Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Official Report 418KB pdf

---

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the meeting. I remind everyone to ensure that mobile phones are switched off in order to avoid disrupting proceedings. All members of the committee are in attendance, so there are no apologies. I welcome Aileen Campbell MSP and Richard Baker MSP. I also welcome Rhoda Grant, who had escaped my vision. All of them are here in connection with amendments to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

Item 1 is consideration of a paper by the clerk—paper J/S3/10/8/1—on the options that are available to the committee if it wishes to take evidence on amendments to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. The key questions for the committee are summarised in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the paper.

10:15

An unfortunate, but perhaps inevitable, part of dealing with such complex legislation is that late in the day we receive amendments, some of which are far reaching. No one is to blame for that; all the amendments from the Government and from members that have been lodged late in the day are, of course, worthy of consideration and will be considered. However, the amendments concern several issues on which the committee has not taken evidence. We should have the benefit of evidence on those issues before making determinations on the relevant amendments.

I refer members to paragraph 6 on page 2 of paper J/S3/10/8/1, which highlights several issues. The double-jeopardy issue has largely gone away, because of a comment by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the chamber the other day and because of private discussions that I have had with him. I am reconciled to the situation for the moment—although we will see what develops—so we need not take evidence on that.

However, we must consider taking evidence on the new offence of stalking, which Rhoda Grant proposes in amendment 402, and on the new offence of threatening, alarming or distressing behaviour, which is in Scottish Government amendment 378. We should also take evidence—possibly restricted—on the minimum sentence for having in a public place an article with a blade or point, which is in Richard Baker’s amendment 10 and my amendment 10A, which would apply after section 24. Other issues are penalties for the offences of brothel keeping and living on the earnings of prostitution, which are in Government amendment 370, and the offences of engaging in, advertising and facilitating paid-for sexual activities, to which Trish Godman’s amendment 8 refers.

My view is that we should arrange to take evidence on those matters. I ask for members’ comments.

There is no doubt that the bill is complex. Many stage 2 amendments have been lodged, several of which deal with matters that were not discussed at stage 1 and on which the committee did not have the opportunity to take evidence. Given that, the clerk’s note sets out several matters on which our considering whether to take further evidence is valid.

In relation to Rhoda Grant’s amendments, the Government’s counter-amendments and the amendments on prostitution, it is clear from representations made to committee members that many strong feelings have been aroused on both sides of the arguments about both subjects. It makes sense for the committee to take further evidence and to take stock before considering how to proceed with those amendments.

I take on board the convener’s points about knife crime. It has been the subject of much analysis and discussion in public, so we are more informed about it, although I would not be against taking limited evidence.

I agree with the convener. Apart from the fact that several amendments have been lodged slightly late in the day, the issue is that a number of amendments concern new issues on which the bill contains nothing. We took no written or oral evidence on many of those matters at stage 1.

I slightly disagree with James Kelly about knives. We took no evidence whatever on knives at stage 1. People have views on the appropriate sentences for knife crime, but it would be reasonable—to say the least—to take proper evidence on that. I am slightly concerned about James Kelly’s use of the word “limited”. Of course, all the evidence that we take will be limited, but evidence on knife crime should be no more limited than that on other subjects.

Although I have a great deal of sympathy with Trish Godman’s amendment, I am concerned about the fact that we have had a lot of late submissions on the issue with which it deals—we have received new material only this morning—so further evidence requires to be submitted to, and considered by, the committee on that amendment, and on the other ones that have been mentioned, before we move forward.

I agree with a good deal of what has been said, not least the convener’s summation. I agree that there are three areas on which we should divide our attention, but it is worth making a few additional comments.

Stalking—which Rhoda Grant’s amendment deals with—and the Government’s proposed new breach-of-the-peace-type statutory offence represent new areas as far as the bill is concerned, but they are relatively discrete areas, on which it would be possible for us to take substantial evidence without departing from the general issues in the bill. In a sense, that makes them easier to deal with.

The proposed prostitution-type offences are pretty wide ranging. The concern is that over the years, all sorts of views have been expressed about the best way of tackling the issue. Everyone is anxious for progress to be made and for the harm that is caused by prostitution to be diminished, but it is a big issue. To be frank, it is the sort of issue that would benefit from the setting up of a body such as a Government commission to examine the ins and outs of where we are and whether legislative changes would be worth while. Such matters are difficult to deal with by way of a by-blow in the context of a bill that is primarily about other issues.

On knife crime, it is true that there is a lot of information and heated opinion in the public domain, but there is much less clear research evidence—the committee has certainly not seen any—on what effects, deterrent or otherwise, particular sentences might have, were the legislation to be changed in that regard. I am talking about the cost implications and the effect on the number of people in prison, for example. As Stewart Maxwell rightly said, we require to take not limited but quite substantial evidence on all that. It is not just a matter of repeating the views on either side; it is a question of seeing what lies beneath those views and testing the evidence in the way that the committee would normally do and has done at stage 1 on other issues. We need to adopt a wider approach to the amendments on knife crime.

I think that we should take limited oral evidence on that, but I am more than happy to ensure that relevant academic studies and statistical information be made available. I am sure that the clerks will involve Stewart Maxwell and Robert Brown in that.

As Robert Brown says, there is a time inhibition, but clearly our proposal would be to take any oral evidence before we had to deal with the relevant amendments. We are okay for this week and for next week—there is enough for us to get on with. We can certainly advertise in the usual manner and see what results that brings in, but I propose that we have a brief and limited oral evidence session on this topic involving two witnesses two weeks hence. We can, of course, return to it during consideration of the amendments.

I do not object to that course of action; I just suggest that the Scottish Parliament information centre may be of great assistance in directing requests for factual and research evidence. That would be preferable to issuing a general call.

That is a helpful suggestion, which we will certainly take up.

The suggestion that the convener has outlined is sensible. It will allow us to take some oral evidence that captures the issues and gives us a sense of the differing views on them. As other members have said, our inviting written submissions will allow us to explore matters in more detail and come to a more considered opinion before we deal with the amendments.

I would like to bring our discussion to a conclusion. We have agreed to take evidence under the headings that have been stated. Is it agreed that we should take what is the easiest administrative route and carry on considering amendments this week and next week, that we attempt to complete the evidence two weeks from today, and that we deal with the question of written evidence along the lines that have been suggested, in particular by involving SPICe?

Members indicated agreement.

For clarity, are you suggesting that we take written and oral evidence on the issues of knives and prostitution and written evidence on Rhoda Grant’s amendments on stalking, as per Robert Brown’s comments, or are you suggesting that we do the same for all three issues?

I am sorry if I did not make that clear.

Those two aspects are not mutually exclusive. I believe that we need to take oral evidence, but that is enough for us to be going on with. We do not require to make final decisions today as to who will be involved.

Absolutely, convener. I do not disagree that the committee should take further evidence on knife crime, because it has not been considered during stage 1, but it is important to reflect on the fact that we have had a parliamentary process through the petition by John Muir, which was also the subject of a summit in the chamber. We received a huge amount of research and evidence as part of that process, which the committee should take on board. In addition, victims of knife crime, particularly Mr Muir, have informed and strong opinions on the issue. It is important that the committee give those their due credence and respect.

What format will the evidence seeking take? At stage 1, we would normally advertise in the usual way. At the very least, we should do something of that sort this time round, although I appreciate that the timescales are difficult and that, as the paper points out, there may be a need to defer our conclusion of stage 2, which would obviously affect the progress of the bill.

We will have to take oral evidence on stalking, as well.

I thank the committee for considering taking evidence on stalking. In particular, I am here to support my constituent Anne Moulds, who has—

You have heard what we are going to do about the issue.

I put on the record my thanks.

I echo a thought that I heard from across the table. I have great respect for John Muir. We have heard from him many times, and those of us who are on the Public Petitions Committee have heard from him more. If I may say so, what we need is not opinion, however well informed it is, but the benefit of research and a wider view of what works and what does not. I say that with the greatest respect to the views of John Muir and David Strang. I therefore suggest that we wait to see what kind of written responses we get, what research is available and where the experts are before we decide from whom we should hear.

That is fine. I just wanted clarification.

I know that we are under time pressure, but I would prefer to treat the areas with the respect that they deserve, and to give them the time that they deserve. If that means going back and asking for a slight extension, it would be appropriate to do that.

I think that the Minister for Parliamentary Business has been made aware of the difficulties under which we are operating. I have indicated to him that we will do our best but that a time extension might well be necessary.

The other decision that we have to make is whether to invite written submissions and, if so, by what deadline. At this stage, I welcome Trish Godman and John Scott, who have joined us for the current agenda item. I understand that Mr Scott wishes to say something.

That is appreciated. Ms Godman—do you have anything to add at this juncture?

Yes. I agree with Stewart Maxwell that the issues are serious and that the more evidence the committee has, both written and oral, the better informed you will be in making decisions. I certainly support that position. Thank you.

As has been made fairly clear, you are pushing at an open door.

Which persons or organisations do we wish to speak to? On knives, John Muir and the chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police, David Strang, who has had things to say about the issue, are the obvious choices.

As what I said before perhaps suggested, I support what Nigel Don said. I agree that we should not exclude other people’s evidence, but we need people such as the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice not just to give written evidence but to give oral evidence so that we can test people about exactly what they are saying. I wonder whether we will need two evidence-taking sessions, either in one go or in successive weeks. I know that it would be difficult to find the time for that and that you are anxious to cut the evidence down, but the matter is important.

It is important. Clearly, I would prefer to take more time to get a satisfactory result rather than to move forward too expeditiously, but time is finite, as I said.

We do not need to finalise the decision today, but there has been a reasonable exchange of views and we know our direction of travel. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who is present, will appreciate our difficulties. As ever, we will do everything possible to proceed with the matter expeditiously.