Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
We move now to stage 3 proceedings on the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill. I will begin with the normal announcement about the procedures to be followed. We will deal with the amendments to the bill and then move on to the debate on the motion to pass the bill. For the first part, members should have the bill—that is, SP Bill 39A—as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that have been selected for debate; and the agreed groupings.
In relation to amendments, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for that first division will be 30 seconds. This is the first time that we have used the division bell in this context. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate on a group. All other divisions will be 30 seconds.
After section 1
The first group is on co-operation for purposes of inspections. Amendment 3, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
The bill contains a number of provisions that are designed to achieve closer working among those charged with the delivery of offender management services. Indeed, that is the thinking behind the creation of community justice authorities. It will be important to be able to gauge the success of those provisions in improving the co-ordinated delivery of services.
Assessing the performance of the prison and police services, social work services and the community justice authorities in delivering joined-up services will in itself require joined-up working. Amendment 3 establishes a power for social work inspectors, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for Scotland and Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland to co-operate in their assessment of the delivery of services to offenders.
Because co-operation is defined in the bill as including information sharing, the provision will put beyond doubt that those bodies may share information about the services that are being delivered for offenders. That will be crucial if we are truly to create an offender-centred management regime. The power will enhance the inspection of offender management services.
I acknowledge that, in future, it may be appropriate to include other inspectorates, such as those that deal with health services. I am, however, conscious of sensitivities surrounding the sharing of information about individuals. Consequently, I feel that it is only right that any alteration to the list of designated inspectorates can be made by an order under the Parliament's affirmative procedure only.
I move amendment 3.
I support amendment 3. It is very sensible and it clears up any doubts that there may have been—although I do not think that there were any—on the need for co-operation.
I have only one question about amendment 3: why did it come so late in the procedure? At no point during the Justice 2 Committee's stage 2 deliberations was the issue raised, and the Subordinate Legislation Committee—which received the amendment because of the statutory instrument power within it—did not receive it until its meeting on Tuesday morning and so had very little time to consider it. Why did it take until stage 3 before amendment 3 was lodged?
I will call Bill Aitken first and let you wind up at the end, minister.
Mr Maxwell raises a point that had occurred to me, too. It is unusual that a fairly commonsense amendment should be lodged at the 11th hour and almost the 59th minute.
What is proposed is generally acceptable to us, but it would have saved us a little bit of time if the matter had been introduced much earlier when it could comfortably have been disposed of in committee.
I acknowledge that it is always best to give as much notification as possible and to bring things to committee early. In the development of all pieces of legislation—and this one is no different—we look to find where we can improve things. We look for any oversights and we look to find ways of accommodating comments made by committees and others.
I apologise for the delay but we felt that amendment 3 was important. We understand that it would have been desirable to deal with the matter earlier but it was brought to our attention late in the process. As soon as the matter came to our attention, we addressed it.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Section 2—Community justice authorities
Group 2 is on community justice authorities—area covered and island authorities. Amendment 25, in the name of Jim Wallace, is grouped with amendments 26, 27, 8, 11 and 12 to 14.
The issue of community justice authorities and island authorities has a long history. The Deputy Minister for Justice will know that from the earliest stages Orkney Islands Council and Western Isles Council, in particular, flagged up concerns about potential problems with the incorporation of their areas into a community justice authority covering the whole of the north of Scotland. I am grateful to ministers for the meetings that we have had and the correspondence that we have entered into.
I appreciate that amendment 25 would probably not add anything to the bill because it will be possible to set up a community justice authority that covers a single local government area in any case. However, since I lodged my amendments I have had further discussions with the convener and officials of Orkney Islands Council, and meetings on the matter took place last Friday at the margins of a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities meeting. As a result of those meetings, the amendment that I wish to focus on today is amendment 26, which seeks to ensure that there are separate plans for each island area within the community justice authority plan for the north of Scotland.
I will indicate why there is a case for treating the islands separately. The strategic plans of the three island communities are different from the mainland plans. Any crime is damaging to the victims, but in Orkney we are fortunate to have a relatively low crime rate and only a small number of people receive custodial sentences.
I offer an interesting insight into the way in which island communities are different. Recently, a solicitor in Orkney reported that, under some new rules by Reliance, people who have been convicted and given a prison sentence or remanded in custody are being taken off the island without an opportunity to meet their family before they go. If that happened in Edinburgh, there would be a visiting time relatively shortly thereafter and the family could go and visit the person, but if someone is taken from Orkney to Inverness it will be nigh on impossible for members of their family to have ready access to them. That is an example of the problems that are specific to island communities.
Another problem is the cost of travel. If the community justice authority is based in Aberdeen or Inverness, it might not be possible for people from the island communities to go to a meeting and return later in the day. Often, the meeting will involve an overnight stay—or perhaps two overnight stays, with one at either end. That will be costly and will take up the time of senior officials, which could be used for other work.
Videoconferencing is not the whole answer. A similar area is covered by the social work learning network. When I discussed the matter with social work officials on Monday, an official who is involved in the north of Scotland learning network said:
"the geography of our region, in which population and partners are concentrated in the Aberdeen nexus, has the unfortunate consequence that the northern isles, facing disproportionate high travel costs and time, have not been as influential as we would like. The costs include flights and a whole day out of the islands."
We must address those practical issues in setting up the community justice authorities.
As I indicated at question time some weeks ago, the performance of Orkney's criminal justice social work department deserves to be commended. On social inquiry reports, Orkney Islands Council came first out of the 32 Scottish councils in 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. It allocated 100 per cent of reports within two days and provided 100 per cent of reports to court on time. It is difficult to see how that performance can be improved on, but perhaps we will hear about that later.
On probation orders, Orkney Islands Council was ranked first in 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 for seeing new probations within one week, with 100 per cent compliance. On community service orders, Orkney Islands Council was ranked first in 2001-02 for average hours of community service completed per week. In 2002-03 and 2003-04, the council's performance was higher than the Scottish average. In 2004-05, the supported accommodation service for offenders that is provided by Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending—SACRO—achieved an occupancy outturn of more than 75 per cent.
The latest quarterly indications from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration—for July to September 2004—ranked Orkney first out of the 32 Scottish councils for youth justice performance across a range of indicators, including the percentage of persistent offenders and the number of social work reports that were submitted on time. There is therefore a good track record that we want to make sure continues into the future, and I am sure that ministers share that aspiration.
In a letter to me, the Minister for Justice stated
"I do remain convinced that the islands authorities have much to gain from involvement within a larger Community Justice Authority."
It would certainly be useful to put on the record precisely what gains are anticipated.
Amendment 14, in the name of the deputy minister, would allow the islands authorities to opt out of the transfer of specific functions while not holding back the mainland authorities, and that is very welcome. However, I ask the deputy minister to take this opportunity to put on record some of the issues that we have discussed and which the Minister for Justice has put to me in correspondence.
Staffing is a particular concern. In small authorities that have small social work departments, those who are engaged in criminal justice social work are often also engaged in other fields of social work. If they were to be ring fenced in some way so that they could do only criminal justice social work, that would put strain on other parts of the social work department, such as weekend cover. It is therefore important that we get some understanding of the staffing position so that the islands authorities will be able to retain their staff and so that there will be no financial detriment to the islands authorities if they are part of a wider community justice authority.
It is not just a question of the islands authorities being able to keep staff; we also need to ensure that funding is in place to allow them to do so. If there is to be new development money in future, the islands ought to get their share of it. That is why I ask for separate plans for the islands authorities to be included in the overall plan for the community justice authority. It would be useful if the deputy minister could indicate that separate plans would be required by ministers when the CJA plan is submitted to them.
Although this might be premature, it might be helpful if, in the same way as the police and fire authorities function, the CJA was to operate a system of rotating meetings so that people from the islands do not always have to go Inverness or Aberdeen, and people from Inverness and Aberdeen could come to enjoy island life in Lerwick, Kirkwall or Stornoway.
If the islands authorities are to be members of a community justice authority, they should be full members. That will require ministers to indicate what they intend to do with the weighting of votes, as happened with the new transport bodies.
The Minister for Justice has already gone a considerable way towards addressing many of my concerns. I will listen carefully to what is said in response to my amendments. It would be helpful to get on the record some reassurance for the islands communities if the community justice authorities are to go ahead.
I move amendment 25.
We are certainly aware of some of the specific issues identified and questions raised by Jim Wallace, and we are also aware of the concerns expressed by the islands authorities.
Performance is not just about speed; it is about access to the latest developments in professional practice and access to networks. Of course, good practice is a two-way process. What we are proposing is not just about Orkney learning from others but, potentially, about taking some of the progress identified by Jim Wallace and making sure that others are able to share that information.
Jim Wallace asked specifically about rotating meetings, but that is not a matter for us. I am sure that the members of the CJA would be more than delighted to visit Orkney occasionally, but far be it from me to order them to do so.
We acknowledge the particular circumstances prevalent in the islands, which have to be taken into account in developing policy in the area. That is why we lodged amendment 14. I will return to our amendment shortly, but first I will comment on Jim Wallace's amendments.
As Jim Wallace indicated, we believe that amendment 25 is unnecessary. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a community justice authority from covering the area of a single local authority.
Amendment 26 would place a duty on the proposed northern community justice authority to provide separate area plans for island authorities. Such a provision does not sit easily with the objective of area plans, which is to improve consistency in delivery, sharing of expertise and the transitions between prison and the community. The amendment would also place additional burdens on all partner bodies, as they would need to deal with up to four area plans within the proposed northern community justice authority area. Amendment 26 would also give island authorities a unique power over the relevant community justice authority by making it impossible for the CJA to submit its area plans without the agreement of the island authorities. No other council in Scotland would have such a right of veto.
Amendment 27 seeks to allow any local authority that is the sole member of a CJA to appoint one of its own officers as CJA chief officer. However, given the chief officer's important role in monitoring and reporting performance both to the community justice authority and to ministers, the amendment would place chief officers in the impossible position of having a clear conflict of interest between their reporting duties and their employer's interests. The creation of new chief officer posts that are independent of individual councils is a critical element in improving accountability.
I can give Jim Wallace some assurance, in that his discussions with the Minister for Justice have persuaded her of some of his arguments. Hence, some of the Executive amendments that we have lodged. I can also assure him that, when ministers receive community justice authorities' plans for scrutiny and approval, we will expect to see evidence in the proposed northern CJA's plan that the authority has consulted each of the island authorities, considered their particular circumstances and attempted to reach agreement with them.
The Executive's amendments respond positively to the concerns that have been expressed by island authorities. I hope that the amendments demonstrate that we are not set on a one-size-fits-all solution, as some might suggest. We understand the unique issues that, as Jim Wallace has outlined, island councils face in delivering criminal justice services. In particular, we appreciate that the size and nature of island authorities mean that the sustainability of services requires particular consideration.
Consequently, as Jim Wallace mentioned, any transfer of staff resources to a community justice authority will be unusually sensitive. The bill as drafted allows the transfer of functions and staff resources to community justice authorities from all local authorities within the area of a community justice authority. We recognise that the island authorities are particularly concerned about the implications of such transfers. Therefore, amendment 14 will introduce into section 7 a new subsection that will enable the island authorities to retain functions that other local authorities within the area of a community justice authority have agreed to transfer.
Clearly, if an island authority has chosen to opt out of a function, it would be inappropriate to lay an order to require the authority's consent. Taken together, amendments 14 and 13 will enable ministers to lay a transfer order that excludes the transfer of functions from any or all island authorities, should such authorities so choose, without requiring the consent of any relevant island authority that is not taking part in the transfer. Such a split in responsibilities between the local authority and community justice authority is feasible in an island context. However, we believe that it would be inappropriate to extend such transfer opt-outs to mainland local authorities, as that would create a complex mosaic of service responsibilities within a criminal justice authority, which would be to the detriment of clarity and accountability.
Amendments 8, 11 and 12 are consequential to amendment 13.
I hope that we have given sufficient assurance for Jim Wallace to consider withdrawing amendment 25. I urge members—
Before the minister sits down, will he make it clear that his welcome reassurances on staffing will be followed up by funding? Obviously, there is no point in making such commitments on staffing if funding does not follow them.
We already provide 100 per cent ring-fenced funding for criminal justice purposes, so there is a certain logic to ensuring that funding flows in relation to the protection of staff. Clearly, that point will have to be considered. We have already given assurances about the plans and the staff opt-out. As Jim Wallace suggests, it would be ludicrous if we allowed staff to remain without allowing the funding for them flow through.
Jim Wallace is correct to highlight the unique nature of our island communities. We recognise their special needs and requirements. However, we believe that the amendments in the name of the minister address the issue.
The minister addressed to some extent the other issue that I want to raise, but I seek a further assurance that there will not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Although the needs and wants of island communities are distinct, the same could be said of many other areas in relation to criminal justice. The needs and wants of the Angus glens are not necessarily reflected by what is required in a Dundee housing scheme. In east-central Scotland, what happens in the Borders is not necessarily reflected by the requirements of the city of Edinburgh.
We seek an assurance that practice and guidelines will provide an opportunity for the requirements of different areas to be addressed differently. The islands are unique, but there are vastly different areas even in mainland Scotland. It is essential that, in relation to their powers, criminal justice authorities should be given the guidelines and direction that enable them to deal with matters individually, to assuage the fears and alarms not just of island communities but of other rural areas that have raised concerns with me and, doubtless, with the minister.
I give Kenny MacAskill the assurance that he seeks. We do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. We will scrutinise the plans closely, and we hope and expect that they will reflect the points that the member has made.
I am grateful to Hugh Henry for his response to my amendments. It has been useful to get on the record the reassurances that he has given. In particular, he has reassured us that in its criminal justice authority plan the proposed northern CJA will have to demonstrate to ministers that the island authorities have been fully consulted and that every effort has been made to agree plans that take account of the specific circumstances in the islands. The points that he made about staffing and funding were also welcome.
As I indicated previously, amendment 25 is not necessary, so I seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment 25, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 26 not moved.
Section 3—Further provisions as respects community justice authorities
Amendment 27 not moved.
Section 4—Special duties of chief officer of community justice authority
Group 3 consists of minor amendments. Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 5, 7 and 22.
The amendments in this group are minor or technical in nature. Amendment 4 makes it clear that in section 4 the term "partner bodies" has the same meaning as in section 2(16).
Amendment 5 alters the reference in the bill to
"the Chief Inspector of Prisons"
to
"Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons".
That is the standardised wording for such references.
Amendment 7 corrects an error in section 5(4)(b) of the bill, which refers to an "enforcement notice". The correct term is "enforcement direction", which is used elsewhere in the bill.
Amendment 22 is a technical amendment to ensure that the bill contains the correct references to provisions in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
I move amendment 4.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Section 5—Power of Scottish Ministers to require action by community justice authority: failure by that authority
Amendment 5 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
Group 4 is failure by community justice authority—time for response to preliminary notice. Amendment 6, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is in a group on its own.
The purpose of the amendment is purely practical. Section 5 deals with preliminary notices issued by ministers where community justice authorities are perceived to be failing. For the provision to be meaningful, CJAs must have the opportunity to consider and respond to the minister's notice. As the bill stands, ministers could impose any deadline for a response if they wished to do so. That is not necessarily practical, particularly for CJAs that cover large geographical areas, such as the proposed northern CJA about which we have just heard. In such circumstances, no meaningful political endorsement or ownership of the CJA's response could be achieved. One would have to question the value of the bill's preliminary notice provision in that context. The amendment specifies a minimum period of 14 days in which CJAs would be allowed to consider and agree their formal response.
I move amendment 6.
I have a great deal of sympathy with amendment 6. There might be times when an immediate response is necessary; if so, I have no doubt that a CJA will make such a response. However, if we are gearing up to a situation where there might be a dispute, some formal period should be allowed for the CJA to deal with matters expeditiously. Although that period should be a reasonable length, it should be of sufficiently short duration. The provision should not prevent any immediate response to an issue of significant public concern, but I agree that a minimum period should be set to give the CJA the opportunity to make a fuller investigation in the variety of departments under its control. Ms Baillie's amendment 6 strikes a sensible balance between those two needs.
Jackie Baillie proposes to amend section 5, but her amendment also has a read-across to section 6. Section 5 addresses specifically the situation where a failure on the part of a community justice authority to exercise its functions under the bill is independently identified. The powers provide a structured mechanism by which ministers can require specific action to be taken by the CJA. Section 6 deals with a failure by a local authority to exercise its statutory criminal justice and social work functions and provides ministers with the power to require action by the community justice authority to remedy the situation. It follows the same staged approach as described in section 5.
Ministers would initially draw the reported failures of a CJA or local authority to the attention of the relevant CJA by issuing a preliminary notice. The notice would inform the CJA of the failure and require it to submit an appropriate written response. If ministers were dissatisfied with the response, they would have the option to issue an enforcement direction requiring the CJA to take action to address the failure.
As the bill is drafted, ministers may specify the time within which the CJA must respond to a preliminary notice. The provision follows the same approach to the intervention as that taken in the School Education (Ministerial Powers and Independent Schools) (Scotland) Act 2004. The approach provides flexibility to enable ministers to intervene as speedily as demanded by the type of failure that has occurred. It is important to have that flexibility.
As Jackie Baillie said, amendment 6 would impose a minimum period of 14 days for a community justice authority to respond to the preliminary notice. I worry that that would limit the flexibility for ministers to decide on a case-by-case basis when a response needed to be provided. There might be circumstances in which immediate intervention is required—to safeguard public safety, for example—in which case a 14-day delay could have serious consequences. We are not prescribing that an immediate response would always be required, but we believe that it is important to have that flexibility. I hope that, with those assurances, Jackie Baillie will seek to withdraw amendment 6.
I stand corrected about the section to which the amendment applies. The minister will not be surprised that I am much more interested in the substance of what he said. I am content with his response that the bill as drafted allows for the necessary flexibility to enable ministers to insist that urgent action be taken and, equally, to allow CJAs to respond in good time. On that basis, I seek agreement to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 7 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
Section 7—Transfer of functions to community justice authority
Amendment 8 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
We come to group 5. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 10.
The committee agreed to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 enabling certain functions of the Scottish Prison Service relating to the rehabilitation of prisoners to be transferred by order to community justice authorities. I believe that that is an essential additional provision, giving flexibility and encouraging joint working between the organisations. At the time, I also undertook to consider whether it might be possible for a CJA to act as an agent of the SPS—that is, to undertake certain functions relating to prisoner rehabilitation on behalf of the SPS, without requiring a statutory function. That is what amendment 10 will achieve. Thus, the transfer provisions relating to the SPS will mirror those for local authorities.
Amendment 9 is supplemental to amendment 10; it clarifies that the CJA need not consult local authorities and partner bodies prior to agreeing to undertake a function on behalf of the SPS. Such an arrangement would, rightly, be the concern of the CJA and the SPS alone.
I move amendment 9.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendments 10 to 14 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Arrangements for assessing and managing risks posed by certain offenders
Group 6 is on the role of health boards in assessing and managing risks posed by certain offenders. Amendment 15, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 16 and 17.
I am pleased to bring forward amendments 15 to 17 to refine further the definitions of mentally disordered offenders in section 9(10) and to correct an omission in section 9(11). The definitions of mentally disordered offenders in section 9(10), which were agreed at stage 2, cover people who are subject to a restriction and compulsion order or hospital direction under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and a transfer for treatment direction under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.
Amendments 15 and 16 will not change the policy intention and, therefore, who is covered; they will provide a simpler approach. The categories in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 9(10) will be defined as those subject to different types of order made under section 57(2) and section 59 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The categories in paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 9(10) are unchanged.
The health service will have a statutory function to establish joint arrangements with the other three responsible authorities—the Scottish Prison Service, local authorities and the police—to assess and manage risk, including sharing relevant information, for that group of mentally disordered offenders. Significantly, that will allow the health service to formalise the care programme approach that is already in place across Scotland. Under that process, a range of agencies works with the health service to support the safe pre-discharge and post-discharge arrangements for mentally disordered offenders.
Section 9(3) of the bill already gives ministers the power to make an order requiring other agencies to co-operate with the responsible authorities in establishing and implementing the arrangements for offenders in the community or offenders being released from prison. The responsible authorities also have a duty to co-operate with those agencies and with one another. We think that it is important that the health service should be under an express duty to co-operate with the other three responsible authorities as regards offenders who are not mentally disordered. Section 9(11) achieves that and amendment 17 will fully achieve it by ensuring that reference is made to all the categories referred to in subsection (10).
The provisions in relation to mentally disordered offenders are complex, but we are now confident that they will create a stronger framework within which the justice and health agencies will work together to assess and manage risks to the public. The amendments represent a major step forward in the drive to provide our communities with additional safety. By including health boards in provisions relating to mentally disordered offenders, we will plug a gap in the current situation with regard to a group that can also undoubtedly pose a risk to the public.
I move amendment 15.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendments 16 and 17 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
After section 10
Group 7 is on probation progress review. Amendment 18, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
The purpose of amendment 18 is to provide courts with the necessary statutory powers to conduct progress review hearings of offenders who are subject to a probation order. The enabling power will allow courts to hold review hearings in instances in which they are felt likely to be of positive benefit to the offender's progress on the order.
The need for a firm legal basis to the probation review hearings that courts have used for many years follows a recent court of appeal ruling that such hearings were legally incompetent under existing legislation. Nevertheless, the court of appeal acknowledged that there could be sound reasons for holding review hearings in appropriate cases.
Amendment 18 imposes a requirement on the offender to attend a review hearing set by the court as part of the probation order. It also provides the court with the power to issue an arrest warrant for the offender's arrest if he or she fails to appear for the hearing. Moreover, the amendment assists the court in conducting the review hearing by requiring the offender's supervising officer to submit a written report in advance of the hearing. Personal attendance at the hearing by the supervising officer or procurator fiscal is on a discretionary basis.
Amendment 18 provides the court with the power to amend the conditions of the probation order in light of the supervising officer's report. However, it may do so only after the effects of the proposed amendment to the order have been explained "in ordinary language" and the offender's consent has been obtained. The amendment also provides the court with the power to hold further review hearings if appropriate. Finally, the amendment applies to the review hearing scenario the existing powers available to courts in dealing with an offender who has failed to meet the terms of his probation order.
I move amendment 18.
I thank the minister for explaining in some detail the background to amendment 18, which again has come late in the day. Although we support this fairly sensible amendment, I wonder whether there has been any consultation with the probation service on its terms. After all, the service might have to bear additional burdens if people need to appear at hearings for certain probation reports. Has the service been fully involved in the process and does it understand its responsibilities?
To some extent, I concur with Mr Maxwell. Irrespective of how the provision has come about, I believe that it will be beneficial. As a defence agent, I know that when a probation order was imposed, the courts forgot all about it unless its terms were fundamentally breached. The provision will empower our sheriffs and, because it provides them with a more hands-on approach and opportunities for monitoring, it will also help to back up probation officers in any difficulties that they might face.
I seek clarification on a point that probably affects sheriffs more than the probation service. Will sheriffs receive advice on how to use the provision? Will some methodology be provided with regard to instances in which, for example, what might turn out to be a short leash could be put on someone on a probation order? Will the Executive work with the Sheriffs Association to ensure that the sensible provision works and is used in practice?
I should point out that, although the term was probably used as shorthand, we do not have a probation service as such in Scotland. However, I understand what Stewart Maxwell was getting at. Instead of consulting the courts and probation officers on the issue, we are simply allowing them to do what they are already doing, although we are putting that on a statutory footing. Our concern is that they would continue to work without that statutory underpinning. The issue raised by Kenny MacAskill would be a matter for the courts and social workers to address and make progress on, if required.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Section 11—Amendment of Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993
Group 8 is on the release of certain sex offenders. Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 20.
At stage 2, we delivered on our promise to take action to end the unconditional release of short-term sex offenders. Those offenders will no longer simply be released from prison in a way that allows them, in effect, to drop out of local authorities' control. They will now be supervised and be subject until the end of their sentences to licence conditions that reflect the nature of the risk that they pose and their offending.
Naturally, we want the important new measures to have maximum impact when they come into force. At stage 2, Bill Butler asked whether we could extend the classes of offender to whom the new measures would apply to include not only those who were convicted on or after the new provisions come into force but those who were already serving their sentence at the time. Following some consideration, Scottish ministers have decided that the new measures should be extended to those in custody at the time of commencement. That is the purpose of amendments 19 and 20.
Of course, we cannot say at the moment exactly how many additional offenders will be involved, because we cannot predict how many may be in custody when the new measures come into effect. Whatever the number, the important point, which relates to what Bill Butler said at stage 2, is that more sex offenders will be subject to the new arrangements. I hope that members will agree that that is an encouraging prospect. However, the provision is not about numbers; it is about enhancing public safety. By lodging the amendments, we are ensuring that the valuable new measures have maximum effect from the time of their inception. In so doing, we are contributing once again to our commitment to support stronger, safer communities.
I move amendment 19.
We fully support the amendments in the minister's name. We have been calling for such measures for some time and we welcome their arrival now. However, we seek assurance from the minister on the points that have been raised by the Association of Directors of Social Work, although that organisation's concerns will no doubt have been transmitted directly to him. Clearly, the new measures will have immediate effect and will have significant resource and financial implications, especially for local authorities and, most important, for social work departments. It is quite clear that dealing with people who are covered by the new measures will require significant resource management and that that will impinge greatly on social work departments. As has been outlined today, there have been record numbers of vacancies in social work, so we seek an assurance that local authorities will not be further burdened without the provision of the consequent resourcing.
There are difficulties for which everyone in the chamber has to take responsibility. Having given responsibility to local authorities without any consequent additional resourcing, we need to give them some assurance. Given the sensitivities of the great difficulties and recent tragedies that have occurred, we must ensure that we are not simply passing the buck. I trust that the minister will ensure that local authorities are properly provided for in doing what the Executive, to its credit, is asking them to do. We support the measures.
We need to put the matter in context. We are not talking about huge numbers, so I am not sure that there will be a huge resource implication. However, we also need to remember that we fund criminal justice activities 100 per cent and we will clearly continue to fund the demand that exists and the requirement that we identify in each area. The new community justice authorities must also examine what is happening in their areas and identify whether dealing with the specific group of offenders as proposed will have significant resource implications. That information will be fed back in the normal way and we will look at it. Clearly, we are not going to pass the bill and then find that it cannot be implemented simply because there is a resource issue. I hope that we can retain some perspective, put the amendments into the right context and note that we already fund criminal justice activities 100 per cent.
Amendment 19 agreed to.
Amendment 20 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
Group 9 is on changes to early release of prisoners. Amendment 1, in the name of Annabel Goldie, is grouped with amendment 2.
Amendment 1 brings us back to the issues with automatic early release that I raised in the committee at stage 2.
As members will be aware, prisoners who are currently imprisoned in our Scottish jails can automatically get out early after serving half their sentence if they are short-term prisoners, or two thirds of their sentence if they are long-term prisoners. That is a consequence of Westminster legislation that was introduced by a Conservative Government. The Conservative Government recognised that the system was not working and introduced legislation to end it, but the incoming Labour Government of 1997 did not bring the legislation into effect, which is why we still have automatic early release.
The purpose of amendment 1 is to reintroduce a topic that I raised at stage 2. When I lodged an amendment on the issue at stage 2, the minister raised some perfectly proper concerns, which I was prepared to address. He expressed concern that it would be unclear whether the change would be retrospective and concern about the effect of the amendment on prison capacity.
From all that has been said—in particular by the First Minister earlier today—it seems to me that it is universally recognised, including by the Executive, that the system of automatically letting prisoners out early is discredited. The difference between us seems to be whether we should do something now to end the system or whether, as the Executive seems minded to do, we simply go on talking about the issue and expressing concern but do not take any specific measure to bring the system to an end.
Amendment 1 would achieve two things. It would end automatic early release and it would reinstate a requirement for prisoners—short term or long term—to earn an element of early release, which would be a sixth of the sentence that had been imposed. It is important to emphasise that I have also endeavoured in the amendment to retain home detention curfews. I expressed concern in the committee about the application of home detention curfews under the current regime because if, as the Executive proposes, we do not get rid of automatic early release, the practical consequence of the provision on home detention curfews is that prisoners will get out even earlier. That is a matter of profound concern to the public of Scotland. My amendment is drafted so that it would end automatic early release, insert a provision to allow a prisoner to earn remission of up to a sixth of their sentence and allow home detention curfews to be retained.
To try to answer the concerns that the minister expressed at stage 2, I seek to provide that the change would be in the control of the Executive. Amendment 2 would allow the provision in amendment 1 to be brought into effect by affirmative subordinate legislation. In other words, a Scottish statutory instrument would have to be laid before the provision could have effect. That is an attempt to address what I considered were proper concerns expressed by the minister.
In Miss Goldie's suggested scheme, would every case have to be dealt with by the Parole Board for Scotland? If that is the case, does she realise that that would mean up to 11,000 extra cases being dealt with?
It is easy to bandy numbers about, but we must make a serious point about the principle. The point is that the system as it currently operates does not enjoy the confidence of the people of Scotland and no wonder: prisoners are getting out early and very serious crimes are being committed during the period of early release. Mr Butler's point raises an important issue about what is the political priority. I detect that there is a clamour for change, and I do not think that the Executive dissents from that. If that is the case, the Executive must put in place the necessary resources that are consequent on any change to the procedure, and there must be political leadership if the Executive is to change the procedure.
The member raised the issue of capacity, and I wonder whether I may provide some assistance. If 10 more prison places were required, that would require £1 million of capital spending. If 10 prisoners are kept in prison for three years in addition, that requires £1 million of additional revenue spending. Does that help the member to tell us what the capital and revenue implications of her proposals are?
No, but it assists me in once again showing the difference between the Executive, the Scottish National Party and my party. We are considering the concerns of the people of Scotland, which are dramatically depicted in the appalling chronicle of crime that is committed when persons are let out of prison early—during the period of early release. That is why the issue hangs on whether the Executive has the political will to take a decision to end the practice.
Will Miss Goldie give way?
No, thank you. If the political will is there, it attracts resource, so the Executive has to be clear that the matter is a fundamental priority and a political imperative. That is the difficulty.
Will the member give way?
No. As amendment 1 ensures, the provision would not be retrospective in effect. It would come into effect only when the Scottish Executive so determined.
If the Executive is craven in not being prepared to accept the amendments, that is a stark illustration of what the First Minister was advocating earlier today but does not do. The Executive does not practise what it preaches. Nothing could be clearer if it refuses to back my amendments.
I move amendment 1.
As a member of the Justice 2 Committee, which may well be losing its convener, I pay tribute to Miss Goldie for her work on that committee during its scrutiny of the bill. Notwithstanding the irony of the heartfelt plea from the new leader of the Conservatives in Scotland for the Parliament to repeal a Conservative measure, Miss Goldie has argued a highly unprincipled and illogical case. She has said in press releases that people who have been released early have committed offences, and that there is therefore an issue of safety for society. If that is what she is arguing, why have any parole at all?
Miss Goldie misses the point. Too many people who are released once their prison sentence has concluded, whether or not that sentence is short or long, commit a second or third offence, not just during the period of their release on licence but within a period of two years. That applies to too many people, particularly to those who committed offences that are subject to short-term sentences. The whole point of the bill is to take an holistic approach to reducing reoffending overall.
We need a system that is capable of reforming offending behaviour. That includes managing releases and the resettlement and rehabilitation of offenders. Miss Goldie argues for a point of principle—to allow prisoners to be released on licence for a sixth of their sentence. If it suits the individual's rehabilitation for that to be two sixths or a half instead, that should be considered, so we should have the necessary flexibility to allow that to be done.
The whole thrust of the bill's proposals, as well as the work of the Sentencing Commission for Scotland, starts with much earlier intervention to address the behaviour of individuals. Once someone has offended, we need the right method of punishment so that, with additional effort, offending behaviour as a whole can be reduced. That involves a reduced number of short sentences and more faith being placed in the justice system and in the availability and effectiveness of community disposals that help to address what are, under the surface, the often chaotic lifestyles of offenders. In addition, there must be proper and robust monitoring of more serious offenders on their release.
Looking at one aspect in isolation, as Miss Goldie's amendments seek to do, is not the way forward. I ask her to consider how many witnesses asked us to consider the issue in isolation during the passage of the bill. None did, of course.
This lunchtime, Miss Goldie tasked the First Minister with not building up the hopes of communities. Amendment 1 would do exactly that. With the Sentencing Commission's work and the bill we are moving away from an arbitrary approach. We should not revert to one now.
I extend my congratulations to Miss Goldie on the position that I am sure she will assume on Tuesday and on her early release from the Justice 2 Committee. Notwithstanding that, I will speak against amendment 1, which relates to section 11. The amendment is strikingly similar to the one that Miss Goldie moved at stage 2. Apart from the insertion of a new subsection (1), it is, in effect, the same amendment that was defeated comprehensively at stage 2 and which attracted only the support of its mover. When Miss Goldie moved that amendment, she talked about addressing prison capacity, but she did not do so today, which is not helpful to her case.
Given that the amendment is strikingly similar to the one that Miss Goldie moved at stage 2, I hope that she will forgive me for making a strikingly similar contribution this afternoon. I remain wholly unconvinced by the amendment because of its consequences and lack of practicability.
Annabel Goldie talked about having political will. If the Conservatives ever aspire to government in this country, they will need political will, but they will also need to be practical and say where the money will come from, which was markedly missing from Miss Goldie's contribution.
Mr Butler is absolutely right to say that we should know where the money will come from. It is clear from Annabel Goldie's response to Stewart Stevenson that she has not got a clue. Does Mr Butler think that she has cleared the amendment with her deputy leader, Murdo Fraser, who always berates the Executive about public expenditure levels?
I would not like to make assumptions about the internal workings of the Conservative party in Scotland, assuming that the Conservatives are talking to one another. I am sure that they are and that they will continue to talk to one another in opposition in the long years ahead.
Of course all members would agree that we want a bill that has public protection at its heart. No one could argue with that, but to achieve that objective, we need workable, practical measures. Unhappily, even though Miss Goldie's amendment is modified in one particular, to which I have referred, it remains deficient in that vital respect.
I believe that if amendment 1 were agreed to, it would lead inexorably to an increase in the number of prison places. In his evidence at stage 2, the deputy minister mentioned the figure 4,000, which would necessitate up to six new prisons. Perhaps in summing up Miss Goldie will respond to that specific point, which she failed to address in the committee.
There remains the associated question of how long it would take to build the prisons, which perhaps Miss Goldie would address. When we hear the length of time, we will be able to calculate—or at least Stewart Stevenson will—the associated cost per prisoner.
You must finish now, Mr Butler.
I have so much more to say on this, but I will finish by saying to Miss Goldie that we have to take care that the best measures are taken to ensure that a prisoner who is released under condition is not likely to reoffend. The bill is about public safety, but that is the vital other side of the coin. Miss Goldie's amendment 1 would deliver none of the above. It is impractical and deficient and I hope that she will withdraw it. If she does not, I hope that members will roundly defeat it.
As the lawyers would say, I adopt the comments of Mr Purvis and Mr Butler. As the saying goes, legislate in haste, repent at leisure. We are in fact paying the price for a short-term fix that was carried out many years ago by the Tories to try to reduce the number of prisoners. It is disingenuous of them to come in, as Mr Butler said correctly, to try to provide a solution to that problem when we are trying to deal with another matter.
The issue is of serious concern and Miss Goldie is quite right to raise it. Clearly, people wish transparency in sentencing. They also wish to ensure that those who are a serious danger and threat to our communities are addressed. We need to do that in a manner that will provide a long-term solution and will not create even more problems.
This is not the bill in which the matter should be dealt with. We should have some trust and faith in the Sentencing Commission, which is, after all, made up of people who are distinguished in many fields. We should allow them time and space in which to come forward with a solution that will not simply be aimed at an election campaign, which is obviously gearing up under Miss Goldie and her new deputy, but which will provide a working system for the people of Scotland for years to come.
We have serious problems in our prisons. One of the issues is addressed by Miss Goldie's amendment. However, we have to address a variety of matters. Simply seeking to have short-term and long-term prisoners dealt with in the same way is utterly nonsensical. We should be seeking to get as many short-term prisoners as possible out of incarceration so that we can deal with them in the community, as Jeremy Purvis has said on record on previous occasions.
We need to take a pragmatic and sensible approach. I do not usually concur with the First Minister or adopt what he says, but I thought that his earlier response to Miss Goldie was quite correct: we should allow the Sentencing Commission to come forward with suggestions and, thereafter, let the Executive produce a bill that will cover the entire area of our sentencing policy rather than only the question of how we manage a minority of serious offenders who are released on licence and a few other add-ons.
I congratulate Annabel Goldie on taking on the awesome burden of leading Rag, Tag and Bobtail in the Scottish Parliament. When she was interviewed yesterday, she referred to her vintage. Unfortunately, in relation to the issue that we are discussing, she has a worn 78 that she might want to consider bringing into the 21st century. She is in a groove in which she is saying nothing new. In the committee and today, she was clearly uncomfortable at having to say things that have no great relevance, effect or contribution to make. She has rightly identified an important issue, however, and she is right to say that, between stages 2 and 3, she has addressed one of the questions that was asked of her, which was to do with when the terms of her amendment would come into force. Today we got an answer, of sorts, to that question. She was quite specific: the provisions will come into force sometime and will apply to offenders after that time. So, as we are obviously clear about that issue, we can move on in the debate.
I am not sure which part of our often-voiced commitments to change the current early-release arrangement is unclear. We have said that retaining the status quo is not an option and that we will introduce reforming legislation next year. We have also said that any change will be considered within the broader context of our on-going top-to-bottom reform of the criminal justice system. That reform is striving to achieve the overarching objectives of enhancing public safety and reducing reoffending.
We have said that the law that was introduced by the Tories needs to be changed. We also accept that change could have significant resource and financial implications, which is why we need to make the change properly. It is utterly wrong to approach this matter in the way in which the Tories are doing.
Annabel Goldie has not answered any of the questions that she was asked at the committee, although, when she sums up, she might answer some of the questions that were just posed by Bill Butler.
Deputy Presiding Officer, on the question of whether extra prisons will be required, I know that you have asked me about a specific concern that you have about your area. Annabel Goldie needs to answer the question of how many extra prisons will be required—perhaps she could use some of the information that was helpfully provided by Stewart Stevenson when she does so. Where will those prisons be? Deputy Presiding Officer, I cannot give you an assurance in relation to the specific question that you asked me, which was to do with whether there will be a prison on the ex-Royal Ordnance factory site in Bishopton. I do not know; perhaps Annabel Goldie can answer that question for you.
This is a complex area of law and we need to get it right. We have a body of experts considering the issue of early release. We will build on the findings of the Sentencing Commission and bring forward a comprehensive set of proposals for Parliament to consider. That is the right way to go about this, rather than endlessly debating sterile political slogans. I hope that, under Annabel Goldie's leadership, the Conservatives will move on.
Amendment 2 is a rather strange afterthought. Annabel Goldie suggested that it is a way of addressing a problem. However, it would introduce a novel parliamentary procedure, requiring the commencement order bringing the new early-release regime into force to be debated and approved by the Parliament. I do not know whether Annabel Goldie has spoken to the Subordinate Legislation Committee about her suggestion. When looking at the Family Law (Scotland) Bill recently, it agreed that it would not be appropriate to subject a commencement order to parliamentary procedure when Parliament had already agreed that it was content with the proposal in the bill.
Perhaps amendment 2 is a sign that Annabel Goldie is not sure that her proposals are a good idea. Maybe she wants Parliament to have one last chance to prevent them from coming into force. If we are not sure that the proposals are a good idea, we should not legislate for them now. Far better to follow our approach of having a comprehensive set of proposals for Parliament to consider, based on the Sentencing Commission's work. I hope that Parliament will reject Annabel Goldie's suggestions.
I commence on a gracious note and thank those members who made them for their kind remarks.
This has been an interesting debate, because it has laid bare a dichotomy at the heart of the Executive. The First Minister is unambiguous in his condemnation of automatic early release. He is on record condemning it on at least three occasions, and he reaffirmed his sense of opprobrium about the continuance of the system earlier today. However, it is a different picture when his colleagues in government contribute to the debate and offer their own explanations as to why they are unable to support amendment 1.
Mr Purvis's contribution was particularly quaint. He said, "Why pick a sixth of a sentence for remission? It might be that two sixths is appropriate, or whatever." Clearly, Mr Purvis takes the view that a prison sentence is to have no meaning attached to it whatever. That is precisely the lack of clarity that the public are so frustrated with, and it is precisely the inconclusive approach to the issue by the executory—I mean Executive; "executory" is an unfortunate slip—with which the public are becoming impatient.
Will the member give way?
I want to deal with points raised by Bill Butler. As reaffirmed by the minister, Mr Butler homed in on prison capacity. The contributions by the minister and Mr Butler indicated that they are fending off in every possible way they can think of any suggestion that at this stage we should bring an end to automatic early release, notwithstanding the completely unambiguous commitment of the First Minister to do that. Prison capacity, cost and the possible consequences of changing the law in the way I proposed are material considerations that must be taken into account, but the real material consideration is whether the Executive wants to uphold and implement what it says is a fundamental political principle—it either does or it does not. It is clear to me from this afternoon's speeches that the Executive says one thing about the principle and quite another about its implement.
On capacity, at stage 2 the minister mentioned an estimated figure of 4,000 places, but that assumes that the prison population is a static entity that is unaffected by events. My colleagues and I argue that if we get rid of automatic early release, not only will we respond to the understandable cry of the public that they do not feel safe while the system operates, but we will introduce a deterrent effect by having a system in which the sentence imposed is the sentence served. We could expect to see a reduction in prison population because of that. We have statistical evidence from Spain and Ireland that having a large prison population leads to lower rates of crime.
The other issue that is definitely relevant is that I am certain that the judiciary's attitude to sentencing would alter because, clearly, when they impose a sentence, judges have to take into account for how long they think the person's liberty should be removed.
In the debate, I have witnessed a lot of distraction, a lot of evidence used as a smokescreen and many comments that were intended to fob off my party's attempts, through amendment 1, to do what the public want. I do not intend to withdraw the amendment; I intend to push it to the vote.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
In line with the protocol that I announced at the beginning of this item of business, there will now be a five-minute suspension.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Byrne, Ms Rosemary (South of Scotland) (SSP)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
MacDonald, Margo (Lothians) (Ind)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 96, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
After section 11
We move now to group 10, on testing prisoners for drugs. Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 24.
The purpose of amendment 21 is to allow the Scottish Prison Service to obtain and test saliva samples from prisoners for the purpose of detecting drugs in their system. [Interruption.]
Order. I do not know whether members had noticed, but the minister has resumed.
Presiding Officer, perhaps you could come to my house some time and exercise the same degree of control over my children.
The power for the Scottish Prison Service is in addition to the existing power to obtain and test samples of urine for the same purpose.
Amendment 21 will allow the Scottish Prison Service to develop simplified and more cost-effective processes that take advantage of scientific advances in drug testing. There are a number of advantages in using the method described: for example, the ease and speed of sample collection, and the fact that sample adulteration is less likely as collection can be directly observed. Furthermore, the method eliminates the need for same-gender sample collections; tests can be conducted almost anywhere; and results are available on the spot in minutes.
Amendment 21 will add flexibility to the SPS's drug-testing regime and will aid the SPS to align its testing practices with those of its partners in the criminal justice system—for example, the police and those who conduct tests for drug abuse to inform drug treatment and testing orders.
Amendment 24 is a consequential amendment to the long title of the bill.
I move amendment 21.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Section 14—Further amendments and repeal
Amendment 22 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
Section 15—Supplementary and consequential provision etc
Amendment 2 not moved.
Section 17—Commencement
We now move to group 11, on scheme of accreditation and procedure etc of the Risk Management Authority—commencement. Amendment 23, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Parliament will recall that part 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 introduced new procedures for dealing with high-risk sex offenders and violent offenders. The procedures include the establishment of the Risk Management Authority and a new sentence to be available to the High Court—the order for lifelong restriction.
We have been working with the Risk Management Authority to set up the arrangements for accrediting risk assessors and the arrangements for the risk assessment methods needed before the new orders for lifelong restriction can be brought into force. Those arrangements will be provided for in a scheme under section 11 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. As part of the arrangements, we want to ensure that there is a clear separation between decisions on whether to award or remove accreditation and decisions on appeals.
At stage 2, the Justice 2 Committee agreed to add section 10A of the bill, which will ensure that the Risk Management Authority is able to delegate its functions appropriately rather than the board having to take every decision. Section 10A also allows the accreditation scheme under section 11 to authorise accreditation decisions and allows appeal decisions to be taken by committees of the Risk Management Authority. As the bill stands, there is doubt about whether that is permitted.
Amendment 23 will bring section 10A into force on royal assent. That will allow the accreditation scheme to be made without delay. In turn, that will allow the order for lifelong restriction provisions in the 2003 act to be brought into force early in the new year.
I move amendment 23.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Long title
Amendment 24 moved—[Hugh Henry]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.