Site news
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Sign up to receive an
occasional bulletin about new content.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Parliament debated the decision to release Mr al–Megrahi this week and again during questions the next day. Away from the headlines however, the Justice Secretary gave the last oral evidence to the Justice Committee as part of their scrutiny of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, and the First Minister also announced next year’s legislation programme including two justice Bills.
The Justice Committee
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The Committee was joined by the Cabinet Secretary for the last day of Stage 1 oral evidence prior to the writing of the Committee Report, which will either recommend or not, the general principles of the Bill to the Parliament, and will provide the first opportunity for the Parliament to have its say on this important legislation.
In the last session before the summer recess, the Committee questioned the Cabinet Secretary about the parts of the Bill relating to sentencing, community penalties, serious and organised crime and retention of DNA. They began the new session by asking about the outstanding issues: primarily those concerned with licensing and the disclosure of evidence.
Because the more controversial alcohol licensing parts of this Bill have been taken out to be included in the forthcoming Alcohol Bill, most of the questioning about licensing reform concerned issues such as the need for national consistency whilst still allowing for local flexibility in licensing authorities, and there were several questions about whether charitable bodies should be brought under various licensing provisions of the Bill. There was a disagreement between the Justice Secretary and Bill Butler (Lab) about how much discretion local authorities should have, with Kenny MacAskill saying it was up to local authorities to ‘use their common sense’ when making decisions and it was not up to St Andrew’s House (one of the Scottish Government offices) to dictate to local government about how they should fulfil all parts of their job.
Paul Martin (Lab) also wanted to know why the Government were not including ‘antisocial behaviour reports’ in the licensing provisions of the Bill, which were introduced under the previous Administration, and which oblige authorities to find out from the police if there have been any reports made against the applicant when considering a new license. The Cabinet Secretary said that the licensing standard officers should be trusted to get on with their job and that the police‘s view was that these reports were particularly burdensome and did not provide a great deal of information.
The Committee then turned its attention to the disclosure provisions in the Bill, and the Cabinet Secretary spoke about the need to keep detail written into the legislation despite the fact that there have been complaints that it is overly complicated in parts. He said that although disclosure may be simple in theory, in practice it can provide a great deal of complexity.
He also defended the provisions which will make defence statements mandatory in solemn cases. Robert Brown (LD) reiterated concerns that had been raised to the Committee that these statements do not readily fit with the Scottish system which already provides for the use of alibis and special defences, and that they will not work because of the attitude of judges and the legal profession to the rights of the defence in Scots law. The Cabinet Secretary replied that the Crown had provided examples of situations which would not be covered by the defence of alibi or impeachment and that the Crown must have some idea of what the likely defence will be before it can fulfil its duty to provide the necessary information under law.
Finally, he answered questions about the provisions in the Bill relating to a special defence in criminal trials for those with mental disorders. Angela Constance (SNP) raised concerns that had been expressed to the Committee about those who have a diagnosed mental disorder and who know that their actions are wrong but who are unable to stop themselves offending because of their condition. Kenny MacAskill replied that this section of the Bill was written based on the Law Commission’s work, but that he would be open to hearing the Committee’s views if they thought it should be amended.
That concluded this session of evidence and indeed the Committee’s oral evidence as part of stage 1 consideration of the Bill. Next week they begin the considerable task of collating all the information received during evidence sessions and composing their Stage 1 report.
You can read all the transcripts of this meeting in the Official Report, or watch the meeting on Holyrood.TV. You can also read all the material related to the Bill on the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill‘s Homepage
The Chamber
Parliamentary debate on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al–Megrahi
Following last week’s statement to the house, this week the Parliament got its chance to discuss the Lockerbie bomber release in debate. This story has continued to dominate the headlines, with much written in England and Scotland about the motivations and possible deals that lay behind the decision, and this was reflected in the Parliamentary debate, which concerned itself as much with international diplomacy as with issues of Scottish justice.
The Cabinet Secretary began by arguing that the Government’s decision to publish all the correspondence relating to the release, including the medical advice and correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments, showed that there had been no deal, and he argued that his decision had been based on the evidence that was presented to him and his consideration of the rules of due process under Scots Law.
He reiterated why he did not proceed with the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and why, after hearing the medical advice and following the rules of the SPS, he had granted compassionate release. He said that the option of freeing the prisoner in Scotland was also ruled out because it would be utterly inappropriate to have 48 police officers guarding Mr al–Megrahi in a residential area or a hospice for the dying. Throughout his statement, he referred to the documents which the Government had made public, which he said supported his decision and showed that they were committed to transparency and that there were no dirty deals. The Cabinet Secretary then tabled a motion which ended with ‘notes that the decision on compassionate release is in accordance with the recommendations from the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board for Scotland, and endorses the decision as being consistent with the principles of Scottish justice’
Richard Baker (Labour) was immediately interrupted by the First Minister who pointed out the inconsistency between the positions taken Scottish Labour and the Labour Government in Westminster. Mr Baker went on to argue however, that the decision had not been taken with regard to ‘due process’, but rather that the Cabinet Secretary had made his decision and then compiled the evidence together to support it. He also queried why Mr al–Megrahi had to be met in person, and he argued that the police were only consulted about the option of keeping him in Scotland after the decision to release him had been taken. Mr Baker wanted to know why the Lockerbie bomber’s clothes had apparently been flown home before the release decision had been announced, and he pointed out that the PTA could not have been agreed to anyway because the Crown appeal against the leniency of Mr al–Megrahi’s sentence was still outstanding. He also criticised the way that the decision had subsequently been handled, querying how this story appeared in the press a week before it was announced officially. His speech was interrupted by interventions several times by SNP Members who pointed to the UK Government’s involvement in this decision, which overshadowed many of the legitimate questions that Richard Baker was asking.
Bill Aitken (Conservatives) also argued that due consideration of the option of keeping Mr al–Megrahi in Scotland had not been taken. He also wanted to implicate the UK Government in the decision, pointing out that it had now emerged that the Prime Minister ‘did not want Mr al–Megrahi to die in jail.’ He also said that the Government had handled this in a ‘cack–handed amateurish manner’, saying that it should have been left to the First Minister to take the decision and announce it rather than leaving the Justice Secretary ‘out to dry’. Mr Aitken highlighted the less than clear party allegiances in this issues, saying that a SNP back bencher has insisted that pressure was put on al–Megrahi by senior Scottish officials to drop his appeal. He argued that not only had the Cabinet Secretary not sought the correct information, he had also handled the release badly, and he argued that the decision to release on compassionate grounds should never have been considered for someone who had been convicted of murdering 270 people.
Robert Brown (Liberal Democrats) used more measured language, and he said it was the Parliament’s task to decide whether the both the decision and the manner it had been made in, was right. He quoted from the official SPS guidance about compassionate release, pointing out that ‘compassion’ was not the only thing to be taken into account in the decision: it also said that ‘type of offence and prisoner’s supervision level’, and ‘the length of the sentence outstanding, the effect on the overall sentence if early release is granted and any comments that the trial judge made on sentencing which may have a bearing on the question of early release’. He went on to say that although the Justice Secretary was required to make this decision in a quasi–judicial capacity, a judge would never have leaked the release to the press a week in advance, nor would they have met with the prisoner in his cell before making the decision. He said that the correspondence and the minutes of the meeting that took place in Greenock prison made it clear that Mr al–Megrahi had dropped his appeal in return for his release and that this meant that the Cabinet Secretary‘s job to deliver justice and be seen to be delivering justice was in doubt. He concluded by saying that the dropped appeal now means that it is less likely that any new evidence associated with it will now be heard, and that the victims of Lockerbie have not been served by this decision.
There then followed a open debate and a number of good contributions were made from other Members. Elaine Murray (Lab) in whose constituency the Lockerbie atrocity occurred, spoke movingly about the experience of locals who witnessed and were affected by the bombing at the time, and Ian McKee (SNP) spoke from his perspective as a retired GP about the medical prognosis that was given to al–Megrahi. He praised the treatment that the SPS doctor had given to him the procedures and advice that he received, and explained to the Chamber how difficult it is to give an accurate prognosis in the latter stages of cancer. Richard Simpson (Lab), also a GP, took a different take on the medical diagnoses, arguing that the Cabinet Secretary ought to have sought further advice from a cancer specialist.
Mr McConnell (Lab) spoke as the man who was the First Minister when the decision had been taken to transfer Mr al–Megrahi to a Scottish prison, and he said he spoke out about both the decision and the way it was handled. Patrick Harvie (Green) urged the Chamber to rise above party politics for this issue, saying that everyone was aware there were MSPs on all parties who disagreed with their party line but who would still vote with their party, and he said that neither the victim’s relatives nor a man faced with the prospect of dying in a foreign prison whilst protesting his innocence, would be served by retribution.
Although Malcolm Chisholm (Lab) again spoke in support of the Government, all other members who spoke did so along party lines.
This was an elucidating and thorough debate, although perhaps hampered by the fact that the Justice Secretary did not have to answer any of the specific points that Members had made in their contributions. The Government were no doubt aided by the fact that Labour were compromised by Westminster’s stance, which divided and therefore weakened the opposition. The Government motion was nonetheless defeated at the end of the debate, with everyone apart from the two Green MSPs and Malcolm Chisolm (Lab) voting against them, and Margo McDonald (Ind) abstaining.
You can read all the transcripts of the debate in the Official Report, or watch it on Holyrood.TV. You can also read the considerable press coverage on the CJScotland Newsblog.
Scottish Government’s Legislative Programme
On Thursday the Government announced its programme for the forthcoming year, including a bill to tackle alcohol misuse, and a bill to reform the children’s hearing system.
The First Minister said that the Alcohol Misuse Bill would be based on international best practice and evidence including advice from the World Health Organisation. He confirmed that minimum pricing schemes would be the cornerstone of the approach although it will be only one of a range of other measures to tackle alcohol misuse. Regarding the plans for the Children’s Hearings, he acknowledged that strong views had been expressed during the consultation, and he said that the Government would listen to those views.
You can read the whole statement in the Official Report, and watch it on Holyrood.TV. See also the CJScotland Newsblog
Questions
Draft Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Bill
During a question from James Kelly (Lab), the Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, confirmed that the draft children’s hearings bill which had been published in June, has been put to one side to allow further discussions with stakeholders. He said that given the wide range of commentsthat were received about the proposals, it was clear that the reforms must be right and not rushed. He refused to comment on whether the original plan to introduce a single body to replace the existing 32 local children’s panels would be scrapped or not, saying instead that he looked forward to working with those who are committed to the welfare of vulnerable children.
You can read the question in the Official Report
First Minister’s Questions
The al–Megrahi Release
The Parliament clearly felt as though it had not exhausted the al–Megrahi affair yet on Thursday, as all three questions from Opposition Leaders concerned this issue during FMQs.
Iain Gray (Lab) wanted to know why the Cabinet Secretary’s meeting with the convicted bomber had been leaked to the press, and why he had not flown over to meet the American victim families face to face given that he had met Mr al–Megrahi face to face. He called on the Government to acknowlege their defeat in the Parliament the day before, and he called on the First Minister to set up an enquiry handled by the Justice Committee to examine the Government’s handling of the whole affair.
Annabel Goldie (Con) wanted to know whether the Scottish Government had been involved in what she called any ‘nudge-and-wink’ diplomacy, specifically whether the First Minister had received any monies from Arab States when they had held discussions with them about the Scottish Futures Trust. She said that the First Minister had held meetings with the Qatari Government about receiving funding for the Trust, and that correspondence had shown that the al–Megrahi case had been discussed by them, and that shortly after this the release decision had been taken.
The First Minster replied that all the documentation relating to the release had been published and that that they all vindicate the Government’s assertion that they have made their decision on the basis of matters of justice and upholding the integrity of Scotland’s legal system.
Finally for the Liberal Democrats, Tavish Scott took a slightly different angle on the story, wanting to know whether the Government were going to do anything to uncover the true facts of Lockerbie given that the appeal has now been droped. He asked whether, given the special circumstances of the case, evidence that had been gathered for the appeal could be made public, and he said that if this required a change in the law then the Liberal Democrats would support it.
The First Minister replied that if a ‘legitimate authority’ were to carry out an inquiry into the case, then the Scottish Government would co–operate, and he also disclosed that he had already been in discussions with Law Officers about the possibility of disclosing as much information about the appeal as possible.
You can read all these questions in the Official Report. Once again, you can also read the press in the CJScotland Newsblog.
Short prison sentences and reconviction ratesNext there was a planted question from Stewart Stephenson (SNP) to the First Minister about the recently published figures on reoffending which the Government have used in support of their plans to abolish short custodial sentences. The figures showed that 74% of those who served a sentence of 6 months or less in custody, re–offended within two years. Mr Stephenson quoted from the English Prison Commission report, chaired by Cherie Booth, which had praised the direction that Scotland was moving in, and he said that it was clear that the Scottish Government were taking justice policy in the right direction. The First Minister naturally agreed with Mr Stevenson, adding that he hoped the rest of the Chamber would agree with him too. This hope was short–lived, as both Richard Baker (Lab) and Bill Aiken (Con) used supplementary questions to attack the plans to abolish short custodial sentences.
You can read this question in the Official Report. See also the CJScotland Newsblog
Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005
Robert Brown (LD) accused the Government of changing legislation brought in under the previous Executive ‘by the back door.’ He said that under the Licensing Act 2005, the guidance stated that the restrictions on the sale of alcohol were only supposed to apply only to on–sales, and not to off–sales as well. He agreed that there was a good argument for restricting the sale of off–sales alcohol, but he argued that this should not be done without full Parliamentary scrutiny. The First Minister replied that the 2005 Act was botched and had many deficiencies, and that this would be rectified with the Government’s upcoming Bill aimed at tackling alcohol abuse.
You can read this question in the Official Report. You can also watch all of FMQs on Holyrood.TV
Questions to the Law and Justice Officers
District Courts Reform
Cathy Jamieson asked the Justice Secretary about the Government’s decision to proceed with district court reform only four months after the same proposals were overturned in the Justice Committee. Kenny MacAskill replied that he had received no submissions from the Scottish Court Service who make the decisions about court reform, and therefore that no decision has yet been taken on the district court in question. You can read this question in the Official Report.
Police funding
There was a question from George Foulkes (Lab) about how the Government intends to provide police forces with enough money whilst at the same time continuing to freeze council tax. Then, when the Cabinet Secretary replied that funding for the council tax and the extra police numbers had been agreed with CoSLA as part of the concordat and that last year’s promise of an extra 1,000 officers had been exceeded, Mr Foulkes wanted to know why any of these extra police could not have been called upon to guard Mr al–Megrahi. Kenny MacAskill reiterated the reasons why in his opinion it would have been inappropriate to keep the released prisoner in Scotland. In supplementary questions, Bill Kidd (SNP) pointed out that Strathclyde police are currently funding an additional 60 new officers on top of the officers that the Scottish Government are funding, which he says proves that this police force cannot be that strapped for cash. Bill Aitken (Con) wanted to take some credit on behalf of his partyfor it’s role in securing the extra 1,000 police officers as part of last year’s budget deal with the Government. You can read this question in the Official Report
Eligibility Criteria for Legal Aid
Elaine Murray (Lab) raised the case of the convicted rapist who has claimed large amounts of money in legal aid in order to fund several failed appeals. The Cabinet Secretary said he had recently met with the chief executive of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to discuss this case, and that he would be happy to review this issue, although the possibility that that this would require primary legislation to be amended should be borne in mind, as should the fact that Scotland must continue to adhere to its obligations under the ECHR. You can read this question in the Official Report
Quasi–judicial matters
Alison McInnes (LD) brought up the Government’s handling of the al–Megrahi release again, calling for the Justice Committee to hold an inquiry into the issue. The Cabinet Secretary replied that if members wanted an inquiry then the Government were prepared to consider one. You can read this question in the Official Report
Knife Sales
Wendy Alexander (Lab) asked why the Government had decided not to proceed with a ban on the public display of knives, and the Minister for Community Safety replied that it was better to allow local forces to have discretion about how they enforce the relevant laws, as what is suitable for the centre of Glasgow may not be suitable for a rural part of Scotland. You can read this question in the Official Report
Police Numbers
Bob Doris (SNP) asked a question which allowed the Cabinet Secretary to talk about the recently published statistics which showed the Government had met its pledge to fund an extra 1,000 police officers in the past year. In a supplementary question, Richard Baker (Lab), wanted confirmation from the Cabinet Secretary that the Government would be able to help Strathclyde police force with their budget deficit so that the extra police officers could be retained now that they have been recruited. The Secretary replied that the Scottish Government have to contend with a £500 million budget cut from Westminster this year, which will impact on Scotland. Official Report.
Policing terminally ill prisoners
Alex Johnstone (Con) asked the Cabinet Secretary once again why he could not have arranged for Mr al–Megrahi to be held in a secure hospice, given that police had been able to guard one of the men who attempted to bomb Glasgow airport in 2007. The Cabinet Secretary made the points that he has made several times in the previous days about why he decided it would inappropriate to police a terminally ill man in a hospital or hospice.
You can read this question in the Official Report
You can also watch all the questions to the Law and Justice Officers on Holyrood.TV.
Written Questions
There were written questions this week about: the funding for tackling human trafficking and a range of justice questions including about direct measures and many about the al–Megrahi release. There were a number of questions about drug abuse, a question about numbers of people recalled to custody, and a number of justice questions including the number of crimes and offences committed in the past 20 years and the numbers convicted of handling a weapon. There were questions about the help given to prisoners post release and about the prisoner to prison officer ratio in each prison.
Posted by KM
on Wed 9th Sep 2009
at 12:27 pm
• Permalink • Tell-a-Friend