Plenary, 09 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, October 9, 2003

Official Report 692KB pdf

---

Criminal Justice Bill

The next item of business is consideration of motion S2M-407, in the name of Hugh Henry, on the Criminal Justice Bill, which is a piece of UK legislation. Members who wish to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now. I see that two members wish to speak against it.

The Westminster Criminal Justice Bill, which was initially considered in the Scottish Parliament on 5 December last year, will reform the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Since last year, there have been further developments, which the Executive believes should be considered by the Parliament.

When I appeared at the Justice 2 Committee on 30 September, the committee expressed concern that there was a possibility that, under the bill, prisoners from England and Wales could transfer to Scotland in the hope of serving a shorter period in prison before being considered for parole. I have since written to the committee convener and I hope that my letter has addressed those concerns.

I hope that the Parliament will agree with me that the few provisions in the bill that apply to Scotland are sensible and worthy of inclusion as part of an overall package of measures. In the main, the provisions can be characterised as being designed to allow current reciprocal cross-border arrangements to be maintained and updated to take account of the reforms that are included in the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that, in addition to the provisions referred to in motion S1M-3671, those further matters which have been brought forward in the Criminal Justice Bill and that relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The minister is aware of the SNP's concerns about Sewel motions. When this Parliament permits Westminster to legislate on a matter that is within our competence, we have a duty to pay close attention.

As the minister said, this Sewel motion is supplemental to one that was agreed to in December last year. Mostly, the bill will involve no substantive changes to Scots law, but there are two exceptions to that. The first is the change to which the minister referred and which was raised by our colleague Annabel Goldie at the Justice 2 Committee. I have seen the minister's letter, which I think clarifies that matter.

The second exception is the matter that I raised with the minister at the Justice 2 Committee. One of the provisions that has been newly added to the Criminal Justice Bill will create in Scots law a new offence of breaching an order of the English Court of Appeal imposing reporting restrictions in cases of serious offences for which a retrial is ordered. Although that offence will be similar in nature to existing offences in Scotland, it will nevertheless be a new offence that will be triable in Scottish courts and will result in a substantial fine for any individual who is convicted of the offence.

Accordingly, it is my view that, when we are permitting Westminster to legislate on such matters, we should all be made aware of what we are doing. As I said, I previously raised the matter with the minister in the Justice 2 Committee, but it is right that the matter is brought before the Parliament as a whole. I look forward to hearing the minister's further comments.

I am indebted to the Deputy Minister for Justice for his response. It is important to place within the public domain the fact that the minister has assured me that, when prisoners from England who are serving a minimum term on an unrestricted basis are transferred to Scotland,

"There would be no reduction in the time to be served in such a case by virtue of being transferred to Scotland".

Given that assurance, I am prepared to withdraw my concern about the motion.

Does Nicola Sturgeon maintain her concern about the motion?

Nicola Sturgeon indicated agreement.

We do not accept that the changes that have been made to the bill are substantial. There are already a range of circumstances in which it would be an offence to report on trials in England and Wales. There are also occasions when the reverse is true, when it would be an offence to report on Scottish cases from elsewhere.

In the first version of the bill, which the Parliament approved on 5 December, the reporting restrictions would have applied automatically, so that any breach would have been an offence in Scotland in the same way as I have described. It is now proposed that the restrictions will apply where the English Court of Appeal makes an order in that respect. Under provisions to be included in the bill, it will be an offence to publish a report in Scotland contrary to any such order that is made. The proposal is not substantially different from that which was approved by the Parliament on 5 December.

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.