Item 3 relates to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Professor Gane has provided members with a summary of written evidence. There are also some suggestions of witnesses from whom we may wish to take oral evidence. Having heard from the Executive today, members may wish to think about which matters they consider the most important.
Now that the evidence has been received and we are starting to grapple with the bill, I have grave concerns about the timetable. The bill is complex and wide-ranging. I suggest respectfully to my colleagues that the present timetable makes it unlikely that we will be able to give the bill the required quality of scrutiny.
I intended to seek clarification of the timetable.
Under the current timetable, the intention is to complete stage 1 consideration, including the stage 1 debate, by 13 September, which is the second week after the summer recess. In other words, we would have to report by the first week after the summer recess.
How many weeks from now does that give us?
We have about six weeks—I cannot remember exactly. The original intention was to start stage 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at the same time as considering the draft report, which will probably take two to three weeks. That would leave us about one half day and two full days to take oral evidence.
In my opinion, there is absolutely no prospect of that happening. There is so much in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that I do not believe that the proposed timetable is feasible.
As well as the provisions in the bill, two issues have been raised in a letter from Jim Wallace—the trafficking of human beings and the mandatory requirements in relation to insanity in murder cases under the European convention on human rights. Two big issues have been added to an already full bill and I am mindful of the committee's views. The timetable is quite tough, so we might have to review it along the way.
Until we know how many evidence-taking sessions we will have and until we have received answers to some of the issues that have been raised today, the task in hand will be difficult. I am sure that all members are happy with the first session. I propose that we hold the first session and make a call at that point. I am not suggesting postponing for the sake of it—I think that we are genuinely not in a position to arrange the second session.
It is open to the committee to schedule as many sessions as it needs and we can try to make that happen. However, it would be helpful to find out from whom members might want to hear on 22 May—even if the list that we produce is not exhaustive—to allow us to line up those witnesses.
Duncan Hamilton is correct. We cannot take evidence on the children's hearing system until the Executive clarifies what the relevant provision is all about, because the whole line of questioning hinges on that. To be fair, the Executive usually comes back to us quickly. We can chase that matter up. We are also still waiting for clarification on the provisions in the bill that relate to victim statements.
Do we want to prioritise various provisions by giving them more time than others when we take evidence, or will we simply divide up the bill according to the number of parts? In my opinion, some prioritisation is necessary, especially in light of the evidence that we have heard today—a huge number of questions remain unanswered. We have not obtained sufficient clarity to enable us to proceed.
That is a good suggestion.
We need to decide what the priority areas are.
If the committee could prioritise the areas that it wishes to examine, we could see where that takes us. That would not exhaust our options. Even with a provision that is non-controversial, members might want to take evidence to satisfy themselves that they understand the measure and that it is practical. It would be helpful if the committee could point to the areas that they consider to be of the highest priority.
It is a bit unfortunate that the physical punishment aspect of the bill is the one that has attracted so much controversy, because I find other aspects of the bill of more concern, particularly the vague proposals about victims' rights.
I understand why Bill Aitken is saying that. The problem is that there is a whole-day meeting the following week, so the witnesses would be given only a week's notice—I assume that we will ask a lot of people to come for the whole-day meeting.
The problem is that ACPOS and the consortium will want to speak to the committee about the children's panel provision. If we do not speak to them about that, we would have to ask them to come back. We can go through the list that Professor Gane has given us and members can indicate their preferences as to whom they want to call to the committee. We can take the list as a starting point.
It strikes me from today's evidence that the biggest absence has been statements about exactly what the Executive wants to achieve. You are right to suggest that today's witnesses could not have answered some of those questions. Would it be useful to suggest that we have an early meeting with the minister to establish the answers to those questions? I presume that it would be easier to secure his attendance at such short notice than that of some of the other groups. If we do that, we will get the policy statements upfront, after which we can think about the rest of the issues.
That seems to be a good suggestion. Is there support for that?
Would that be scheduled for the morning meeting on 15 May or 22 May?
We should say to the minister that we need to speak to him before we start questioning others in case we go down the wrong route.
If members tell the clerks whom they want to see and in what order, we can work out the detailed logistics.
We want to see the minister early and we will probably still have to see him at the end of the process. That is unusual, but it is necessary.
The Faculty of Advocates will have to give evidence.
Scottish Women's Aid might provide a perspective on whether part 3 of the bill on sexual and violent offenders is going in the right direction.
Despite my interest in the subject, I do not think that the part on sex offenders needs to be looked at in great depth at stage 1. Perhaps we will be quite well informed when we discuss it at stage 2. There has not been a lot of feedback on that part of the bill.
Professor Gane, why do you think that we should take evidence from the British Psychological Society?
The reason why I suggested that we should hear from someone from that society, which is, if you like, the professional body, is that considerable discussion took place in the MacLean committee about how robust the science is on risk assessment. That is a developing area and I know that concerns were expressed that the science was not robust, as the MacLean committee accepted. Given that the measure involves a significant intrusion into individual liberty, it is important for the committee and the Parliament to be sure that it has a defensible basis and that there is a reasonable consensus about it in the scientific community.
So we will begin by taking evidence from the Parole Board for Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish branch of the British Psychological Society. From whom shall we take evidence on victims' rights?
I suggest that we take evidence from Scottish Women's Aid and the Commission for Racial Equality. The area of criminal justice with which the CRE deals has recently acquired a higher profile. There has also been an increase in the number of offences linked to race.
Professor Gane, you suggested that we should take evidence from the CRE at some point.
The CRE made a general submission, as well as particular points. It takes the view that throughout the bill issues are raised that fall well within its remit. It would be sensible for us to take evidence from the CRE at an early stage, so that we can identify those issues. We could then pursue them with other witnesses.
A list of organisations from which we may want to take evidence on victims' rights has been circulated. Those organisations include Victim Support Scotland, Save the Children, Scottish Women's Aid, the CRE, Age Concern Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. It is important that we hear from Age Concern Scotland.
How would it work if we invited Scottish Women's Aid to our first evidence-taking session?
I suspect that we will end up asking witnesses about different parts of the bill when they appear before the committee. That is preferable to inviting them to give evidence two or three times.
We are taking a similar approach to the one that we took with the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. If we are short of time on some issues, we will have to cut to the chase. I would not mind hearing evidence on Scott Barrie's question about whether the age limit for offenders whose cases will be handled by children's hearings is right. However, we can deal with that further down the line. We are pretty clear on the issues.
The issue of statements has also been raised. I would like to hear more about the status of those—how they will be cross-examined and tested. Would it be possible to hear from practitioners in the area? I understand that we have not yet received a submission from the Law Society of Scotland, but that that is in train. We could take evidence from the society on the issue that I have raised. Alternatively, we could hear from one of the bar associations.
We could also take evidence from the Sheriffs Association. I suppose that that is the issue that needs to be clarified. If the Executive tells us that statements are meant to have an impact at sentencing, we may want to take evidence from the organisations that have been mentioned.
In part, is this not a question for the Lord Advocate? That point was made very clearly.
Evidence on procedural issues that we have taken from Crown Office officials in the past has been quite helpful.
Shall we ask to hear from the Crown Office?
At the moment we plan to take evidence from Age Concern Scotland and from a representative of the Crown Office.
We may also want to hear from the Law Society of Scotland, if it has made its submission by that point.
Some of this is subject to clarification by the Executive of its policy objective in making provision for victim statements, about which there is huge confusion. After taking evidence from the Executive, we are still unsure of that and are seeking evidence from representatives of other organisations that will clarify it. We are going round in circles on the issue.
I think that we will get an answer pretty soon. Usually we receive a written statement from the Executive clarifying the issues that members have raised. We will see that before we hear from the minister. Professor Gane, can you guide us on whom we should take evidence from if the Executive says that part of the objective of victim statements is to influence sentencing?
In that context, it is unlikely that the committee would be greatly assisted by the Sheriffs Association. I am not sure that the Sheriffs Association would feel that it was in a position to comment on those provisions, as its members tend to be rather circumspect about such things. A balance could be struck if the committee were to hear the view of the Crown Office—after all, it will implement the provisions—and the view of either the Law Society or the Faculty of Advocates.
Okay—we could hear from the Crown Office and the Law Society. I suggested the Sheriffs Association because representatives of the association gave evidence when we dealt with the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill—they were very helpful and enlightened the committee. We can come back to that point.
What about evidence on drugs courts? As such evidence does not appear to be a priority for the committee, shall we put it on hold?
Are there any priorities among the list of potential witnesses on non-custodial punishments?
Two issues seemed to come out of the evidence. First, in some people's view, the various services and agencies do not seem to be properly integrated, particularly in the area of anti-social behaviour. The committee should explore those issues. Secondly, there were concerns about the impact of anti-social behaviour orders on other important policies, such as security of tenure. If those provisions are not a priority for the committee, we could discuss them at a later date. However, from the reasonably long list of potential witnesses, I would have thought that Shelter Scotland has a view that needs to be explored. It is interesting to note that the submission from the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland also picks up on some of the practical implications of the anti-social behaviour provisions.
When we consider non-custodial punishments, I presume that we must examine the issue of anti-social neighbours and the impact of alternatives to custody.
Yes.
Those areas are quite distinct. Although I am clear about the move towards alternatives to custody, I am concerned that the procedures are not properly joined up. Who did you suggest could give evidence on that point?
Diane Janes's submission was quite interesting. I do not know her, but she is the sociable neighbourhoods national co-ordinator for COSLA.
Do members want to call Diane Janes, if she is available? We could call one other witness on inter-agency working and non-custodial sentences. Non-custodial sentences will probably be the Executive's biggest theme in relation to prison policy. The bill contains some of the features that will allow us to move away from custodial sentences, such as the provisions on restriction of liberty orders, tagging and public safety. We must take evidence on those points.
So we are to invite representatives of COSLA, Shelter Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Housing.
I think that the COSLA representatives will be speaking about the anti-social neighbourhood aspect. We need someone to speak about the whole question of criminal justice social work and the management of non-custodial sentences.
I know that everyone has had an opportunity to submit evidence, but there are people missing from the list from whom I would like to hear. On victims' rights, there is the issue of people giving statements in court. We heard some international examples of that today. I would be keen to hear, from the academic community or anyone else, about international comparisons relating to statements being given in court and non-custodial punishments. Could we do some comparative work in that regard?
That is a good point. Can you think of anyone, Professor Gane?
There is an enormous amount of literature on victim statements. Whether there is anyone reasonably local who is familiar with the Scottish environment is another question. I could do a quick check and let the committee know of anyone via the clerks.
We could agree at this stage to call Diane Janes and either Shelter Scotland or the Chartered Institute of Housing to talk about anti-social neighbourhoods, and we could then give some thought to the kind of evidence that we want to take on non-custodial sentences. I suggest that we leave that open for suggestions at the moment; Professor Gane may come across someone from whom we could take evidence.
Part 7 of the note relates to physical punishment of children. The submissions on the subject are quite weighty, and we need to think about how we get a cross-section of opinion.
In view of the large number of individual submissions, we should give at least one individual, and possibly two, the opportunity to come before us—although I am not pointing at any particular submission in suggesting that. Given the large number of submissions, individuals would feel let down if the committee did not hear from some of them. I know, however, that that presents some challenges.
Indeed. I am not opposed to the suggestion, but there is a question of how practically we would pick out two submissions.
We could pull names out of a hat.
It might have to be done that way. I genuinely think that, if we invite people to participate in the process, and given that we have received some quite weighty and serious submissions from individuals—we have had some others that perhaps have not made such a significant contribution to the debate—we should simply choose a couple of them.
We can accept that in principle and give some thought to how it might be done. Is that agreed?
We need to acknowledge the difficulty in choosing one or two individuals. Is that a problem that the clerks could deal with?
I will consider that in discussion with the clerks. We will come up with a suggestion, if we can, and we will put that before the committee before coming to a final agreement.
There seem to be two issues in the context of the bodies that we invite to give evidence. One concerns which organisations are for and against the policy; the other concerns implementation. How are the policy objectives to be put in place in a practical sense? There are questions about that, judging from this morning's evidence. Our evidence-taking sessions should focus on those two issues. I suggest that we select one or two organisations that are for and against the policy respectively. We could then invite the practitioners—the police and the Law Society of Scotland in particular—to state whether they think the bill is practical and enforceable, and whether they feel that it is necessary, given current law.
That is the key point for me. We must hear from the Law Society or a similar organisation, because we are comparing a current law with a proposed clarification of that law. I did not get any satisfaction on that this morning.
I agree. Let us pick witnesses who will cover all the issues, some who are in favour of the provisions—bearing it in mind that some people are in favour of the provisions, but think that they do not go far enough—and some who are opposed to the provisions.
The suggestion was that the organisations that are listed would form a panel.
Perhaps we should have someone from the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance, which incorporates all the children's charities.
The reason that I did not propose the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance is because it is a single-issue pressure group. It was not clear to me from its evidence what particular insights, beyond the predictable, they would provide.
However, Children 1st, Save the Children, Barnardo's and Children in Scotland are the key players in that group and so a witness from the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance would cover all those charities.
That is a fair point. We can bring them together not as a single-issue campaign, but for their expertise on children in general.
As I understand it, the age platform is negotiable and is subject to evidence that the committee takes. The Scottish Executive is not taking a hard line on an age of three, but has made it clear that it will reconsider the matter if there is evidence to suggest that the age limit should be lower. However, once again, we need evidence.
I would like the panel to reflect any special needs that children may have as a result of disability. Capability Scotland is an obvious choice. However, another group might be able to cover that adequately.
We will probably have to come back to the matter because it is complex. Perhaps we could begin by taking evidence on child development? Perhaps someone from the central research unit could come and talk to us.
The central research unit of what?
The Scottish Executive. I am open to other suggestions.
We might need some independent outside work as well as work from the Scottish Executive. If the Executive has concluded that three is the appropriate age, the temptation will be for it to defend that position, rather than to be objective.
It has been proposed that we should hear evidence from psychologists.
Psychologists would certainly be the obvious group to consult on child development.
Okay, we will hear evidence on child development from an independent source as well as from the central research unit. That would give us a balance. Is that agreed?
We could then move on to hear from the organisations that have submitted evidence. I do not think that we can take evidence from everyone.
The panel of children's organisations is a good suggestion.
That panel would include Save the Children, Children 1st, Barnardo's and Children in Scotland.
We are trying to limit the number of people from whom we hear.
We will sort out the behind-the-scenes orchestration of that, but we can consider the proposal.
It is also important to hear from the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, given that it has a direct remit for dealing with pre-school children.
Where would it fit in?
It would be included in the list of those who are in favour of the bill.
On the panel?
Yes.
So the panel would consist of Save the Children, Children 1st, Barnardo's and Children in Scotland.
I am not entirely sure that we need necessarily to talk to all those organisations, although we could do so if we wanted to. However, given that they are the key players in the Children are Unbeatable! Alliance, I am sure that they could come to some arrangement.
We do not need to hear repetitive evidence. We need to hear from the organisations, but there are practical difficulties. They could help us to make an arrangement whereby we could talk to as many children's organisations as possible, in an orderly manner.
Can we see the list first, to see whether we can whittle it down?
Yes, you will see the list before the witnesses come.
Could we have some information about those organisations? I have not heard of a number of them.
Can anyone assist us in explaining what the Christian Institute and Christian Outreach Centres are?
I cannot enlighten your darkness in that sense. It would be most useful to hear from organisations that work with children. That will automatically exclude some organisations. My view is that we should not be interested in opinions, but in experience.
Does that mean that the Scottish Parent Teacher Council is in or out?
I am not sure that I agree with Stewart Stevenson's point. The basis on which we decide whether someone's opinion is valid is a tad arbitrary. What strikes me from the list of organisations that are against the bill is that we are in danger of becoming hostages to those that have been activated enough to reply to the consultation. We need to step back from that. The organisations on the list are some of the organisations from which we want to hear. The committee is never going to reach a unanimous position on the morality of the issue, but we have to consider the practicalities of introducing legislation. By all means let us have a panel of organisations that want to progress the arguments in their submissions. I emphasise that we come back to—
Yes. I agree entirely. Our starting point is to consider what evidence we can get on children's development. We can hear from some of the organisations—for and against the bill—that have submitted written evidence provided, as Stewart Stevenson said, that they can be fitted in. We should finish by considering the practicalities of the legislation. That is where the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service might come in. We must decide which of the organisations that are clearly set against the bill we want to bring before the committee. It will not be easy to set up a panel, because the organisations are not necessarily connected. It would certainly be interesting to hear from Families First.
The reason why I suggested the Scottish Parent Teacher Council was that it introduced in its evidence material that related to a survey that it had conducted on parental reaction. I have reservations about the methodology of the survey, but the council claims to represent a substantial body of parental opinion.
We agreed that we want to hear from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council.
Whom does Families First represent?
As no one can help on that point, we will see whether we can get that clarified. While we are doing so, I will take Scott Barrie's question.
Following on from Professor Gane's point, I wonder about parental attitudes. Given that young people are affected by the provision, perhaps we should also talk to them?
Given that I said that on "Good Morning Scotland"—I did not really say it—I suggest that the youth parliament have refreshing and different views on the subject.
That is exactly my point.
That might be a positive thing to do. It would appear that the Scottish youth parliament has its own justice committee. I do not know much about it, but—
They were telling us about it last week—
The discussion is getting a bit messy. Let us see where we are on child development. We will start with a panel of children's organisations that will include Save the Children and so on. We will also hear from the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and we are checking Families First. We will finish with the Law Society of Scotland. Do members also want to invite someone from the Crown Office?
I was going to make another point.
Let us tidy up the list first.
I know very little more about Families First than was revealed in its submission. It is interesting to note that the submission refers to some of the research that has been done in respect of the physical punishment of children. The views that it expressed were slightly more careful than the simple statement; "We do not like the Executive's proposals for the corporal punishment of children."
The point that I wanted to make was on that subject. I might have overlooked something, but we appear to have received evidence only from Christian organisations. It might be useful actively to solicit written evidence from Muslim organisations and possibly also from Jewish organisations.
We wrote to all faiths asking for evidence.
I would have expected that. However, if a lot of weight is to be given to the predominant religious view that is held in Scotland, we should be especially careful that the Executive and the committee also have a view on the views of our minority faiths. If they choose not—
We cannot force people to respond.
I know that.
Professor Gane's point is important. As Stewart Stevenson also said, we need to ensure that we have covered every avenue. It is a matter of hearing the arguments from the religious points of view, whether Christian or any other faith. We do not want to close the door on that.
We should hear them. We should draw up a list using the same procedure that we are using to choose the individuals who are to give evidence. It would be difficult to pick two or three.
We will have to trawl through the submissions and see whether anyone who has written to us can be encouraged to give evidence.
Is it possible for us to get a legal opinion on the subject? Professor Gane said that he is not convinced by the legal arguments that we have been given. Is Professor Gane, or someone else whom the committee could invite or commission, in a position to give us at least a definitive statement about the validity of the argument?
The human rights argument will be made and, in that connection, it might be sensible to take evidence from an organisation such as the Scottish Human Rights Centre. The centre would give a reasonably objective evaluation of whether there is a genuine human rights concern.
We should give further thought to how we can bring out the human rights perspective of the bill. We could do that in a variety of ways. One suggestion is that we take evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Centre. We will leave that on the table for the moment and give it more thought but, in principle, the committee would at least like to hear arguments on the human rights perspective so that it can take that into account at stage 1.
Are we dropping Families First? I know that our list of witnesses is stacking up, but I thought we had agreed to take evidence from Families First.
There does not seem to be a strong view on that, but we will clarify for the committee whom Families First represents. Members will then have another chance if they want that organisation to be called.
I do not think so.
Parts 9 and 10 of the bill deal with bribery, corruption and criminal records. We have not received many submissions on those matters, but we will leave that sticking to the wall. We have also not received much evidence on local authority functions.
I want to make a couple of basic points. If we take evidence first from the Executive, I presume that everything that we have just agreed is with the proviso that we will need to be flexible on who we hear evidence from.
Absolutely. Our decisions on who we will take evidence from depend on how things progress and whether witnesses are available. They are also dependent on the evidence that the Executive gives. We have simply agreed a framework that gives us something to work with. Members will be able to change things if they feel that we are going in the wrong direction.
Will you feed back to the conveners liaison group or the Parliamentary Bureau the committee's feeling that we do not feel that we are in a position to work to the timetable that has been given?
Yes. We will report that we will struggle with the timetable, particularly as the two other provisions that were highlighted today are to be added to the bill. However, we will keep the bureau in touch with where we are.
In setting up the evidence-taking sessions, we should remember that we have an all-day session on 22 May. It would be useful to examine part 7, which deals with children, in a straight run on that day. Given the fact that part 7 forms a big part of the bill's contentious provisions, it would be useful to hear the fors, the againsts and the practicalities all in one evidence session. It should be possible to do that on 22 May, provided that the witnesses can turn up on that day.
I do not think that the committee will disagree to that proposal. If we can manage it, we will deal with part 7 all day on 22 May. That is quite a lot. We will see how we get on with that. At the moment, we have the minister down for 5 June, but that was supposed to be the tail-end of our stage 1 consideration. We will need to see how that goes.
Meeting closed at 13:00.
Previous
Petition