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