Justice 2 Committee, 13 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 13, 2002

Official Report 255KB pdf

---

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill

Item 2 is the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Members will remember that when we put together the stage 1 report, we felt that we might wish to take further evidence on some areas. Members now have an opportunity to indicate whether they think that they require to take further evidence. Members have a briefing note from the clerks on areas on which they may wish to try to programme in time for further evidence. For example, I am interested in the amendment on human trafficking—we might take evidence on that. Donald Gorrie has lodged an amendment on sectarianism; members may want to test that issue in some way. There are other Executive amendments—on wildlife crime, for example. On which areas do members wish to take more evidence?

I have a fairly wide knowledge of most of the topics that are mentioned in the note, but I have not personally encountered wildlife crime. Other members of the committee, by virtue of the constituencies and areas that they represent, probably have a wider knowledge of wildlife crime than I do, but I would be grateful for more evidence under that heading. I am relaxed about that evidence being written rather than oral.

We have received an offer from RSPB Scotland, which we could consider. I will take all members' bids; then we will agree a final list. If the list is long, we may have to prioritise; however, I have noted Bill Aitken's suggestion.

I would like to take more evidence on custody officers. I was not satisfied that we tested the matter properly in relation to the Executive's savings objectives or the powers that it would want to pass on to that new position. Do members have any other bids?

I support taking more evidence on custody officers. On wildlife crime, it is important that we take evidence from some of the projects that are up and running. There are successful police projects that would give us a valuable insight into which powers exist and which do not and whether we could go further to toughen the law in that respect. There is great frustration among police forces that they cannot do much about such crime.

I agree with Bill Aitken that it would be useful to take more evidence on wildlife crime. There is a good example in Mull of a system that works, which it would be interesting to get evidence about. However, I do not know whether that will be possible within our time scale.

We will consider and report back to members on the range of options that we have for providing members with more information about, or taking oral evidence on, wildlife crime. As I have indicated, RSPB Scotland has offered to give evidence on that issue.

I presume that the provisions on areas that we have covered in great depth, such as victim statements, will be amended in response to our stage 1 report. What is the best way for us to determine whether we need to take further evidence on any amendments that are lodged?

Members' papers include a letter from Jim Wallace that sets out the Executive's position on victim statements. Duncan Hamilton should examine that letter in detail. I believe that the minister is happy, more or less, with the existing provisions, although he is proposing some amendments.

Are you saying that if there is no additional movement from the Executive on victim statements, we do not need to take any further evidence on that issue?

I think that we have received enough evidence to allow members to decide what the legislative framework should be. I am not sure from whom we might take further evidence, as we have heard from all the main organisations. We may simply want to take a view on the matter.

In our report, we raised concerns about the process of taking victim statements. The minister's letter clarifies that and answers a number of the questions that the committee asked, although there is no intention to change the current proposals.

If the committee feels at any time that it needs the Executive to clarify matters, a briefing can be arranged. I want to ensure that issues are clarified as we proceed with stage 2 of the bill.

Do members want to take evidence on Donald Gorrie's amendments, which deal with the issue of sectarianism? Members will know that the ministerial working group on religious hatred has produced a report on the issue, which we could use as a basis for understanding the group's conclusions. We will hear from Donald Gorrie when he appears before the committee to move his amendments.

We must take oral evidence on that important subject and address it properly before we decide what position to take on the amendments.

From whom would members like to take evidence?

The issue is wide ranging. Before we make a final decision, we should examine the working group's report. There is no point duplicating the evidence that it took, but we may want to take evidence from other organisations or individuals. That would be better than reinventing the wheel.

We will make some suggestions and members can indicate from whom they would prefer to take evidence. We may have time to take evidence from only a short list of witnesses, but we will try to strike a balance so that members can hear from all sides of the argument.

The Executive has lodged an amendment on human trafficking, which I have not had an opportunity to examine. I am interested in testing the effect of the amendment, so we may want to take evidence on that.

I do not think that members have flagged up any other areas on which they would like us to take evidence. They should let me know of any pressing issues as soon as possible and not wait until the committee's next meeting; we can manage matters as we proceed. We will report back to members on the issues that have been raised.

A timetable of meetings has been circulated. Ten days have been set aside to deal with amendments at stage 2 and to take further oral evidence, but members can see that we will have a problem managing the timetable.