Justice 2 Committee, 17 Apr 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 17, 2002

Official Report 151KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Police Grant (Scotland) Order 2002<br />(SSI 2002/116)

Under agenda item 3 we have two pieces of subordinate legislation to deal with, the first of which is the Police Grant (Scotland) Order 2002. I refer members to paper J2/02/13/2, which gives background information on the order. If members have no comments, the order can simply be noted.

I realise that Richard Simpson may not have come prepared to answer it, but I have a question that I would like to ask.

My question relates to the handling of the 2.5 per cent retention, which, in essence, rolls 2.5 per cent of one year's budget over into the next year's budget. It does so quite arbitrarily and I would be interested to know the history of the process. I wonder whether the process is appropriate, given the way in which end-year flexibility is now dealt with.

My understanding is that we would not ask the minister to answer questions on this type of instrument. However, we can of course compile a report. Is that correct?

We could write to ask for clarification on that specific point.

My question is not intended to be obstructive; it comes from a genuine desire to find out whether, given the way in which EYF is now operated, a locked-in and arbitrarily fixed proportion should be treated as it is treated. That is all that there is to the question. In other respects, I am perfectly content with the instrument—and I do not wish to hold it back just because I have not yet had the answer to the question.

Stewart Stevenson raises a valid point, but the easiest way to deal with it would be through correspondence.

I think that that is what we will do, because I am not seeking to hold the order back.

I am happy for the committee to write for clarification because I am very much in favour of investigating issues that arise; the last thing that we should do is simply to nod things through. If issues arise, we should be sure that we are clear about them.

Perhaps the clerks could clarify another point. In the Police Grant (Scotland) Order 2002, issues arise over why some figures have increased and others have not increased. I presume that such issues will be dealt with through the budget process and not through consideration of this statutory instrument.

They can be dealt with in either way, although they are certainly relevant to the budget process.

Bearing in mind Stewart Stevenson's comments, is the committee happy to note the order?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2002<br />(SSI 2002/107)

The second instrument before us is the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2002. I refer members to paper J2/02/13/3, which sets out the background.

In addition to that paper, members will have received this morning additional information from the Scottish Executive on the development and implementation of the prisoner supervision system. There is a lot in the regulations and—who knows—perhaps it is all for the greater good. I am not happy that we received the note this morning when I have been going through my papers for the past couple of days. The instrument is important, and I am not entirely clear where the need for the rules has come from, although the note explains in some detail what they are all about.

We should have had a note explaining precisely why the category of prisoners is being changed from the one that we understand to a new category. I am sure that there are good reasons, but I do not understand why we do not have a note explaining why the change has come about.

My understanding is that the change in category is an attempt to differentiate between the risks associated with a prisoner while he or she is in custody and the risks that might apply while the prisoner is outwith the prison—either attending hospital, court or of his or her own volition. That is fair enough.

However, I did not find out that information from the document in front of me, but through other means. I therefore share the convener's discomfort about the way in which the rules have been presented to the committee. Although I do not wish to impede the progress of the rules, that point should be made to the minister.

There is no real need to deal with the matter today. Once again, we are being hit with documentation at the last moment without time to absorb the information. I suggest that the matter is continued and we should correspond with the Scottish Executive to obtain the further information that we require to make a determination on the matter.

I will not disagree fundamentally with Bill Aitken, except to observe that the rules came into force on 1 April.

The committee is required to make a recommendation to Parliament by 22 April.

That is next week.

That is highly unsatisfactory.

Although the rules do not seem to be particularly controversial, I want to be meticulous and understand the reasons for the rules. It is only by understanding those reasons that we, as the lead committee with a bit of expertise, can make any proper comment that Parliament might want to hear. It is our job to scrutinise the rules.

We have made the same comment in previous meetings—we are unhappy about having to recommend regulations that have either been laid before or about which we do not have enough information. That situation does not seem to change.

I appreciate that the committee is discussing the issue at the moment. However, I understand from the note from the clerks that the rules can be annulled until 1 May. Why then does the motion have to be laid before 22 April? It is open to anyone else to lay the motion—it does not have to be a member of the committee. Any member of the Parliament can lay a motion and then we would have to discuss it.

We have been given until 22 April to report on the rules. That is to allow time for the business bureau to consider the matter and for any motion to be put before Parliament if necessary. That is why we are asked to report ahead of 1 May.

I need clarification, because I cannot recall the details. Was that timetable included in the business bureau motion that allocated the instrument to the committee? Has the Parliament—including the committee—bound its hands on the timetable?

Yes.

Perhaps the most mischievous of us should hasten to the chamber office with an appropriate motion.

If we are happy to note the rules, the least we can do is recommend that Parliament writes to the Executive and say that we are unhappy that we did not have a proper chance to get our heads around the rules and what they are about. I would be happy to go further by saying that this is the last occasion on which we will be prepared to accept such a situation and that the change for which we have asked repeatedly should be made.

There is no excuse for the situation. I accept that there was a recess for Easter, but the matter should have been put before the committee much earlier. If the situation were a one-off, I would be prepared to show some indulgence, but this committee and other committees have, in effect, been asked consistently to rubber-stamp legislation at the last moment.

I do not think that the rules are contentious, but I do not know for sure. I am unhappy about the way in which matters have been dealt with. It is almost as if an attempt has been made to railroad through the rules. I am not anxious to make waves over legislation that is probably fairly innocuous, so I will accept the rules, but if we confront similar situations again, I will not be prepared to support the instruments involved.

Is anyone otherwise minded?

It is some months since I heard about the issue as part of activities in my constituency, and not in Parliament, so the delay was unnecessary. I understand that the rules will improve conditions for some category A prisoners who are regarded as low risk when in prison. However, the Parliament might wish to know that. I know about the issue by accident. I understand that the change is important and will affect the regime in prisons for some of our most dangerous prisoners.

I will summarise the consensus that the committee has reached. We are unhappy with the situation. Although there seems no reason not to recommend the rules, the committee—apart from Stewart Stevenson—does not entirely understand why the change is necessary. We have been presented with an explanation on the morning when we must consider the instrument, which does not allow us to scrutinise the explanation or the instrument properly. The least that we can do is write a strongly worded letter to the Executive saying that this is the last time that we will accept such treatment. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

If the committee is so minded, we could make that official by including a comment about that in our report.