Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
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