Justice 1 Committee, 10 Dec 2003
Meeting date: Wednesday, December 10, 2003
Official Report
223KB pdf
Alternatives to Custody
For agenda item 4, members have a note by the clerk on a proposal for a comparative review of alternatives to custody. I remind members that, on 17 September, the committee agreed to develop a funding bid. I invite members to consider the proposal in the paper. With us are Graham Ross and Frazer McCallum of the Scottish Parliament information centre. Will you say a word or two about the paper?
Graham Ross (Scottish Parliament Research and Information Group):
Yes. I do not know how much background detail members would like. The information is all in the draft bid for funding. However, I can run through the paper fairly quickly.
Paragraph 1 is self-explanatory—it contains a summary of the proposed research project. Paragraphs 2 and 3 give the background to the research. As members probably know, the Justice 1 Committee conducted an inquiry into alternatives to custody in session 1. One outcome was the suggestion that the Executive might wish to research alternatives to custody in other jurisdictions. The Executive agreed that such research would be valuable, but said that it did not intend to conduct it at this stage, so the committee decided that it would go ahead with a draft bid for research funding.
Paragraphs 4 to 7 set out the research aims and objectives that the clerks and researchers have developed. Members can see that the bullet points suggest that the research would consider
"The availability and … use of alternatives … in … other jurisdictions",
the effectiveness of those alternatives and
"The applicability of the approach and experience in the jurisdictions studied to the situation in Scotland".
The document is a draft, so it can be changed before it is presented to the Conveners Group, but we suggest proposing a two-stage study. The first stage would involve a desk-based study and a literature review of the alternatives in other jurisdictions. At the end of that stage, an interim report would be produced for the committee that flagged up the jurisdictions that we might want to examine in more detail. The second stage of the study would involve examining those jurisdictions.
Frazer McCallum and I will answer any questions on the draft bid or the process of making the bid.
The paper is self-explanatory.
It is sensible to see what is out there at stage 1 and then to proceed to stage 2 when we have that information. What do we need to decide about the information that the Conveners Group needs to agree to a bid?
The paper that members have will form the basis of the bid to the Conveners Group.
As members have no comments, is everybody happy with the paper?
Members indicated agreement.