aug 2007 at 9:02 am
Children and justice Crime Prevention CCTV Drugs and alcohol • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

MacAskill visits East Renfrewshire to hear of youth crime prevention projects

“Danish blueprint to help cut youth crime” Herald
“‘Campus cops’ cutting youth crime” BBC
“As spotlight falls on anti-social youth ... ‘Scotland fails its young’” Sunday Herald
“Youth offences down in police purge on pupils” Evening Times
“Objct lesson in keeping the streets safer” Scotsman

Press release

“Justice secretary hears how council bucks youth disorder trends” East Renfrewshire

Posted by MM on Mon 27th Aug 2007 at 8:36 am
Children and justice Crime Prevention Young People • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Wildlife poisoning and sea bird harvest: issues of criminality, tradition and estate management

“Hunt for the Scottish poisoners” Guardian

“Protesters unable to prevent ‘stone age’ bird slaughter” Guardian
“Animal rights activists demand end to gannet slaughter” Scotland on Sunday

Research tip: for other relevant posts try entering ‘poisoning’ in the search box.

Posted by MM on Mon 27th Aug 2007 at 7:28 am
Corporate issues Environment • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Cafe closure and street drunks in Edinburgh

Update

“City makes cash move to solve street drunks crisis” Evening News

Following posted on 07.08.07

“Aitken’s rethink on homeless” Evening News

Following posted on 06.08.07

“Churches blast city over street drunk crisis” Evening News

Posted by MM on Mon 27th Aug 2007 at 6:52 am
Crime Prevention Drugs and alcohol • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Audit Scotland publishes follow up report on Youth Justice

Thursday, August 23, 2007

“ASBOs ‘throw youth justice into disarray’” Courier
“Value for money of war on youth crime questioned” Herald
“Tackling youth crime: A £100m waste of money” Scotsman
“Cash ‘fails’ to curb youth crime” BBC
“ASBOs for under-16s putting pressure on justice system” STV
“Youth justice money doesn’t demonstrate value” Law Society Journal Online
“Youth justice spending not effective” Holyrood.com
“Crime battle cash doubts” Evening News

Press release

“Improvements in youth justice processes, but impact on outcomes
unclear” Audit Scotland

See also

http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/. Follow the publications links to the document which is available in a number of formats, including a podcast.

Posted by MM on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 at 8:15 am
Antisocial Behaviour Children and justice Children's hearings Young People • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Dundee domestic abuse strategy launched

“Domestic abuse strategy launched” Evening Telegraph
“Plan to tackle increasing abuse” BBC

See also

Dundee Domestic Abuse Forum

Posted by MM on Thu 23rd Aug 2007 at 7:25 am
Gender and crime Domestic abuse • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Appeal Court rules for SPS in prisoner telephone warning rights case

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Update

“Judge ‘wrong to back inmate’ in human rights phone case” Scotsman
“Prisoner’s phone case overturned” BBC
“Prison phone decision overturned”STV
“Prisoner phone calls ruling premature, say judges” Law Society Journal Online

Following posted on 23.03.07

“Jail phone case appeal considered” BBC

Following posted on 21.03.07
“Outrage at ‘ludicrous’ rights for prisoners” Press and Journal
“Prison Inspector backs jail phone call decision” STV
“Jail messages before inmate calls ‘breach human rights’ ” Herald
“Judge backs armed robber in fight over jail phone message” Scotsman
“The law-abiding have rights, too” Scotsman
“Prisoner wins phone rights case” BBC
“Armed robber wins prison phone legal fight” STV
“Prisoner wins phone message case” Law Society Journal Online

Press release
“MacAskill on Prisoner Phone Rights Case” SNP
“Phone system case makes Scotland a laughing stock” Scottish Conservatives

See also

Potter: Opinion 2007CSIH67 21.8.07
Potter: Opinion 2007CSOH56
Official Report 22.307: Miss Goldie: I sincerely hope that at the top of the agenda for discussion when the First Minister and the Prime Minister next meet will be how the European convention on human rights has been incorporated into our law. . .

Posted by MM on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 at 8:09 am
Europe and justice Human Rights Prisons and prisoners • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Scottish violence compensation claims fall

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

“Pay-outs to victims of violence fall by £4m” Scotsman

Posted by MM on Tue 21st Aug 2007 at 6:45 am
Victims and witnesses • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Headcams to be used for fare enforcement on Glasgow buses: drone surveillance spreads

“Fare dodgers filmed” Evening Times
“Cameras will make bus travel safer” Evneing Times

“Eye in the sky: police use drone to spy on V festival” Guardian
“Police spy in the sky fuels ‘Big Brother’ fears” Telegraph 22.5.07

“Liberal Democrats launch attack on Brown’s ‘surveillance society’” Independent

See also

MW Power microdrones

Posted by MM on Tue 21st Aug 2007 at 6:38 am
Crime Prevention CCTV Civil Liberties • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Research published on policing and minority ethnic youth in Scotland

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

“We are under siege from racism, say ethnic youths” Herald
“Understanding is key” Herald
“Living under the ‘white gaze’” Herald
“‘Racism is everywhere...I confront it’” Herald
“Ethnic youths view police as racist” Evening Times
“Report raises police racism fears” BBC
“Ethnic teens feel targetted by police” STV

Press release

“Publication of report into policing of minority ethnic young people” Lothian and Borders Police

See also

Frondigoun et al (2007) Researching Minority Ethnic Young People in Edinburgh and the Greater Glasgow Area

Posted by MM on Wed 15th Aug 2007 at 8:14 am
Hate crimes Police • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

Post Requested:

Call for better integration of prison and community drug services

“Meeting on addict prisoners called for” Courier
“NHS Tayside Chairmen calling for harsher approach to drug problem” STV

Posted by MM on Wed 15th Aug 2007 at 7:37 am
Criminal Justice Social Work Drugs and alcohol Prisons and prisoners • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend