Official Report 356KB pdf
Members will notice that the agenda has been revised to include a motion from Phil Gallie, on the Discontinuance of Prisons (Scotland) Order 2000 (SSI 2000/186). The motion was lodged only today and, strictly speaking, that gave less than the normal notice required under rule 8.2 of the standing orders. Rule 8.1.2, however, allows for a motion to
I thought this meeting was due to finish at 5 pm today. When will it finish?
We will go on until we are no longer quorate, because we have a great deal of work to do.
I presumed the meeting would finish at 5 pm. I can wait a bit, but I have already moved everything today in order to convene the Public Petitions Committee. I will have real difficulty if the meeting goes on until 6 o'clock.
We deal with these matters now or not at all. We have to deal with the judicial appointments consultation, because that ends before we come back after the recess.
I am grateful to the convener for the words she used to accept the motion. They described the situation adequately. I make no apologies for the late submission. If they consider our preparation of amendments for the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill and the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Bill, everyone will recognise the pressures that we have been under.
This is rather a pointless debate, as the issue of prison closures has been public for quite some time and has been discussed in other places and in other ways. The Parliament has addressed the issues. The Discontinuance of Prisons (Scotland) Order 2000 is simply to allow the Scottish Prison Service to sell off the sites. Two of the three prisons have already closed; the third is due to close. There is no substantial advantage to be gained by debating this. I do not want to prolong the committee any further.
That is the point I wanted to make. Two of the prisons are closed. It is disingenuous of Phil Gallie to bring Barlinnie into the equation, because Penninghame and Dungavel are a different category of prison. I thought that the Minister for Justice had made that point when this was discussed extensively. It is not just the fact that we have prison estate that makes the Prison Service a difficult issue, but the type of prisons and the categories of prisoner that require to be detained in them.
I have sympathy with Phil Gallie. I agree that the order cannot be opposed at this late stage, but I think the closure of Penninghame is mistaken. It was an excellent open prison and I dispute the reasons for its closure.
Phil, what do you wish to do with your motion?
I disagree that we have debated the issues. We were told that the closures would happen. We did not take a collective decision on the future of Dungavel and Penninghame. There have been debates in which the issues have been discussed, but we did not have the opportunity to determine the final outcome.
Phil Gallie says that the minister does not have any right to object. Am I correct in thinking that the minister said that two of the prisons are closed? The order merely enables the Scottish Prison Service to sell the buildings and land. In fact, if we agreed to this, all that we would do is tie up capital assets. Is it correct that there is no possibility today of the committee stopping the closures going ahead?
That may be the position for some of the establishments, but it is not necessarily the position for all of them. If it is the position for all the establishments, that emphasises what I said at the start about the process by which we are expected to deal with these matters, whether we agree with them or not, even though they are in effect foregone conclusions. There is an issue about the committee's ability to have an input into these matters.
I agree. We are repeating ourselves when we say that this is another rush job. I am not happy that we have had so little time to discuss this. It could make the committee look pretty silly. We have scrutinised the Prison Service but have not had the chance to come to a conclusion, and to that extent I agree with Phil Gallie.
There is no doubt that we will return to the issue of prisons.
I have to agree with the minister this time. I do not understand the point of the motion. Whether we did so long enough or well enough, we debated the Prison Service's decision to close three prisons. That has been a long-running dispute. Some have one view and some another, but the decision has been made, and those prisons are operationally shut or shutting. We are now left with three empty buildings, which are presumably looked after by watchmen. For some technical reason, one cannot sell off prisons unless they cease to be designated as that kind of property. It does not make any sense to keep those prisons lying there.
There is always the wild hope that if those buildings, particularly those at Penninghame, are still designated as prisons, it might be realised that they carried out a useful service and they might be reinstated as prisons. I do not believe that anything is too late. Therefore, I stand by the motion.
Can Phil Gallie explain why he would want to tie up capital assets? If we agree to the motion, that is what will happen in effect. I am a bit confused about that.
I do not want capital assets to stand empty for a long period of time. I would like the Government to reflect on the situation, particularly in respect to Penninghame. If there is any way of inducing a reconsideration, I am prepared to take that line.
Phil Gallie has made his point. He has a motion before us, on which he is insisting.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 3.
Motion disagreed to.
We now have to go through the other statutory instruments, for which the clerk has prepared notes. I will go through them, and anyone who wishes to comment on them may do so. They are the Census (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/194); Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment Regulations (SSI 2000/181); Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/182); and Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (SSI 2000/189).
I have a question on the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 (Amendment) Regulations 2000. I was interested to see that, in the main, the Executive had accepted the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations. Were there any that it did not accept, or is that too hard a question for this time of day?
I am not in a position to give you a detailed answer, but I will find out that information.
It is a matter of interest because of the forthcoming cross-party parliamentary working group on diligence.
The next instrument is the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2000 (SSI 2000/187).
I want to flag up the memorandum to the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which I found interesting. The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules were first made in 1994, and were then amended five times. This lot will be amended again for next year. Importantly, the memorandum says that some of the amendments that will come in in 2001 relate to policy issues.
I give notice that, after the meeting, I will lodge a motion, partly on the basis of what Euan Robson has said but principally because there are several points that I would like to be debated. Out of courtesy to the committee, I thought that I would be putting too much on the agenda if I attempted to do it today.
I look forward to a debate with Phil Gallie once again. I assure Euan Robson that we intend to consult on the policy issues, so the committee will have every opportunity to comment.
We have now noted all of the statutory instruments. I do not think that we need to detain you any longer, minister, although we have not finished our agenda. I thank you for coming this afternoon. We will see you tomorrow morning at 9.30.