Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
This week in Parliament there was a Conservative Party initiated debate on the Government’s plans for minimum pricing for alcohol, which gave all the parties the chance to put forward their position and debate the issues. There was also a statement from the First Minister about a recent major child sex offender trial, and questions to the First Minister about budget cuts and the police. In the Justice Committee, MSPs decided what additional documentation they would seek as part of their inquiry into the Government’s handling of the Al–Megrahi release.
The Justice Committee
The Committee once again spent a large proportion of their meeting in private, writing draft reports for the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill and for the Draft Budget Bill.
Inquiry into Decision on Abdelbaset al–Megrahi
The public part of the Committee’s meeting was spent considering what documentation it should seek as part of their inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the decision to release Mr. Al–Megrahi.
The Committee decided to carry out this inquiry as an attempt for the Parliament to hold the Government to account for decision which was, arguably, one of the most controversial events the 10 years of the Parliament’s sitting. The inquiry will only focus on whether or not the Scottish Government followed the appropriate processes in reaching the decision, rather than whether or not the decision to release on compassionate grounds was justified. This will be a relatively short inquiry; the Committee hope to have concluded the reviewing of documentation and taking of oral evidence (including from the Cabinet Secretary) before the end of the year.
The documentation so far available to the Committee is limited to that which the Scottish Government made public shortly after Mr Al–Megrahi was released, and the Committee now had to consider whether or not they wished to seek additional information.
Nigel Don (SNP) argued that the documentary evidence the Committee had so far seemed to illustrate that the Cabinet Secretary was unaware of the understand that the Americans had of the prisoner transfer deal which was agreed between the UK Government and Libya in 2007. There was some discussion about whether information regarding countries’ understanding of the transfer deal should be sought from the UK and the US Governments or not, and whether this fell within the remit of the Committee’s inquiry. Robert Brown (LD) and Cathy Craigie (Lab) expressed reservations, while other Committee members including the Convenor agreed that this information should at least be asked for, and whether or not it would yielded anything of value would remain to be seen.
You can read the transcript of this part of the meeting in the Official Report, and watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV.
You can also read more about this inquiry in the Inquiry into decision on Abdelbaset al–Megrahi homepage. Finally, you can read the press about this story in the CJScotland Newsblog.
The Chamber
Alcohol minimum pricing debate
On Thursday there was a Conservative led debate in the Chamber about the Government’s plans for minimum pricing of alcohol. Minimum pricing is one of a range of measures that the Government will include in a forthcoming Bill aimed at addressing problematic alcohol consumption. Their plans have met considerable opposition so far; the licensing industry have been lobbying hard, and the Government have also so far failed to persuade their Parliamentary colleagues of the merits of the scheme. However, the specific policy of minimum pricing have yet to be subject to a full debate in the Scottish Parliament, so Thursday’s debate gave all parties the chance to set out their positions on this issue in more detail.
The debate was led by the parties’ health spokespersons in light of the fact that this policy is being promoted under a ‘public health’, rather than ‘criminal justice’ banner.
Murdo Fraser opened for the Conservatives. He said that there were three problems with the Government’s plans for minimum pricing. Firstly, they would penalise responsible drinkers: the price of a bottle of ‘Stowells of Chelsea wine’ would increase, while the price of Buckfast would not, and he questioned which of the two ‘neds’ would start their night out drinking. Secondly, he argued that the minimum pricing plans may be illegal under European law because it would constitute an obstacle to the free movement of trade in the internal market. This is in light of a recent ruling by the Commission against the minimum pricing of tobacco, although the Scottish Government have strongly argued that this would not apply to alcohol. And thirdly, he argued that the plans would damage the Scottish spirits industry, and he quoted from the Scots Whisky Association who estimate that minimum pricing would cost the industry millions of pounds per year.
He also put forwards his party’s own solution to alcohol misuse, including better enforcement of the current laws, particularly in restricting sales to people who are under age; better education on the adverse health effects of alcohol; a clamp down on irresponsible promotions by retailers, including a ban on retailers selling alcohol below cost price; and targeted alcohol taxation: a rise in excise duty on alcopops, as well as on super–strength beers and ciders. He also chided Labour’s position on this issue, because they have not come out full–square against the Government, despite voicing some criticism.
The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, spoke next for the Government. She began by saying that they too wanted a rigorous enforcement of current laws and better education on the effects of alcohol, and she said that the Government would be willing to work with ideas that other parties put forward because a consensual way forward was important. She quoted from recent research which put a financial and health cost of alcohol abuse in Scotland, saying that if minimum pricing were introduced, total alcohol consumption would fall by 5 per cent, hazardous and harmful drinkers’ consumption would fall by 9 per cent, and alcohol–related deaths would fall by almost 20 per cent.
She argued against the Conservative’s view that their policies would penalise the responsible drinker, saying that minimum pricing would be a targeted policy, not a blanket policy: the greatest impact would be on strong, cheap alcohol, which is favoured by harmful and hazardous drinkers, and not on moderate drinkers, nor on mainstream and premium products. She also quoted from those who support their policies , saying they have attracted widespread international praise. The Cabinet Secretary denied that these plans would lead to Scots going to England and Wales for ‘booze runs’, and she said that the EU does not prohibit minimum pricing as long as it is proportionate, nondiscriminatory and achieves a clear health benefit.
Jackie Bailie has taken over from Cathy Jamieson as the Labour party’s health spokesperson, and she spoke next. Indicating her party’s ‘on the fence’ stance, she said that she wasn’t “closing down any options at this stage”. She said that this Parliament has always taken an evidenced–based approach to policy which should continue with this issue, which was too important to play politics with. She said that the statistics on alcohol misuse were “simply appalling”, and painted the picture of a public health picture which the Parliament could not ignore. She did acknowledge that there was a correlation between price and consumption, but she cautioned against the notion that minimum pricing would provide a ‘silver bullet’.
She pointed out that there are different groups who consume alcohol to excess, and different policies may be required for each one. She also said that, although the recent research carried out by the University of Sheffield was persuasive, evidence about the economic and employment effects on minimum pricing also had to be considered. Ms Bailie also urged the Government to share the legal advice it has received regarding the compatibility with European legislation. She concluding by saying that although the Government has said that it aims for consensus on this issue, that did not mean “waiting until other’s come round to one’s own point of view”, and she looked forward to hearing what other parties said on this issue as well.
The Liberal Democrat’s justice spokesperson Robert Brown spoke for his party. He also acknowledged the seriousness of this issue, agreeing that it was absolutely right that the Parliament debates it at “at such a high level of intensity”. He said that although the minimum pricing policy was well intentioned, its effects would be marginal, and that it was badly targeted. He argued that the Government’s obsession with this policy was ignoring the broader and more important issue of how to change Scotland’s cultural attitudes, which say that it is ok and indeed even praiseworthy, to get excessively drunk on a night out.
Mr Brown said that although he had been swayed by the large body of medical and public health experts which have spoken out in support of the policy, the Government’s recent reaction to the European ruling on minimum pricing was the point at which they began to lose the argument given that they were “almost certainly wrong” to claim that the ruling did not apply to alcohol. He also challenged the Government to share their legal advice with Opposition parties to aid them in their consideration of this matter.
During the open debate that followed all Members acknowledged the problem of alcohol in Scotland, but had different remedies to fix it. Many contributions said that there were too many outstanding issues which remained to be addressed before minimum pricing could be introduced, such as the effects of cross border alcohol purchasing and the European legal issues. That the existing laws need to be enforced better was another recurring theme, and some Members criticised the Government for not providing ring–fenced funding for alcohol treatment centres whilst at the same time pushing for minimum pricing. Although most Members acknowledged there was a connection between the price of alcohol and consumption, some though that this should be tackled instead through taxation, which would have the benefit of contributing to public finances, although would have to be levied by Westminster.
At the end of the debate, the vote reflected the unresolved opinion of Parliament on this issue. Although none of the Opposition parties voted with the Government, none of the individual parties’ amendments were agreed to either. The Conservative motion was also defeated despite support from the Liberal Democrats, because Labour and the SNP voted against it. Although the vote was inconclusive, the the debate was successful at elucidating the complex issues and arguments around the problem of alcohol in Scotland, and how to address it. The arguments were well considered and for the most part not partisan or populist. What was revealed was a strong desire to do something, but uncertainty both as to what this should be and what role the Parliament should have in addressing it.
You can read the full debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog
Statement on Sex Offenders
Later that afternoon, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice made a statement to the Chamber about the recent trial which convicted six men for a range of offences relating to child sex abuse.
He said that he made this speech with ‘both pride and sorrow’: sorrow for the fact that these horrendous crimes had occurred, and pride for success of the police operation which had carried out the investigation. He said that ‘operation algebra’ was an historic case and a landmark for the criminal justice system, because it involved the first ever convictions in Scotland for conspiracy to commit abuse against children. He said that he had seen a copy of a report written by Lothian and Borders Police, the City of Edinburgh Council and NHS Lothian into their handling of one of the convicted men, who had already been on the sex offenders registered at the time of the offences. The review is confidential, but the Cabinet Secretary said there were no recommendations for the Government regarding legislation or further guidance, rather the recommendations which were made were for local agencies to consider.
He reiterated that although every effort would be made to bring offenders such as those involved in this trial to justice, these type of offenders were often the most devious and manipulative and therefore the most difficult for the criminal justice system to deal with. He spoke about the ‘limited information disclosure project’ which is running in Tayside, which allows parents to request information on named individuals if they have regular and unsupervised contact with children. The Secretary said that, although the disclosure of information about sex offenders living in communities is a sensitive one, very careful consideration of the rights of everyone involved had to be weighed up, and he thanked all the Opposition parties for supporting this pilot as well.
During questions that followed, Richard Baker wanted to know why the report into the man who was already on the sex offenders register could not be made public, and he argued that there was a continuing need for a specialist unit in Peterhead to treat sex offenders. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the report did not belong to the Scottish Government so it was therefore not his decision whether or not it could be made public, and that the reason it was private was in order to preserve the confidentiality of the victims involved. However, he disclosed that four recommendations had been made in the report including police procedures in the investigation of domestic violence between lesbian or gay partners; consistency in the use of risk assessment tools by the police and other agencies; operational improvements around sexual offences prevention order applications; and the identification of increased risk when an offender admits to fantasising about children. He also said that the MAPPA arrangements were only coming into affect at the time the crimes occurred, therefore there were stricter procedures already in place to reduce these sorts of offences.
Bill Aitken wanted to know whether the Government would consider any further measures, such as satellite tracking people on the sex offenders register, or the requirement for them to take a lie detector test if they caused concern amongst relavent agencies. The Secretary replied that the Scottish Government were monitoring developments in England and Wales where they are trialling polygraph testing, and if these yielded positive results, he would not rule out developing them further in Scotland. However, he ruled out the possibility of Satellite tracking, saying that although technology can be useful it also has it limitations.
Robert Brown (LD) also raised the issue of available places in prison for treatment for sex offenders. He said that there were currently very few places for treatment available, and that only offenders who admit guilt can be offered a place on programmes, meaning that arguably the most dangerous offenders do not access treatment. He also wanted information about the efficacy of the programmes. The Cabinet Secretary replied that there was an evaluation currently underway into sex offender treatment which he would be happy to share with Parliament once it was published, and he shared Mr Brown’s frustrations about only offenders admitting guilt being admitted to programmes, although he said there were good reasons why this was the case.
During following questions, there were discussion about whether the budget for monitoring sex offenders has been cut or not, and the fact that the reoffending rates for sex offenders are considerably lower than for other offenders was also mentioned.
You can read the full debate on the Official Report or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Questions
Children at Risk and Dungavel Detention Centre
Christine Grahame (SNP) asked the First Minister whether any children who had been referred to the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration had been sent to Dungavel detention centre before investigations have been concluded. Dungavel holds failed asylum seekers before they are deported, and the detention of children there has long been a controversial issue. Ms Grahame urged the First Minister to hold talks with the Home Office to ensure that the detention of these children does not happen, and to convey the “revulsion” that Scots have at the practice of holding children there at all.
The First Minister replied that although no children who had been referred to the SCRA have been held in Dungavel over the past 12 months, there have nonetheless been 103 children detained there over the same time period, which the Scottish Government are also “fundamentally opposed to”. He said that he has recently held meetings with the Home Office to press this issue, and that he will continue to do so.
In a supplementary question, Mike Pringle (LD) said that his party also opposes the retention of children in Dungavel, and he wanted to know how a ‘family return project’ which is piloting in Glasgow is getting on, given that its prototype, a centre in Kent, only dealt with a very small proportion of those it initially intended to. The First Minister also welcomed the service that the project delivers, and he said that given that it has only been open since May, it was too soon to tell whether or not it has been successful. You can read this question in the Official Report.
Draft budget and policing
Richard Baker (Lab) asked the First Minister about the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents’ statement that the draft budget would result in cuts to front-line services and an “an inability to respond appropriately to major civil or criminal contingencies”. The ASPS made this claim in a submission to the Justice Committee as part of their scrutiny into the draft budget, and it was subsequently picked up by the press. Richard Baker argued that forces much be able to retain and recruit new officers and that they should not be doing jobs that were previously carried out by civilian staff.
The First Minister replied that central Government funding of police for the forthcoming year will actually increase by 3.1% and he quoted from the recently published Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland’s annual report, which praised the operation of the police, and their ability to meet current and future challenges. He also chided the Labour party for criticising police funding when the Government were increasing their funding at a time of cuts from the Labour Government in Westminster. He also pointed out that the Scottish Government have managed to fund the extra 1,000 officers despite claims from Richard Baker they would not manage to do so.
In a supplementary question, Bill Aitken (Con) pointed out that the reason there are 1,000 extra police is in fact due to the involvement of the Conservative party in the budget two years ago, and not due to the Govenrment’s priorities. He also sought assurances from the First Minister that front–line policing will remain a priority in future budgets, when finances become even tighter.
In reply, the First Minister urged Bill Aitken to persuade his the Conservative party in Westminster not to carry out spending cuts on public services if they came to power and also to oppose spending money on Trident missiles.
You can read this question in the Official Report and watch of all FMQs on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the press about the Government budget and the ASPS’ statement in the CJScotland NewsblogWritten Questions
This week there were several questions about the Government’s minimum pricing policy, how many anti–social behaviour orders have been issued since they were introduced, and how much funding has been given to local authorities for anti-social behaviour strategies. There was a question about the amount of violent crime has taken place in the Lothians and about the age of offenders convicted of handling an offensive weapon, and a question in which the Government refused to name women’s refuges in order to protect the women there. There was a question about whether the police use numberplate recognition technology to monitor protesters, and a question about ensuring the community service does not deprive someone of paid employment, and further questions about community service and employment. There were questions about the funding police receive to police large protests and marches. There was a question which raised an issue which emerged in Justice Committee evidence from the Prison Officers Association concerning numbers of prison officers and their safety, and finally a question about the number of hours of rehabilitation programmes carried out by prisoners.
Posted by KM
on Tue 10th Nov 2009
at 8:34 am
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend