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