Justice 1 Committee, 16 Jun 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Official Report 159KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

HMP Peterhead (PE667)

Item 2 is on petition PE667. I refer members to the note from the clerk, J1/S2/04/24/2, which sets out the background to the petition and details some of the related correspondence. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate alleged discrimination against convicted sex offenders who are held in HMP Peterhead. The committee is invited to consider a number of options. Some lengthy paperwork is attached to the clerk's note. First, I invite general comments on the petition.

The petitioner is trying to raise two points. The second, on in-cell sanitation, concerns all members of Parliament. Whether or not the sanitation facilities are in-cell, there should at least be access to night-time sanitation. I believe that the Scottish Prison Service is trying to deal with the question of access to sanitation, at least. It would be preferable to have it provided in-cell, but there is a problem in that, given the limits of old buildings such as Peterhead prison.

The other part of the petition is about access and covers issues around prisoners being in prisons nearer their homes and in low-security prisons or open prisons—whatever we want to call them. I think that the Scottish Prison Service's argument is absolutely correct. If prisoners are unwilling to take part in schemes to deal with their reoffending and the issue at hand, and might therefore still be a risk to the community, the Prison Service's view that a prisoner should be kept at Peterhead during that time is entirely reasonable.

I agree with and condone that approach. Prisoners' agreement to such programmes is a necessary step and if they do not agree to them, it is perfectly reasonable to keep them at Peterhead.

Do members have any other comments on the petition? Is there anything that members would like to be clarified?

There are a number of options as to what we can do with the petition. We can consider any other issues that might arise from it, or we can agree that it does not merit further consideration. We could then respond to the petitioner, explaining the rationale for the decision.

There is one issue that I would like to follow up for general information; I would like to know about the SPS's approach to sex offenders so that we are clear about its policy. I know that the STOP programme is valued and appears to be very successful, but it might be interesting to note what the SPS's overall policy is. For example, does every sex offender have to go to Peterhead? Would prisoners undertake other programmes in other prisons?

I do not disagree with that, but we should say simply that the petition does not merit further consideration. I do not think that the points that have been raised are valid. I accept fully the Prison Service's explanation for its view and I do not think that we should take the matter any further.

There seems to be general agreement that the petition should go no further. However, given that the committee is considering rehabilitation programmes, I would like to get information for the committee's benefit on the general approach in relation to the STOP programme and any other programme that the Prison Service has in mind. Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Miscarriages of Justice (Aftercare) (PE477)

Agenda item 3 is petition PE477. I refer members to paper J1/S2/04/24/3, which was prepared by the clerk. The paper sets out the background to the petition, which is from the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, and the ample related correspondence, on the setting up of an aftercare programme for people who have been wrongfully incarcerated and who have served long prison sentences.

Do members wish to comment on the background to the petition or on the correspondence that has been received in response to it? The information that we have received is useful. We now know that a number of organisations have an interest in the subject; they have asked to be kept on board in respect of any consideration the committee might undertake. Are there any general comments?

We could go with the first recommendation; it would be right and proper to forward the responses to the Scottish Executive and invite it to take them into account when it considers what steps to take next on providing a service for victims of miscarriages of justice. I know from a response to a recent oral question of mine to the Deputy Minister for Justice that that work is on-going. Yesterday, the convener and I made representations to the Minister for Justice in a positive meeting about how a service could be implemented after the matter has been discussed. Therefore, it would be appropriate to go with option (a) in the clerk's paper.

I ask members to consider that proposal. It strikes me that the most important issue is that there seems to be the same provision for offenders and for those who have been wrongly incarcerated. No distinction is made between the two groups. That is the only issue that it is important we take up with the Executive. A clear distinction should be made between offenders and those who have been wrongly incarcerated. Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending makes the point well that rehabilitation programmes are clearly aimed at offenders and that the other group is just tagged on at the end.

Without getting into the technicalities of the situation of those who have been wrongly incarcerated, a distinction exists between them and offenders. If someone goes through the criminal justice system and, for whatever reason, has an appeal upheld, they are no longer an offender and the system should not treat them as such. That point is at the heart of what all the organisations say. As a matter of policy, the Executive should make that distinction clear. We got a positive response from the Executive, but it might be helpful for us to emphasise to it that distinction and to check whether it is on the same wavelength as us and whether it agrees that offenders and wrongly incarcerated individuals should be treated differently, although the rehabilitation programmes for both groups may take the same approach.

I support what Bill Butler said. The clerk's paper gives us a couple of options. I do not think that it would be helpful to defer other consideration at this time—I do not see the point in doing that. It would be helpful and positive to send all the responses that we received to the Executive, given that it is considering the matter. If we want to influence that consideration, that would be the right thing to do. Therefore, I support Bill Butler's proposal to send the submissions to the Executive.

I agree. In particular, I agree with the convener's point about making a distinction between offenders who undertake rehabilitation programmes and people who seek rehabilitation programmes following a miscarriage of justice. Such a distinction should be clearly made although, as has been said, the process of rehabilitation for the two groups may have many common factors. I would be happy for that to be included under option (a).

I agree with what colleagues have said. In any contacts that members have had with the Executive, have they had any indication about a timescale for the Executive's consideration? The minister's response is short, sweet and succinct. It may be positive, but it lacks detail.

I do not think that we have any information on a timescale. As Bill Butler said, he and I have a pre-existing interest in the matter in association with MOJO. In our meeting with the minister yesterday in our individual capacities, we expressed the same interest that the committee has expressed. The minister agreed to meet with MOJO, which we requested on behalf of that organisation.

We have drawn out in this discussion that the responses from the Royal Courts of Justice advice bureau, SACRO and Helping Offending Prisoners' Families are also important. The Executive could consider its overall approach if we go with option (a) and forward all the responses to the Executive. We can include a covering note that encompasses the committee's feelings; it would just be a summary of our debate. We can also include a question about the timescale. I suspect that there is no timescale yet and that the Executive is just trying to take in the representations and consider an appropriate response.

It is fair to say that the work is, as far as we were able to discover, on-going. I hope that its course will be completed early, but we do not yet know whether that will be the case. Therefore, perhaps we should ask the Executive whether it can be a bit more definitive about the timescale.

I would prefer that we ask that question and say seriously that we want the matter to be moved on as quickly as possible.

Okay. There are no other comments. Option (a) is agreed to. Is the committee agreed that any further correspondence or consideration from the Executive should be brought back to the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Dangerous Driving and the Law<br />(PE29, PE55, PE299 and PE331)

The next item is consideration of petitions on dangerous driving and the law. Petition PE29 is from Alex and Margaret Dekker, and petitions PE55, PE299 and PE331 are from Ms Tricia Donegan. I refer members to the relevant committee papers. We have dealt with the petitions in the past, so members should be reasonably familiar with their contents and consideration of them so far. There are several options for the committee to consider.

We received a letter from the Crown Office late yesterday evening, although I have not had the chance to go through that response. I do not think that we have yet had all the information that we have asked for; therefore, members may want to ensure that they have received all the responses that they have asked for, including the one from the Crown Office. I am happy to pass the letter around, but members will need to see it formally.

Is it something that we could deal with next week? That would give us a chance to read it.

I invite the committee to have a general discussion on the petitions now, as they are on the agenda. That would not prevent our continuing consideration of the issues in the petitions at another meeting when we have a fuller picture. Other information is still outstanding, including the statistical information on road deaths and how it is being collated. The Home Office consultation paper on the review of bad driving is expected soon, although we have no date for that and do not know its contents. However, although we are still missing some information that the committee might need, that does not prevent our discussing the petition this morning.

I apologise for my late arrival. Under option 17(a) of committee paper J1/S2/04/8/4, there are five issues relating to information that we are seeking. It would be helpful to know whether the letter from the Crown Office addresses those and whether that information has been provided. If it has not, we should continue to pursue the matter with the Lord Advocate and the Executive.

This has been a long-continuing issue that the committee has considered at various times. I recall that, when the Department for Transport or whatever down in England was carrying out a review or a piece of research, there was concern about the lack of Scottish input into that process. The committee has continually expressed concerns about that. The Home Office is about to issue a consultation paper for its review of dangerous driving and the law, so it is crucial that we remain involved in the process and continue to monitor what is going on. We should probe the Executive to ensure that it is fully involved in the consultation exercise and that the specifically Scottish aspects of the issue are taken into consideration. Failure to do so may mean that we will end up back in the same situation, with a consultation and research having been done that have not taken Scottish aspects into proper consideration.

I support options (b) and (c) under paragraph 17 of committee paper J1/S2/04/24/4. We should pursue the issue and ensure that we continue to monitor and press the Executive on what it intends to do and what part it intends to play in the consultation exercise. I say that against the backdrop of the statistics that were published yesterday, which show that the number of road traffic offences has increased significantly. I also understand that the number of deaths that are caused by drink driving has increased from, on average, three to seven a year. There is an on-going issue that merits the committee's continuing involvement in and monitoring of the matter.

Thank you. Does any other member wish to speak to the petitions?

I seek clarification on the options. This is clearly a very important and worrying aspect of the law that needs to be looked at in depth. What is the implication of option (a) of the clerk's paper? Would that mean that the committee would not have any more to do with the petitions? Would that mean that Parliament was saying that it is a reserved matter and that we are forwarding the petitions to Westminster for consultation? Although I would encourage people to participate in the Home Office consultation, I would not like to think that that would be the end of our involvement in the matter. If option (a) would spell the end of our involvement, I would have difficulty in supporting it; however, we might remove that aspect of option (a) and still encourage the petitioners to take part in the Home Office consultation. To follow options (b) and (c) would be my preferred way of handling the matter. It is an issue that people in Scotland feel deeply about, and rightly so. We should monitor the issue.

I will clarify the position. The issues that we are now dealing with are much wider than those in the petitions. That often happens because it makes sense to include for discussion everything that is relevant to a subject. There is no reason why the committee cannot close its discussion of the petitions but continue to discuss any other matter arising out of the petitions as the committee sees fit, which can be distinct from the issues in the petitions. Often, we find ourselves going in new directions, although that can be useful and still be relevant to the petitioners—we would keep them involved. The alternative is to keep the petition running along with all the other issues.

I would go along with Michael Matheson's suggestion that we pursue options (b) and (c), although I wonder whether it would be possible to pursue part of option (a) by writing to the petitioners to encourage them to respond directly to the Home Office consultation. In that way, the petitioners will be able to make representations via that consultation and we will still be able to deal with the devolved matters here.

I agree with that suggestion. We should not close the door on the matter, and I am a little uneasy about making a decision on it today when we have not seen the correspondence from the Crown Office that may or may not answer some of our questions. I do not think that we should close down our consideration of the petitions until we have seen all the correspondence that we are to receive on the matter. We should do all that we can to ensure that the Executive takes a much more active role in the Home Office's consultation than it appears to have taken previously. This could be a good opportunity to advance some of the issues that we have all been concerned about.

Michael Matheson made an important point about our being not really clear about the inclusion of the Scottish statistics. The liaison group on road accident statistics was to consider that matter at the end of May, but we have received no information about that. We need to know about that and about the status that the Home Office's report would have if the Scottish statistics were not included in it.

We must do everything that we can to ensure that the Scottish statistics are included in that report. We have already missed one opportunity on this in the past. Either the issue is a reserved matter, in which case the United Kingdom as a whole must be taken into account, or it is not, in which case we should be dealing with it ourselves. I do not think that we can allow the matter to fall between two stools.

Michael Matheson mentioned drink-driving offences. Another issue that it strikes me might be important is that of roadside drug testing. I am sure that I read in the press recently that there has been a challenge to such testing. The previous Justice 2 Committee considered the matter briefly. Members of that committee volunteered Scott Barrie to do the roadside test, which involves touching the nose and so on, in one of the committee rooms.

Did he manage to do it?

Yes.

There might be some issues that we can tag on to complete the picture, given that drug driving is directly relevant to dangerous driving.

The two main aspects are, first, the existing law and the way in which it is being applied and, secondly, the way in which the Crown Office deals with such cases when it proceeds with them. It is evident from the notes that accompany the first petition that cases are still being referred to the sheriff courts rather than to the High Court. That was an issue that we raised originally. There are issues about the consultation paper and the possible review of the law, but there are also issues about how the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is dealing with such cases. For example, is it keeping the victims' families informed? Is it taking the cases to the High Court? Even the Lord Advocate's response indicates that that is not yet happening to the extent to which I would like it to happen.

As no one else wishes to speak, I will summarise where we are. I think that there is general agreement with option (a) in paragraph 17 of the note from the clerk, which suggests that we highlight the issues that have been raised in the on-going correspondence with Scotland's Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers—SCID—and that we keep the petitioners informed

"of the forthcoming publication by the Home Office of the consultation paper on the review of dangerous driving".

In order to give a response, we still need to find out whether the Scottish statistics will be included in that report.

By pursuing option (b), which is

"to monitor developments in the devolved aspects of dangerous driving",

we would deal with Michael Matheson's point about the correspondence from the Crown Office and our understanding of its practice to indict cases involving drug driving in the High Court.

Option (c) suggests:

"In monitoring developments in this area, the Committee could consider following up on information awaited from the Executive, the Crown Office and the Department for Transport."

Those options represent our continuing work on the petitions. If members agree, that is where we will draw the line on the work that is to be done. We will obviously keep the petitioners informed of what we are doing. Do members want to write to the Executive and the Home Office on the subject of the Scottish statistics?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we are agreed that that represents the committee's on-going work as a result of the petitions. I suggest that members need to make a decision about the petitions. Given that we have enough to do, I suggest that we close our consideration of the petitions and do the work. Technically, if we do not do that, we will keep open our consideration of the petitions for ever. I think that we have agreed where we want to draw the line on the work that we need to do. That work will come back to the committee and the petitioners will be kept informed. There is a distinction between doing that and keeping the petitions going.

That suggestion is sensible. The whole idea of petitions is that they are acted on. As that is happening, it seems sensible to close our consideration of the petitions and to get on with the work on the issues that the petitions raise.

That is fair enough. However, it would be helpful if the clerks prepared a paper to update us on where we have come from, the issues that we have received information on and those on which information is still outstanding and to relate all that to the relevant points in the petitions. That will give us a clearer picture of the gaps and what we still have to do to allow us to continue our work on this issue.

I would feel happier if we could continue this discussion at next week's meeting as that would allow us to receive the clerks' papers, read the Crown Office's response and make a final decision on the petitions. I would also like the petitioners to be kept informed of our work on this matter.

I have already made the point that as the committee carries out its work it will keep the interested parties—in this case, the petitioners—informed as a courtesy. The committee might feel happier to defer the decision on whether to keep the petitions live until we receive the Lord Advocate's correspondence. I have no preference either way; however, if we do not make a decision on this matter and draw a circle around the work that we want to do, we will have to deal with every petition at every meeting. That said, if the committee is minded to agree to Margaret Smith's suggestion, I have no problem with that.

If the clerks can prepare a paper for next week's meeting, we will have all the information before us and will be able to make a decision then.

In that case, we will really need to wait until we have received all the missing information. We have received the Lord Advocate's letter, but we are still waiting for other information that we asked for. Obviously, I have no control over when that information will arrive. We will see what we have received by next week; however, as I have said, if we do not make a decision, we will have to keep revisiting the petitions at every meeting.

I appreciate Margaret Smith's position on this matter. Of course we would like to see all the information that we have asked for before we close the petitions. However, as we have acknowledged that we will not receive all that information and have agreed that the petitions have merit and that we will take our work on them forward by writing to the minister and the Executive on a variety of issues, I do not think that keeping them open adds anything to the process. Indeed, I would be very surprised if we received the outstanding information by next week. I cannot see the benefit of waiting until we receive that information before we close the petitions. As Margaret Mitchell pointed out, the petitions' purpose is to get us to take on the work, which is what we have agreed to do. We should simply draw a line here and move forward.

I agree with Stewart Maxwell. Without rehearsing his comments, I think that it would be appropriate formally to close the petitions now.

It would have been helpful to have found out the information that we were still waiting for and who was supposed to have supplied it before we make that decision. However, I am happy to defer to the committee's majority decision.

Given our work load on the other petitions that we have to deal with, it is only sensible that we draw a line around the work that we think we should carry out. However, I reassure you that the committee will not be prevented from adding anything that is necessary or helpful to our list when we receive the outstanding information.

I am content with that.

We have agreed to close the petitions and to consider the missing information as soon as we receive it, and have decided what work we will do as a result of the issues that the petitions raise.