Justice 1 Committee, 17 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Official Report 196KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 5 is the committee's work programme. I refer members to the report that has been prepared by the clerks outlining our work programme. It sets out the proposed programme for 2003-04—I say that liberally, as some of the work might spill over. Committee members are requested to have a look at the issues in the paper that the clerks were asked to prepare and to talk about them with the intention of forming a view as to which areas of work the committee considers its priorities. That will give us a guide to which issues members would like to scrutinise in more detail.

I also ask members to consider the formalisation of a suggestion on petitions, which came out of our away day. It is suggested that we deal with petitions on a quarterly basis mainly—although, if a petition concerned an urgent issue, we would deal with it immediately.

Realistically, there is room for one new inquiry, but that is not to say that members cannot lay down markers regarding issues in which they are interested. Often, in the past, we have invited a witness to speak on a topic to update the committee. Members do not always know all the issues behind a subject, and it can help to hear from someone who is an expert on it.

I leave the debate open for members' comments.

The suggestion that we consider petitions quarterly is eminently sensible. I suggest that we might also consider a new inquiry under the heading of sentencing. There are issues around sentencing that we might examine productively.

We had a discussion about that subject at our away day. We need to ensure that we can do something useful that has not been done before. That is the difficulty in our simply picking up the alternatives to custody inquiry that was undertaken by the previous committee. There are some issues on which we could make progress, but we need to be clear about what they are.

It occurs to me that if the committee is committed to considering the sentencing issue—a live issue at the moment—there would be nothing to stop us pulling out some of the material on alternatives to custody. For example, women's offending could come under the banner of sentencing. Michael Matheson is interested in pursuing the issue of weekend detention that came out of the report on alternatives to custody.

If we are clear about our remit, we could mix the two issues if there is merit in doing so.

It would be good to have the in-built flexibility of using the word "sentencing" in the title of the inquiry but ensuring that we have latitude. That would allow us to range over the various live issues.

Just to complicate things, Margaret Smith has charged me with putting her bid in for considering the efficiency and resourcing of the police service. However, if there is to be further research into alternatives to custody, she will not want to leave that out.

I like the idea of combining sentencing and alternatives to custody. That might be a wide remit, but it would be interesting.

I am interested in finding out more about the flexibility of sentences and how that relates to alternatives to custody. We could bring in aspects of women's offending and alternatives to custody. That would complement our work on High Court of Justiciary reform and give us a fuller picture.

At the away day, I expressed some concerns about those issues, particularly alternatives to custody. Although it is an interesting issue, I want us to be careful to ensure that we have a clear focus on what we are doing. I am concerned that we would be examining areas that have been examined previously and we would not gain anything from that. It is a big issue and I am concerned that we could be spreading ourselves too thin. As has already been suggested, we could be mixing sentencing and alternatives to custody and the danger might be that the area that we are considering could get too wide.

Having said all that, it is an interesting issue and I am quite supportive of the idea. I came to today's meeting keener on the idea of starting a new inquiry into the efficiency and resourcing of the police service. As has been mentioned before, there were no inquiries into that subject during the first four years of the Parliament, but there have been inquiries into such areas as alternatives to custody. I would not like the committee to dismiss the idea of an inquiry into the police service and we should discuss it further.

I would not like the committee to dismiss that idea either because it looks like an attractive option and it is something completely new. We could start at the beginning. No one else is doing it, so we would have a clean slate.

I see no reason why we cannot have a scoping paper prepared that has a bit more detail about the focus for an inquiry into sentencing and alternatives to custody. That would allow us to see how long or short such an inquiry might be. The inquiry might not be very long because we might only be able to go so far, particularly given that we do not have any information on the proposed new sentencing commission. However, we might be able to do a short piece of work.

If we took up the suggestion made in the report on alternatives to custody, we would be commissioning a report that would be done over 12 months. We would not be directly involved in that report; it would just come back to us. That would not preclude us from picking up a new inquiry afterwards, but the work would have to be done that way round. If we lose the thread of sentencing and alternatives to custody—unless the Justice 2 Committee is going to pick up on that issue—we will probably lose the opportunity to consider sentencing.

Could we scope both those issues to see which fits in logically?

If it is possible, we could scope both the issues and then take a formal decision. If we start the new inquiry into the police, the other one would have to be dropped. If you are saying that it is feasible to start off the inquiry into sentencing and alternatives to custody and then commission the external research—in effect putting the issue to one side until the research comes back to the committee—that would give us the opportunity to start a fresh inquiry. That might be the way to go. Perhaps the clerks could help us to make that decision.

Is anyone minded otherwise?

I am not. If it is possible to do what has been suggested, that would be a sensible approach, as we could build in some areas while noting the time constraints under which the committee works.

Other ways of proceeding would be open to us if we came under time pressures. A reporter could be appointed. We could keep things going. Obviously, we will be bound by the legislation with which we will be dealing, which will be fairly substantial, but in the past we have certainly managed to keep big inquiry and big petition work going while we have been dealing with legislation. That work has been heavy but productive. The previous Justice 2 Committee did a short report on women's offending and simply invited the chief inspector of prisons and the Executive to update us. We did not do an inquiry. It is possible to proceed in that way.

I want to discuss in more detail what areas members want to be covered. Who should adopt the previous Justice 1 Committee's report on alternatives to custody? It has been suggested that someone must do something about that report. Although Michael Matheson was a member of the Justice 1 Committee, I am a wee bit concerned about the lack of continuity and about how things can be done. It is a shame that Michael Matheson is not here, as he is concerned about our adopting a report into which we have had no input. We need to think about that. There must be a debate and the Executive must respond to the report—we would not want the process to be lost. However, we need to think through the mechanism by which the Executive should respond.

It has been suggested that we can simply ask the Executive to respond and bid for a debate, but not adopt the report. To be honest, I do not see how we can adopt it. The Justice 2 Committee is in the same position as we are—it would look equally weird for that committee to adopt the report, as it has not been directly involved with it.

We could commission external research on the use of alternatives to custody in other jurisdictions—that would be an obvious volume 2 for the report. Alternatives to custody are apparently working well in other countries. It might be useful to commission research and find out how well those alternatives are working.

Issues that members are interested in pursuing from the inquiry into alternatives to custody are the use of fines by Scotland's courts and sanctions for non-payment of fines, the use of alternatives to custody in other jurisdictions—including the use of weekend prisons—and reasons for the increasing number of female offenders in prison. It would be useful to invite the minister to a meeting to ask about the Executive's strategy for reducing the population of women in prison. There are some things in the pipeline, but we can take that issue only so far. As individual back benchers, we could probably do more to put pressure on the Executive to speed things up. If we do so, things might come to a sudden stop for the committee in that respect.

Are there any other issues that are not covered in the paper that members would like to be in the scoping paper?

The issue of female offenders has been bandied about for many years, but we have never really got to grips with it. If the committee were to take up the issue, that would give it greater prominence and bring it more into the public domain. Perhaps something good would materialise from that. On that basis alone, it would be good to home in on it.

A lot could be discussed in respect of sentencing—for example, its purpose, recent decisions and whether inconsistent sentencing is a perception or a reality. What do members want the focus to be?

Consistency of sentencing and the use of sentencing guidelines could be focused on. We could consider ways of refining those, if that is needed.

Perhaps we could also look at early remission. That is a key issue, given the recent figures on how many people reoffended or breached their licence when they were released on early remission.

Could we include something about the sentencing information system? The presentation that we received at our away day seemed to suggest that the system was just not used. Perhaps we need to look at that.

So we would cover consistency of sentencing and perhaps the issues surrounding the Parole Board for Scotland and early release. We would start on that by getting a briefing on how the system works, which would give us an idea about where to go. I also think it important that we find out why more use has not been made of the sentencing information system and why, given that the system has been in operation for 10 years, it has not been more effective.

I agree entirely that consistency of sentencing is important. I do not want to stray into areas that we should not go into, but would it be appropriate to look at the applicability of sentences? As well as looking at consistency, can we also consider whether the right sentences are being given? Sentences across Scotland may be consistent without being right. There are two sides to that coin. Would it be reasonable to include that issue as part of our consideration of sentencing?

We might need to consider which courts' sentencing we wanted to look at. I am more concerned about inconsistency in the lower courts. I know that people may have views about a particular case, but I do not have a big concern about the High Court being inconsistent in its sentencing, whereas there are probably wide disparities in sheriff and district courts and in summary procedure.

I absolutely agree. The sheriff courts would probably be the main focus of such an inquiry, particularly as they deal with the bulk of the work. Perhaps we would also look at district courts, but my number 1 priority would be to look at the sheriff courts.

Okay. That gives us something to do in a bit more detail. We will combine that issue with an inquiry into sentencing and alternatives to custody, although we will need to pick out the issues.

I am clear about what aspects of sentencing we want to cover, but I want to be sure that we have agreement about our approach to alternatives to custody. We will not adopt the previous Justice 1 Committee's report because we do not think that that is particularly sensible. However, we will look to make a bid for a debate and ask the Executive to respond. In that way, members of the Justice 2 Committee and other members who are interested in the matter can comment on the report.

We can draw out the issues that arise from the report, consider examining the effectiveness of alternatives to custody in other jurisdictions and think about commissioning research. The Conveners Group would have to agree the budget for commissioning external research.

Issues that we would consider that specifically come under sentencing but relate to alternatives to custody are women's offending and the use of weekend prisons, although that issue—which Michael Matheson put on the agenda—would probably be covered when we consider other jurisdictions, because the idea comes from other jurisdictions. The committee might want to hear either from the Minister for Justice or from the relevant agencies about what is happening in the time-out centre in Glasgow and one or two other on-going initiatives so that we are up to speed on those matters. Does that sound like a proposal with which we can move forward?

Have we covered early release?

I put that under sentencing.

We should not concentrate only on the sheriff courts, because much of the impact of early release relates to the High Court.

We would kick off by having a briefing on how the system of early release operates and take the matter from there. There would be no barrier on which courts we would consider in order to get more information. Inconsistency in sentencing is the key point. Unless we are clear about the focus, the inquiry will be massive. We are talking about looking at sheriff courts, but members can change their minds if they see a different focus.

We can establish how the system works and consider what we need to focus on.

We will also consider the sentencing information system.

Yes.

That draws the issues together. The scoping of the inquiry will let us see how long it will take. There seems to be consent that, after we have finished that inquiry, we will start a new inquiry on the efficiency and resourcing of the police service. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

A few members mentioned family law. I know that there is a lot of interest in the matter and there are many issues that could be examined. Although the legislation is some time away, that would not necessarily preclude us from considering family law at some point. As some members mentioned it in the consultation, I thought that we should have a preliminary discussion on the matter.

I note that the work programme mentions a petition about grandparents' access to their grandchildren. I think that I have raised the issue of custody orders and fathers' rights. When we discuss the petition about grandparents, can we also consider other related issues or are we limited to examining the issue that the petition addresses?

The petition becomes the property of the committee. As long as the other issue is within the justice and home affairs remit and we see the connection between the issues, there is nothing to prevent the committee from considering them together, if we can justify doing so. In the Justice 1 Committee's final discussion in the first session about the petition, it came to the conclusion that access to children by all groups would have to be considered, as the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 does not specify anyone in particular. The 1995 act is the legislation that grandparents or anyone else would be expected to invoke in order to get access to children. It is clear that we could move in that direction on that petition. We have agreed that we will take on the petition, because Bill Butler is particularly interested in the issues that it raises.

According to information that I received from the Scottish Parliament information centre, the latest announcement is that consultation on family law will begin at the end of 2003 or the start of 2004. I presume that a consultation document is to be published at the end of this year or the beginning of next year, so we can constantly review the subject.

We have a couple of outstanding reports—they are outstanding in both senses of the word. One is our report on the regulation of the legal profession and the other is on legal aid. The Justice 2 Committee was keen for us to work on the regulation of the legal profession and I said that I would put that suggestion to members. We have a wee bit of unfinished business that needs to be followed up, something that we must consider in the light of our agendas for the next few weeks. I have no particular objection to reviewing the report. One reason for the suggestion is that the committee has no practising lawyers. Am I wrong about that?

No.

I do not have a strong view on the matter. I suppose that our doing the work would tidy up the work programmes, as the Justice 2 Committee is keen to consider legal aid. I do not propose that we should commit to a time scale for the follow-up. However, if we made a decision, that would make it easier to allocate statutory instruments in principle between the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee and would mean that we picked up correspondence on the subject, which comes to me anyway.

That seems reasonable.

Okay.

The Parliamentary Bureau has said that it is not happy for us to meet jointly with the Justice 2 Committee, because it is worried about duplication. However, we might try to persuade the bureau to agree to a joint meeting, because both committees have many new members who would like to hear from the new chief inspector of prisons. In fact, none of us has had a dialogue with him. A joint meeting with him would give people an introduction to his work. We will have to return to that.

I have been told that we could follow up the inquiry into the prison estates review. No one has expressed a strong interest in that, so I am canvassing opinion. If we pick up alternatives to custody, the Justice 2 Committee might want to cover the prison estates review report in the longer term.

That could be put to the Justice 2 Committee.

Does the committee agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

It is worth spending a few minutes on European matters, as members have just heard about the big issues. Would members like to pursue any of the legislative issues? How will we deal with them, given the advice that we should act early? One option is to liaise more regularly with members of the European Parliament. We could try to influence the European Commission early and pursue a dialogue with it.

We could also take steps towards creating a closer relationship with the Westminster European Scrutiny Committee and the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Videoconferencing could be used to meet our counterparts in Europe and to take evidence on legislation. The paper makes good suggestions about hosting a European justice and home affairs seminar and visiting the European Union institutions. My feeling is that we must devise a formula, because there is so much European legislation that we need a format that will work for us.

I thought that the pre-council and post-council briefings, which include the agendas for the justice and home affairs council, were very helpful. Of all the papers that were issued, they contained the most information and got to the source of things.

In Margaret Smith's absence, I would like to add her support for the convener's idea about hosting a European justice and home affairs seminar, which she is keen on. I agree with that, too.

I take it that no member dissents from that suggestion in principle. I am not committing us to a specific time scale.

I agree with Margaret Mitchell—I think that pre-council and post-council briefings on issues that relate directly to our work are an absolute must for the committee. I wonder how we can ensure that we get those documents when they appear. If it is left to us to request them, we will not necessarily know when they are available. The clerk tells me that that could be sorted out. It is essential that we get the briefings. I presume that members would want a regular discussion with the Executive to find out its attitudes on European issues.

When we took evidence, we ranged over various green papers and white papers and forthcoming proposals from the EU and it was mentioned that we could examine one or two issues. Quite frankly, there is so much stuff that it is difficult to choose. I do not know whether anyone has any suggestions about how to go about selecting one or two issues out of an immense amount of material.

From the questions that I asked about alternative dispute resolution, I noticed that consideration of that issue is at an early stage. Given that getting in early is the best way forward, I wondered whether members felt that that was one of the areas that we should consider. It is an up-and-coming area here and internationally. The fact that proposals on alternative dispute resolution are at an early stage might mean that we could have some discussions with MEPs and others and make our voice heard in Europe on that issue at least. I know that we cannot choose everything, although it would be nice if we could.

How do members feel about the specific suggestion that we should consider dispute resolution, because we know that proposals on that are in their early stages?

That would seem sensible. Consideration of dispute resolution is a possibility.

The white paper on divorce is also in its early stages.

The witnesses were a bit vague on that subject. One of the papers said that the white paper on divorce would have implications, but that was not the impression that was given today. I would like that to be clarified.

If the committee agrees that we should examine those two issues, along with the note on the conclusion of the discussions that will take place at the October council, perhaps we could ask for the relevant documents now and find a space on a future agenda for each of those areas. We could also ask the Minister for Justice to discuss either of those topics. That might help us to devise a formula to work our way through the relevant stages as they emerge at EU level.

It is my guess—I do not understand fully the timings—that it might be early next year before we need to pick up on the relevant proposals, but we could indicate now that we wish to consider those issues as they progress. We would expect to receive any relevant updates, reports and documents that relate to those areas. From that, we will be able to assess whether we are being told about things in sufficient time to allow us to make an input. The objective would be that, at some stage, the Justice 1 Committee could do a report for Scottish ministers that would give our view on such matters.

We agree on the seminar. We can discuss further when and how it should be organised. What about a visit to Brussels? Is there any interest in that?

I am not sure about the practicalities, but I would be interested in such a visit. It is important to set up the working dialogue with the Scottish MEPs one way or another. That dialogue could be a shorthand way of doing some of the European work, because the MEPs are informed about procedures.

Are the justice and home affairs council meetings open? Could we sit in on them and listen to how proceedings are conducted?

No. The meetings are not open.

The EU is not open and accessible like the Scottish Parliament.

The committees are open. You can talk to the Commission, which is quite useful, and you can go to the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, which is the relevant committee. I attended a wee bit of the meeting at which the committee discussed harmonisation. You become aware of a different dimension when you see it happening. I take Marlyn Glen's point that there are practical difficulties in fitting a visit into members' timetables, but we can examine the possibility of arranging a trip for those who wish to go.

I agree with Marlyn Glen's comments. We are all feeling our way with this European stuff. I am slightly confused by it all. There is a lot of material out there and I am not sure where the focus should be. It is good to get the briefing papers—they are helpful—but it would be beneficial if we could cut through a lot of the stuff and make direct contact with MEPs and officials at an early stage and say what we are interested in, what we are thinking of looking at and what our concerns and views are. In the long term, meeting MEPs and officials, and saying what we are about in relation to Europe, might prove to be valuable.

We could examine the possibility of videoconferencing with the Commission and MEPs. I do not know the practicalities of that. We could also consider a visit at some stage in the future. If we cannot set up a videoconference, going to Brussels will become more important, but if we manage to set up a videoconference, it will be a bonus if we can organise a visit. Does that meet your objective, Stewart?

I am not keen on videoconferencing, because it results in a stilted atmosphere, but I do not have any particular problems with it. However, I am slightly concerned about the time scale. I understand that we have a problem with fitting in a visit, but it would be helpful for us all to get together in one room and discuss where we are coming from. The earlier we do that the better, because I would like to get to grips with a lot of this European stuff, which is very important for this committee. I emphasise that earlier would be better than later.

Okay. The deadline for bids for visits is 25 September, after which we will not be able to bid until January. We could submit a bid on the basis that we are hoping to have a visit. As is always the case, not everyone will be able to go on the dates that are agreed to. We could examine the possibilities and come back to the committee to reach a final agreement. I have been told that we do not have another meeting before 25 September. Would the Conveners Group accept a bid in principle if we say that we are keen to have a visit but are not certain when we can fit it in?

Yes.

I support that.

If we do that, the committee can decide when and where the meeting will be. Are you happy with that, Marlyn?

Yes.

There is one final thing. I ask the committee to agree to the working principles paper, which sets out the way in which we will work alongside the Justice 2 Committee. I do not think that there are any concerns about that. Are members happy with the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

We took a formal decision to consider petitions on a quarterly basis, which will make the process easier for the committee, but if there is anything that the committee thinks is urgent, we will not be precluded from dealing with it. However, that is generally how we will operate the system.

I thank members, because that takes us quite far in determining exactly what we are likely to be doing over the coming few months. The decisions will be worked up for members for the next meeting so that they can see in black and white what they need to do.

That brings us to the end of our meeting. I remind members that there is an informal briefing on the budget about now. After the briefing, there will be a short joint meeting of the justice committees so that we can consider the witnesses that we wish to call on the budget process.

Meeting closed at 11:51.