Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 12 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 12, 2000

Official Report 264KB pdf

---

Forward Programme

The next item is consideration of future business, on which I circulated a paper among members. I thought that it might be appropriate for the committee to form a view on what action, if any, should be taken on various matters that have arisen recently. The first item is the Chhokar case. Various ways in which we might proceed are suggested. Do members have any views on that issue?

There may be overlap with the work of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Kate MacLean may be able to tell us whether it would be better to leave this case to that committee.

The Equal Opportunities Committee discussed this case at its most recent meeting, but could not agree a view on the action of the Lord Advocate. We discussed the matter some time ago, but were unable to do so fully because legal proceedings were taking place and the matter was sub judice. We agreed that Michael McMahon, who is the reporter on race issues, would present a report on the case to the committee next week.

There are two issues in relation to all the events of the Chhokar case. First, there is the issue of legal competence, which has been challenged. That is not within the remit of the Equal Opportunities Committee. Secondly, there have been accusations of racism, which are within the remit of that committee. I suspect that that is the area on which that committee will concentrate, if it decides to pursue the case. There is also the option of waiting until that committee can consider the conclusions of the two inquiries.

I suggest that this committee may wish to consider the matter of legal competence and that the other committee may wish to examine allegations of racism. It may be possible to set up a sub-committee consisting of members from each committee to look at the conclusions of the two inquiries. There are a few options, but the Equal Opportunities Committee is no further forward than the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

I agree that the issues of how the family was treated and racism generally are best left to the Equal Opportunities Committee. However, we do not have the competence—I do not mean that pejoratively—to examine legal competence until that inquiry is finished. I have asked many people who were involved in the case what they think about it and I know that nobody would take a stab at that unless they had access to a vast amount of information.

Until the Northern Ireland judge is finished, it would be crazy for this committee to consider legal competence. If that judge reported that there was legal incompetence, it might be a different matter—whatever he says, it might be a different matter. However, I counsel the committee that it would not be a good idea to go down that path before the judge has examined the relevant papers.

It would be wise to leave any examination until we hear what the inquiry finds. However, regardless of that, the committee should still consider the case. Even in the unlikely event that the inquiry finds that there is no case to answer, that would make sense.

Do you want to discuss other future business now, convener?

No, I thought that we would get our arrangements for this first item out of the road first.

I agree with Kate MacLean, but it might be that the race factor impacted on legal competence. A white middle-class lad might not have experienced the same level of incompetence—we do not know. However, without deciding about the competence of legal procedures, I wanted to ask about the nature of the inquiry. We have never really had a chance to discuss that. We have heard the statement and asked questions and there has been a refusal to carry out a public inquiry. I would like the committee to discuss at an early stage the merits or otherwise of the form of the inquiry. That can be done through written submissions, which would form the basis of a discussion of the alternatives.

Given all that the Chhokar family have gone through—I am not making a political point here; my remarks are made as an individual—I feel that they deserve the public inquiry that they have asked for. Members might say that I am prejudicing the debate, but I can be persuaded otherwise. However, I want the committee to consider the nature of the inquiry, not the legal processes.

In the letter that I sent to Jim Wallace, I asked—although it was not specified in the letter—for Michael McMahon to have access to the terms of reference and the remit of the two inquiries. That would allow the committee to discuss the inquiries next week. If the issues of legal competence and race cross over, that would point to the possibility of setting up in future a sub-committee of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee. I cannot pre-empt what the Equal Opportunities Committee will decide next week, but such a sub-committee might be more usefully set up once we have seen the conclusions of the two inquiries. At some point, I suspect that the Equal Opportunities Committee will wish to question the Lord Advocate about the inquiries, in particular about his decision to have two private inquiries. To save duplication, it might be worth arranging for both committees to take evidence at the same time, because of the probable crossover of issues that I have mentioned.

The general feeling is that, although the two inquiries are private—about which some people disagree—a third inquiry at the same time would not be particularly helpful. Therefore, we should probably leave the matter to one side for the moment, with a view to returning to it either on our own or with the Equal Opportunities Committee. Parliamentary Bureau approval would be required for two committees to sit together.

Can I clarify that the proposal is that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee sit together to investigate the propriety or otherwise of holding a public inquiry rather than holding the two inquiries that will take place?

No. We should allow ourselves the flexibility to decide what to do when more information becomes available. I see no point in constraining the committee at the moment. Do members agree?

I agree.

There is another, big area that we could investigate at a future stage, which is the business of public inquiries per se, and how useful they are. It always appears that they will be more useful, but when one sees what they sometimes come out with and what they cost, one wonders whether they are. That, however, is a general issue, which is not necessarily to do with the Chhokar case.

It might be useful for the convener to write to the Lord Advocate to ask where the inquiry is going. What information will be made available? There is a debate about whether to have a public inquiry or a private inquiry. I do not necessarily accept that what has been announced will go on entirely behind closed doors. However, I would like to explore what the Lord Advocate has decided about the extent to which information will be made available.

The Lord Advocate has said that the conclusions of the inquiries will be made public, but that does not make it clear how much of the information will be made available.

We need to push the door to see what else can be made available.

Four items were raised. The second is the Chinook helicopter crash in 1994, which came to prominence again recently with the publication of a report by the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster. I thought that the bits of the report that were relevant were those that mentioned the RAF board of inquiry's process and the burden of proof that the board required. The Public Accounts Committee stated that the finding of the RAF board of inquiry did not satisfy the burden of proof that is required by that board's standards.

The committee also referred to the fatal accident inquiry that was held by the sheriff at Dunoon. The report states that the fatal accident inquiry requires a lesser burden of proof than the RAF board of inquiry. However, the fatal accident inquiry found that, on the balance of probability, it could not apportion blame or come up with a finding of gross negligence, which is what the RAF's board of inquiry came up with. The Public Accounts Committee also felt that the process of RAF boards of inquiry was open to criticism.

Does the committee feel that it is worth exploring the relationship between the Scottish justice system and the RAF's board of inquiry, which is essentially a reserved body, in the sense that it is set up by a ministry that is responsible to the Westminster Parliament, but whose remit overlaps into the Scottish justice system? Our remit does not allow us to examine or take evidence on the Chinook case—nor would we wish to. However, we might want to explore the business of boards of inquiry that are operated by reserved ministries and whose decisions can cut across decisions that are made by a Scottish court, as in this case. Do members feel that that is worth investigating?

The Chinook case fascinates me—I would love to get my teeth into it to see what really happened. The problem with that case and with what the convener suggests is that I do not know how we would get our teeth into it. Who would give evidence? If we examined the system, we would want to query people from the Ministry of Defence, the board of inquiry and perhaps even Geoff Hoon. We could not get the sort of people that we would want to have a go at—if I may put it neutrally—to sit here. [Laughter.] I am not putting this very well. What I mean is that I am not sure how we would get into such an inquiry.

If members feel that it is worth calling some of the mandarins or gold braid from the Ministry of Defence to answer questions about how they run their courts and boards of inquiry, we can ask. It will be interesting to find out what their response is. Either way, their response will tell us something.

Like Gordon Jackson, I am up for an inquiry, but I see the same problem about identifying what we would aim to do. What would be the inquiry's remit? What would be the question that we want an answer to? If somebody can help me with that, I will be content to go along with an inquiry, but I want to get a handle on the matter—I think that that is the colloquial way of saying it. What point do we want to make?

Pauline, do you wish to comment?

I thought that you were going to answer my question, convener.

The two standards of proof have two different results, in which—

I was unwilling to spend too much time on the Chinook case until I heard the committee's reactions. If members think that there might be something for the committee to examine, I ask them to go away and come up with a potential inquiry remit to bring back to the committee. That might be the way forward.

That is a matter for you, convener, but I do not want it to be said that I thought that there was something we could do in relation to the Chinook case. I have reservations about the usefulness of such work, particularly as we will come to other clearly domestic issues that we will be unable to find time to get through.

On the other hand, a helicopter that crashes in the Mull of Kintyre is a fairly domestic matter.

Well, it is and it is not. I am not trying to minimise the horror and the tragedy for those who were involved, but that does not mean that it is an issue that we could take up usefully. I am interested in the issue, but I do not know how to tackle it.

I also think that the subject is interesting, but I do not want the committee to take evidence on an issue about which we are not able to do anything. I imagine that every time that there is any kind of public inquiry or revisiting of the issue it is upsetting for the families involved. I would hate to trivialise the issue just because we are quite interested in it and want to consider it when we have no real idea of what is involved. If we are to receive a report on the matter, I would like to be clear about what the committee hopes to achieve.

I agree. That was a good point.

We will move on to the third heading, which is on prisons in general and the costs of prisons. Members will note that Christine Grahame has written to me suggesting that we should take evidence from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service about the difference in costs between Kilmarnock prison and the state prisons.

Given that the estates review might be published presently, could we simply write to the chief executive of the SPS at this stage? He is likely to come back before the committee when we have examined the estates review. Again, I am interested to hear what members have to say.

I would not be unhappy with that proposal, if we were to invite the chief executive to the committee early. However, we have been waiting for the estates review for six or seven months and I am angry about the way in which questions have been skirted around. There are many questions about Kilmarnock prison, not only from me but from members from all parties who are trying to get to the bottom of the matter of costs and so on, to compare Kilmarnock prison with state prisons.

However, if we must wait for several more months, I would like us to deal with the matter now, given that we did not deal with it the first time. I believe that Phil Gallie opened up the questions on Kilmarnock and costs and we did not get to the nub of the problem. We have not got there yet, and neither has the chief inspector of prisons. He said that he had been told that the cost at Kilmarnock prison was £11,000 per prisoner place, but that that figure was not comparable with state prisons. That was the full stop in his evidence and the committee got no further.

If the committee is about anything, it is about unearthing the facts and shining bright lights on them. I suspect that more private prisons are on the way—that is quite clear in advance of the production of the estates review. We want to be armed, so that we can compare apples with apples.

I go along with Christine Grahame's comments. It would be interesting to have a really good look into Kilmarnock prison, particularly given the policy changes that we believe are coming down the line. There would be much to learn from such a session, which might have some surprising outcomes.

The estates review is definitely with the minister.

Pauline, I am not forcing you, but did you wish to say something?

Christine Grahame is right about the estates review, which has been on-going. Equally, during our examination of the prison service, a sub-category of issues that we should consider kept cropping up.

On Kilmarnock prison, I would like to have an understanding of the costs of the prison service and I would like to find another way of understanding those costs before Tony Cameron comes before the committee. I would like him to be the last person in line, because there are issues that I would like to put to him about the differences between Kilmarnock and other prisons in relation to costs and other matters.

It sounds as though we should get something in writing from Tony Cameron—and from anyone else we can think of—on the costs of those prisons, so that we have some evidence on which we can base further questioning.

Pauline McNeill is also saying that the order in which we take witnesses can be important. In taking evidence from witnesses, members have sometimes felt as though some—such as Mr Cameron—should have come at the end of the process, after we had gathered information to put to them. We require not only written information from Mr Cameron and the Scottish Prison Service; we must invite him to appear before the committee at the end of the evidence-taking process, when we can put to him what we have been told.

Let us gather some more evidence. By our next meeting, the estates review may have been published.

The final item that I want the committee to address is a point from Gordon Jackson, concerning the ways in which child protection committees are run in various council areas.

I sent a letter to committee members, but they might not have read it. I knew nothing about child protection committees until a senior police officer in Strathclyde police asked whether he could have an informal word with me about them. He expressed concerns about the way in which those committees operate throughout the country.

Strathclyde police are taking child protection seriously. They have, or will soon, set up a child protection department, which will be staffed by a senior officer and others. The child protection committee system is organised by each local authority, so there will be as many committees in the Strathclyde region as there are local authorities—which is about a dozen. A police officer will be on each of those child protection committees and all those officers will be trained by Strathclyde police.

However, all local authorities do things differently. Some local authorities take their jobs on those committees seriously, but others take the view that, because their involvement is voluntary, they do not need to bother much. Some will implement training programmes, and some will not. Some local committees have carefully set out procedures and guidelines on how to deal with child protection issues and others do not, or they have different arrangements. Although child protection committees exist in all local authorities, there is no statutory framework for them.

I am told that there is a proper statutory framework in England—although I have not read it—but in Scotland, a set of guidelines is issued by the Executive. Local authorities regard those only as guidelines: some take them seriously and some take them less seriously. Even the local authorities that take the guidelines seriously do things differently, which can cause real problems. Often, a child protection issue crosses borders. For example, a child may be taken into care in Ayrshire but, for various reasons, might have to be placed in Fife. The co-ordination of child protection is not as good as it might be.

I have great respect for the police officer who spoke to me about this matter. He was extremely genuine and concerned about the situation. The fact that he was so concerned about the way in which the system operates throughout the country was sufficient to convince me that it is an important issue. Scott Barrie has a background in this type of work—he may have some thoughts on the matter. He is the only person who responded to the e-mail that I sent to members.

Yes. I sat on a child protection committee in Fife. Gordon Jackson is correct to say that the committees operate differently in different local authorities. However, I am not sure whether the committee could undertake an inquiry into the child protection committee system, because there are more issues than legal issues involved. Each local authority has different child protection procedures, which are drawn up in negotiation with key agencies, one of which is the health service. I am not sure what we would be trying to achieve through a committee inquiry.

There is a specific problem in the authorities that disaggregated during the most recent local government reorganisation. I am not talking only about Strathclyde—although that is the biggest such former authority—but about Tayside, the central region and the Lothians, where more than one authority ended up covering a police force area.

There are difficulties. For example, particular difficulties in the former Strathclyde area, will be exacerbated by reorganisation. I am not sure how an investigation of the legal aspects alone would be undertaken. The convener's note is right that the issue cuts across so many other remits that it might be worth while finding out whether any other committees have an interest. They could then return with ideas about how to take the issue forward. Obviously, I am interested in the subject and I would love the committee to investigate it, but a Justice and Home Affairs Committee inquiry would cover only the legal aspects.

I agree with Scott. It might be better for other committees to examine child protection issues, because they centre on the best interests of the child. Later, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee could ensure that the law fitted in with those interests. If we conducted an inquiry, we would be conducting the process the wrong way round.

Local authorities are all different. They have different structures and partnership arrangements with other agencies. To a body such as the police, which is heavily structured and is consistent throughout the Strathclyde region, such arrangements might not appear to be the best way of doing things. However, we must take into account the indigenous practices and structures of each local authority. I would be interested in examining the subject, but at the end of the process rather than at the start.

I do not disagree with any of that. I was concerned about what I was told and I would like Parliament, in its broadest sense, to deal with the issue. The difficulty is that, when a subject crosses committee boundaries—such as the two issues that we discussed today—sometimes nobody deals with it. That worries me. Serious issues are not addressed because they fall into a gap. If the committee wants to say that it has considered the issue and that it will send the minutes of the meeting to the Health and Community Care Committee, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee or any other committee to ask whether there is interest in investigating the issue, I will be happy with that. I do not want the subject simply to fall into the hole because nobody will tackle it.

I wonder whether we could write to bodies such as the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Scottish Reporters Administration Service to ask for their views on whether the problem is huge throughout Scotland or whether it is more localised. If we had such information, it would be easier to take the issue forward.

That is a good idea.

We could also write to the minister. As Gordon Jackson has raised the issue, we could ask whether the Executive has concerns. Subject to the replies that are received as a result of Scott Barrie's suggestion, an Executive response would also assist us in deciding the direction to take. I tend to think that the committee should not take the lead in investigating the issue. Perhaps it should go to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, whose remit includes children. I accept what Gordon Jackson said about issues falling into holes. I think that a letter to the minister and letters to the other organisations that have been suggested would be useful as a preliminary exposé of the problem.

That is a sensible suggestion. However, we might have to go on a bit of a fishing expedition. I have heard comments similar to those that Gordon Jackson made at the beginning of the discussion. People have said that the children's panel system is not operating well. We need to explore the point at which the committee should stop. I do not see why the committee should not examine the subject, if no one else will.

I do not know whether we could liaise with the cross-party group on children. Are you on that group, Scott?

Yes.

How do cross-party groups fit in with committees? The cross-party group on children considers children's services in detail.

I will raise that issue at the next meeting of the cross-party group on children.

We will write to the people and organisations that were suggested and bring their responses back.

We have reached the end of the meeting. The next meeting is not until Wednesday 17 January, so I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year. I will see members then—or perhaps not, because a motion is being debated on Thursday that might change the Parliament's committee structure somewhat.

Meeting closed at 12:34.