Justice 1 Committee, 24 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 24, 2003

Official Report 100KB pdf

---

Work Programme

Item 3 is discussion of our work programme. Committee members have a paper setting out a suggested short-term work programme—I emphasise that it is only for the period until we have some proposed legislation to consider. The paper is only an amalgam of members' suggestions; it is not yet a tablet of stone and members can change their minds today. The idea is that we give the clerks a head start in preparing for the subjects that the committee would like to consider after the recess and the types of visit that it would like to make.

As members will see from the paper, European matters came out as a strong interest among members and prisons are also an interest. The Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001 is mentioned for post-legislative scrutiny—that is, for us to see whether there are any problems after enactment. There is a suggestion for a speaker to address us on sentencing policy. At the end of the paper, there are ideas for a couple of visits.

I open the discussion to committee members.

The proposal looks like a well-balanced programme to take us through the short term.

When we take oral evidence for the post-legislative scrutiny, could we consider hearing from a representative of Victim Support Scotland? The interdict with power of arrest is now opening up to a wider range of people than victims of domestic abuse only. Someone from Victim Support who deals with a wider range of victims might be a good person from whom to hear evidence.

On the suggestion that the committee consider the annual report from the chief inspector of prisons in Scotland together with the Justice 2 Committee, I sound a note of caution against the two committees coming together too often. We must decide whether a particular committee will consider prisons and run with it—as happened previously—or whether the two committees will come together for fairly major reports. I am of the view that we must decide at some point which of the two committees will work on a particular issue. It may be that, if we meet together to consider the chief inspector's annual report, we will then decide which committee will run with prisons, but I sound that note of caution.

I cannot remember which organisations gave evidence on the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Bill. Does the list of possible witnesses for our post-legislative scrutiny cover roughly those that gave evidence on the bill?

We have a list of the organisations from which evidence was taken when the bill was considered. It includes Scottish Women's Aid, the Family Law Association, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, the Sheriffs Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence and the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and we also took evidence from the Lord Advocate.

I ask primarily to check whether there is any need for us to request written evidence from those organisations. As the Executive has carried out research, I presume that it has been in contact with those organisations to get their views. It might be worth checking that. If the Executive has not done that, it may be worth our while asking those organisations whether they have any views that they can submit to us in writing. The list of organisations from which it is suggested that we take oral evidence is spot on.

We would have to prioritise. I do not know whether we have any time to think about that. Should we start by asking the Executive whether it has had any feedback?

We should ensure that it has consulted or sounded out organisations that were involved in pushing for the act in the first place.

To pick up on that point, there is nobody from the court system or the judiciary on the list of possible witnesses. As such people are the end point of the system, a number of them should have input on the impact of the 2001 act, although it would be fine if such evidence were written rather than oral.

On Michael Matheson's point about the annual report of the chief inspector of prisons, I believe that I, and other new members of the justice committees, would benefit from the evidence being taken in a joint meeting. We can then decide which committee will consider the matter further. I would certainly benefit from having a description of the general backdrop. However, each committee should proceed only with certain pieces of work because there is no point in duplicating work. Given the number of new members of the justice committees, it would be beneficial for both committees to hear what the chief inspector has to say.

I accept Michael Matheson's point that only one of the committees should work on an issue, but members of both committees would benefit from hearing about the chief inspector's annual report, especially as there is a new appointee to the post. Members will have an opportunity to thrash out the issues if we manage to organise an away day. We might be able to persuade Andrew McLellan to give an introductory talk to both committees on his annual report.

Point 18 in the paper, which is about sentencing policy, mentions that we might invite Dr Hutton to give the committee a briefing on the issue. As I have mentioned to the clerks, I have a general interest in sentencing policy. It would be of interest to members, particularly new ones, to get a background briefing on the subject.

Point 19 in the paper is about visits. One suggestion is that we visit a prison—I do not know whether the clerks have a prison in mind. I would like to visit a prison, but as I have already visited a number of them, I put in a bid for a visit to a prison that I have not been to before.

That is on the record.

If there are no other matters that members wish to raise, I will go through each of the points in the paper to ensure that we agree on them.

On European matters, the suggestion is that, as a starting point, we have an oral briefing on the basics of European law and legislation. Notwithstanding Michael Matheson's point that we should not always meet with the Justice 2 Committee, if that committee expresses an interest in such a briefing, it would make sense for it to be a joint one.

As part of our induction, it would be best if the two committees got together to receive a briefing on the issues.

"Induction" is a helpful word—the meeting on prisons and the briefing on European matters will fall under that heading and will kick-start members' knowledge of the systems. We will then adhere to the usual principle of meeting jointly only to discuss the budget.

In the past, I have been conscious that civil servants from the Executive tend to get a little carried away when they talk about European justice issues which, at times, can be rather complex and technical. When we request an oral briefing, can we make it clear that the briefing should take us from the bottom up through the process? At times, the civil servants tend to get us bogged down in the technicalities, which they seem to enjoy.

That is a fair point.

The briefing should be simple.

We want a beginner's guide.

Yes, but it should not miss out anything important. The point is a fair one. People who spend their lives negotiating in Europe on such matters sometimes forget that we do not consider such issues every day.

How do members wish to deal with the issue of prisons? I accept the point that we must be more specific about issues that we want to consider, but do members want to hear from Andrew McLellan in a joint meeting with the Justice 2 Committee, or should we ask him to talk only to this committee?

We should have a joint meeting, because that would be the best use of our and the chief inspector's time. The meeting should form part of our induction programme.

On the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, we should start by asking the Executive whether it has had any feedback on the act. We could also send a letter to the organisations that are mentioned in the note—and, as Margaret Mitchell suggested, to Victim Support Scotland—to inform them that we intend to examine the operation of the act and to ask them to give feedback to the committee. Members could then decide which organisations should give oral evidence. Unless members know now or have strong views about which organisations they would like to take oral evidence from, we will communicate with members during the summer recess and provide them with any written responses. As the evidence will be taken in the first week or two after the recess, we will have to give notice to the people involved. It might become apparent which organisations we should call.

A number of members are interested in sentencing policy. Dr Neil Hutton of the University of Strathclyde, who was the adviser to the previous Justice 1 Committee on alternatives to custody, might be able to brief the committee on sentencing. Again, I assume that the briefing would be simple and would cover general issues. If the matter interests members, we could then decide which issues to consider further.

Am I correct in thinking that the Executive will produce a proposal for a sentencing commission?

Yes. That is in the partnership agreement.

Do we know what the timetable is for the proposal?

We will check that.

If we intended to do some work in the area, that would have a bearing on our work.

The issue includes the sentencing commission, but there are other topical points. The briefing from Neil Hutton will allow members to assess which issues would be suitable to form the basis of a piece of work.

Visits do not have to be done by all committee members—we can do our own thing—but I want to get an idea of the visits that members would like us to organise during the summer recess for after the recess. We will set up at least one or two prison visits—preferably to prisons that Stewart Maxwell has not been to. We will discuss the dates further.

To clarify my previous remarks, I point out that I visited the prisons in a work capacity—there was no other reason.

The member should be mindful of the advice: stop digging.

Methinks he protests too much.

Are members keen on any other visits? Committee visits do not prevent members from undertaking their own visits in the summer.

A visit to Glasgow sheriff court is proposed. The convener will recall that when members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee visited Glasgow sheriff court, we were accompanied by representatives of the Glasgow Bar Association. I found that visit useful because we visited the court with practitioners rather than officials of the court service. The visit helped me to get to grips with the differences between custody courts, intermediate diet courts and normal courts and highlighted problems in the system. As part of the induction process, perhaps we should ask one of the bar associations—I suggest the Glasgow Bar Association, given that Glasgow sheriff court is the busiest court in Europe—whether it would be willing to facilitate such a visit. Clearly, this time, we should also organise a meeting with the sheriff principal.

I support that suggestion. As Glasgow sheriff court is Europe's busiest court, it is worth going to see, and we will be well looked after by the Glasgow Bar Association. We could also ask representatives of the Procurator Fiscal Service to give us a talk on the day, which would give us two opportunities.

You just touched on this, convener, but we could hear about the Procurator Fiscal Service generally, given that changes are going through the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service at the moment. Could we hear from it about the impact of the changes?

Okay.

I am interested in how women are treated in the prison service, so I would like to visit Cornton Vale, if that is possible. I am also interested in going to see a children's hearing. I know that there are time constraints and I have been told that the hearings can take only one visitor at a time. That means that we would have to organise visits individually, although that should not be too much of a problem.

I do not see why we cannot do that. The clerks could arrange visits for Marlyn Glen and for anyone else who wants to go.

We can fit in only about two visits in the recess. We are talking about a visit to a prison and a visit to Glasgow sheriff court, which could incorporate a short briefing from the Procurator Fiscal Service. That would be a good induction. For the prison visit, we could organise a visit to Cornton Vale for those who are interested, a visit to a children's hearing and a visit to another prison. We can consult members on which prison would suit them geographically and cover their general interests.

Will we visit the High Court of Justiciary as well at some point? It is possibly easier to make our other visits in the recess, but a visit to the High Court will be easy to make after the recess as it is just across the road. I visited it last week and talked to the people who are doing the job, as Michael Matheson suggested that it is useful to do. I found that visit useful all round and other members would probably benefit too. The High Court is on our doorstep, so we should be able to fit in a visit more easily than we could fit in some of our other visits.

We have discussed what we will try to fit in during the recess. We should also try to fix a date, after the recess, for a visit to the High Court.

That will be especially important if we are going to be the committee in charge of considering the High Court reform proposals.

That brings us to the end of our agenda. I remind members that our next meeting will be held on Wednesday 3 September in committee room 3. The clerks will keep in touch with members over the summer recess. There will be plenty of time to go on a lot of visits and to do a lot of reading, which I am sure that members will do.

Meeting closed at 11:03.