" class="left_link">» Text HereTuesday, 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