Official Report 91KB pdf
The third item on the agenda is our bid for social partnership funding. We have a proposal for research into sentencing and alternatives to custody. It is perhaps particularly appropriate that we discuss that today, as the report of the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice was published this morning.
I have two minor points to make. I do not like the use of the term "easily" in the draft proposal. I accept that people can be influenced by the tenor of media reporting, but I would like the word "easily" to be removed.
Where is that?
On the third line of the second paragraph of the draft proposal for externally commissioned research. That is a minor point, but I think that it is wrong to use that word. The media can represent different views.
Do you have a particular interest in the election, Phil?
I could well have.
I do not suppose that anyone objects to removing the word "easily", which may be raising some questions by its inclusion.
I am sorry to make you sigh, convener, but I would like to know what the first paragraph of the draft proposal means when it says:
The word "needs" was used simply to recognise the fact that offenders have needs, like anyone else. When judges consider what is the most appropriate sentence, they take account of the background of an offender.
When social workers prepare social background reports, that is one of the things that they must comment on. No doubt the reason that they are required to comment on it is that sheriffs and judges want to know about it.
I know that, but I think that striking a balance for individual offences might make things clearer. People read the papers and see that one person who has committed a burglary gets one kind of disposal, while another person who has committed a burglary is put in jail. The public does not understand the distinction, although different backgrounds, previous convictions, the nature of the offences and the individual facts and circumstances will have affected the disposal chosen for each offence.
Would a reference to personal circumstances be better?
A reference to the circumstances of the offence would be better than a reference to the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
We have already included reference to the circumstances of the offence. The paper refers to the requirement
What is wrong with referring to the personal circumstances of the offender?
The point that that paragraph is trying to make is that we need to consider the offender as well.
I understand that. That is not my difficulty. However, I feel that, if this paper goes out into the public domain, "needs" might be misinterpreted. I think that we should put in something else to explain what we are trying to say. Gordon Jackson wants to add something.
I do not disagree with you, Christine. I was not looking askance.
Without going into a long explanation, is "personal circumstances" a better phrase?
I think so. That would be better than "needs", which might look as if it is soft on an offender and might be considered inappropriate.
Is everybody happy with "personal circumstances"?
I have a comment about the paragraph on page 2 about specific expertise. The final sentence reads:
Denis, would you like to comment on that?
We decided to go for an omnibus survey because it is a much cheaper option than launching our own survey. The average omnibus survey covers a representative sample of the population—about 1,000 people. To do that off our own bat would be quite expensive. I recognise the problems of an omnibus survey that covers a whole range of issues and involves asking people questions in the street, although such surveys are usually conducted by telephone nowadays or by personal interviewing in the home. We would seek to ensure that it was not a street survey but a personal interview.
I have reservations about that type of survey, particularly if it is conducted by telephone. Some people do not have telephones and their views are quite important. Social and political studies show that certain types of people happen to have telephones and are therefore more accessible than others who do not have telephones. I have reservations about a telephone survey and about an omnibus survey. If we are going to do a survey—particularly a survey of attitudes—it must be a bespoke one rather than a piggyback one. If such a survey costs a little bit more, we will have to spend a little bit more.
Those objections could have been raised at the previous meeting, but it is fair that members should be able to raise objections at any time. If members feel that they would like to revisit that option, we will have no alternative but to ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to prepare a revised proposal that will include the costs of a wider survey.
I have some reservations. Now that Euan Robson has raised those points, I feel that the proposed survey may be too superficial. It might be useful to see a sample questionnaire, if that is appropriate. That might give us some guidance on the kind of questions that have been asked on this or other issues. We might take comfort from that and some of our fears might be allayed. If the survey is going to be a quickie, I would have some concerns.
Before I ask Denis Oag to comment, I should say that the survey, although it may be superficial, is only one part of a package. We must not lose sight of the fact that the package also includes focus groups and the civic participation conference.
I appreciate that, but I still have concerns. The paper says that the committee
When we discussed this matter two weeks ago, the reasons that Christine Grahame has been citing were the very reasons why I liked the idea of a three-part process. Such a process can tease out some of the key issues in a complex and difficult subject. The way in which the first set of information is gathered is not particularly material; it will be more interesting to see how people have formed their opinions when it comes to the other parts of the process. People's reservations about the initial survey are immaterial, because the focus groups and public participation will tease out the details. That is why I wanted a three-point package in the first place, because that is how I saw our investigation developing.
Scott Barrie has highlighted exactly what I wanted to say. It is the focus group interviews that will give us the most useful information. The initial survey will be to confirm what we suspect we already know. The focus groups will give us the details that will really inform our opinion.
I agree that it is difficult to word questions, whether in an omnibus survey or a bespoke survey, to get the sort of answers that you are looking for. A recent example is the Scottish crime survey 2000, which included 10 questions on attitudes towards sentencing. That would give us an idea of the sort of questions that we might want to ask and would allow us to draw on a much larger sample—2,500 people—for our work. That survey did not ask exactly the same questions that we might want to ask, but it asks very similar ones.
I gather that the whole point of the initial survey is just to get a sample of public opinion, formed as the result of anecdotal evidence. We are not asking for a considered opinion after people have sat down to think about the question for a couple of hours. We will be asking what people think when they are asked straight out and they give a snappy answer.
A vox pop?
Yes.
If we know that that is what it is, so be it, but I would still be interested in seeing the questions that will be asked.
That will come at a later stage, once we have approval for the basic outline of the survey. Then we can go into detail about precisely what we are going to ask at each stage.
No, I meant that for my own interest I would like to see the draft questionnaire, if that would be appropriate.
I am sure that that could be circulated.
Vox pop is important as a starting point to find out what people think. Whether what they think is right or wrong, or is objectively nonsense or objectively sound, does not matter. In a sense, it is of no importance whether there is any basis for what they think; it is what they think that is important.
With those comments, are members happy for this document to go to the conveners group?
We will move into private session for the next item, so I ask the vast hordes of the public to leave the chamber.
Meeting continued in private until 11:08.