Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
I reconvene today's meeting of Parliament. The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4397, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, that the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I am grateful to members for their forbearance. There has been some turbulence in the journey to achieve what I think all of us recognise is necessary. I will attempt to deal with some points that were raised during stage 1 and allay concerns that Mr Brown and Mr Harvie expressed. Legitimate points were made. I thank members for the co-operation that has been shown.
It is clear that issues to do with the constitution and the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by the Justice Committee, will continue to divide us, but we are talking about a matter that affects the national interest. Therefore, it is right that members have united to ensure that the bill's provisions are delivered and that they recognise the considerable problem faced by the Scottish Prison Service and the anger that that was causing to people outside, who wanted us to deal with matters as expeditiously as possible.
Obviously, there was some turbulence in ensuring that matters were dealt with, with the requirement for co-operation from south of the border. However, I do not wish to go over old ground; suffice it to say, we are grateful for the eventual agreement that matters should be proceeded with. It is clear that action still has to be taken, but what has happened shows that, when there is a necessity to solve a clear and manifest wrong, that can be dealt with. I pay tribute to the bill team and everybody else who has ensured that matters have been dealt with as speedily as possible.
Many of the matters that have been raised can be summarised as questions of who, when and what. Clearly, the "who" is the Scottish Government and a number of agencies, such as the Scottish Prison Service, that need to be protected. Health boards, which might see challenges in months and years to come, are currently protected by the Human Rights Act 1998.
The bill's purpose is to give the Government and its agencies the same protection that is available to other public bodies that might be pursued not under the Scotland Act 1998 but under the Human Rights Act 1998. Indeed, the protection that we seek is the protection that we thought that we had until the Somerville decision came out in the House of Lords. We want protection that, as Mr Aitken said during stage 1 of the bill, is uniform and is to the standard that was discussed in the European Parliament and elsewhere. In those discussions, it was agreed that a period of one year was appropriate for the matters with which the bill is concerned. We are not talking about accident claims or litigation about pecuniary affairs; we are talking about matters that relate specifically to human rights, so it is appropriate that we should operate under the European norm.
The question of "when" has two parts. One is the date when the bill should come into force. I am grateful for the forbearance of Mr Aitken and other members. Obviously, we had one view but, as in with legal matters, there exists legal advice that is of a different complexion. Again, we want to achieve consensus and ensure that we avoid challenge. We are conscious that, despite the fact that this Parliament united to bring in compensation in relation to pleural plaques, the Government is being pursued through the courts by those who represent the insurance companies. However, in that regard, I should say that even the first orders of the cases of those who are pursuing us appear to be taking considerably longer than the entire parliamentary process took. That perhaps explains why we look forward with interest to Lord Gill's report. Something is manifestly wrong if the parliamentary process is significantly quicker than the first order in a judicial review.
I am grateful to members for the points that they have raised, and I understand why people queried issues. We believe that the date in November for the arrangements to come into force will provide greater certainty. It will not prevent people from seeking to make challenges and, as Bill Aitken said during stage 1, there are those who trawl around for issues on which they can base challenges, but that is a bridge that we will just have to cross when we come to it.
The issue of when the arrangements will kick in was raised earlier. The issue arose in relation to the Somerville judgment, but, as Fergus Ewing said earlier, that judgment involved a point of principle rather than the question of when the wrong took place. The issues will involve facts and circumstances, to some extent, and the decision will be a matter for judicial interpretation. Clearly, a breach of someone's human rights can take place over a short time or a long time. If someone has not done much about a breach that has gone on for 20 years and raises the matter after 18 months, it might be that that case will be treated differently from a breach that occurred when someone was detained for a shorter period.
To Patrick Harvie, I say that neither the Government nor the Parliament is seeking to prevent prisoners from being able to pursue claims against the Government or the Scottish Prison Service. We have signed up to certain standards, and the recognition of the European convention on human rights is within our founding principles. If there are manifest breaches of people's human rights by a Government agency, it is correct that those people—regardless of whether they are prisoners—should have the opportunity to pursue claims against it. The bill is about closing a gap and ensuring that the public purse—which was in danger of being bled dry—can be used to fund other things.
There will be instances in which there are opportunities to challenge, appropriately, the Government and its agencies. Rights are not being taken away; we are simply ensuring that we strike the right balance so that we can protect the public interest.
The question of "what" involves cost. There are savings but, as Bill Aitken said, they will not be recurrent. The saving of £50 million is to be welcomed, but it is one tenth of the sum of the cuts that we are facing as a result of decisions in Westminster. The opportunity for bounty, therefore, is limited.
I am grateful for the forbearance of the Parliament, and I thank members for their constructive attitude. It has been a long and difficult journey, which will doubtless continue and go through further turbulence.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
This morning's stage 1 debate on this crucial issue was good and productive, as was stage 2—albeit that it was brief. Everyone in the Parliament realises the necessity to pass the bill today. The sums of public money at stake are high and there is substantial concern, and indeed anger, among the public, who think that payments to prisoners for slopping out should be restricted. The emergency bill procedure is rarely used because it curtails debate, but in this instance it has been entirely justified.
In the course of the day, I have been contacted by members of the legal community who are concerned about potential unintended consequences of the bill, which addresses a narrow situation. I was reassured by the comments that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice made in his speech and by his responses to Patrick Harvie's points in the stage 1 debate.
The issue of how the bill and the one-year time bar might affect other situations in which claims are made about breaches of human rights has been raised with me. I am persuaded by the discretion that the bill affords to the courts, which is an important aspect of the debate, but I acknowledge that others remain concerned. There is a strong argument for ministers to introduce into Parliament the draft limitation (Scotland) bill, which has been prepared by the Scottish Law Commission, because it deals with those issues more comprehensively, and I urge them to do so. The concerns that have been raised highlight the fact that the issue is complex, which has contributed to the time that it has taken to reach this point.
I take issue with what Angela Constance said this morning and what the First Minister said this afternoon. It is clear that there has been a genuine desire to resolve the situation. Co-operation between Governments has been to the fore in the way that the matter has been dealt with. The fact that we are uniting in the chamber to pass the bill is indicative of collaboration between parties here and between ministers at Holyrood and Westminster.
I do not think that there is any need to pick out further points of debate, although the issue of what the hoped-for savings should be spent on will be a matter for discussion. We will continue to have a debate about cuts or increased spending for the Scottish Government in the next two years, but I do not think that it would be productive to spend more time on that now. This morning I referred to potential areas for investment, to which I am sure that others will return this afternoon and on other occasions.
The key point is that we do all we can to limit further compensation payments in the future because they are unacceptable. For that reason, the emergency bill will receive support from the Labour Party and, I am sure, from members throughout the chamber.
Members might be aware that, just occasionally, I am perhaps not the most enthusiastic endorser of the European convention on human rights. That is not to say that I do not believe in human rights. I accept that we are where we are, and I have to acknowledge that we are signed up to the convention whether I like it or not.
It is incumbent on us to recognise that the original judgment was correct. Although it sticks in the throat more than a little that some of the most undeserving people in Scotland were in effect ripping off the Scottish taxpayer for not insignificant sums, we have at last done something about it, which reflects well on all concerned—the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament.
The wider debate on the European convention on human rights will continue to tax us for some years. Some decisions from European courts and some legislation from Europe are problematic. That leads me to think that perhaps a one-hat-fits-all solution in respect of European human rights is not particularly appropriate. We have not been without our difficulties, but our record on human rights in the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular, bears favourable comparison with records elsewhere. As such, I do not think that, historically, there has been a strong case for our having to sign up to what is in most cases common sense but which, unfortunately, in other cases seems to defy logical rationale.
That is all largely historical, because we have moved forward. There will be considerable public relief that we no longer face the prospect of compensation payments, which engendered considerable irritation, annoyance and anger. By 5 o'clock, that will all be finished, which is no bad thing.
There is a certain sense of déjà vu in this afternoon's debate. That said, I confirm the support of the Liberal Democrats for the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. We do so in the knowledge that the bill potentially affects not only prisoners in our jails who have made claims because of slopping out. This morning, we heard from Angela Constance about the real experience of slopping out. She is one of the few MSPs with personal and practical knowledge of the issue—I hasten to say that that is from her professional career in social work. She told the Parliament that the practice neither rehabilitates nor appropriately punishes people who have committed crimes.
This morning, I did my best to test out the detail of the Government's proposals for this emergency legislation. I believe that it is the duty of MSPs not only to agree and support the principle of legislation but to ensure that the detail stands up. We need to be sure that legislation does what it says on the tin—no more and no less—and, particularly in the case of emergency legislation, that it creates no unintended consequences. I am grateful to the ministers for their full answers on the issues that I raised. In essence, they said that they want a uniform situation to prevail across the United Kingdom—and, indeed, across Europe. In this case, their wish has the full support of the Liberal Democrats.
I want to say a word on the implications of the bill. The primary aim—which is a great public good—is that up to £50 million of public funds will be released to serve a more positive purpose. As Bill Aitken rightly pointed out, it is a one-off and not a repeating annual sum—the cabinet secretary also touched on that in his speech. Nevertheless, the money is a substantial boost to the public coffers at a time of difficulty and constraint.
The SNP Government may already have spent the money in anticipation of its release—indeed, I suspect that that may be the case. However, just as it is manifest that slopping out had to be dealt with, it is clear that the increased number of community sentences that are consequent on the reduction in the number of short-term sentences under the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill should be supported. Community sentences require up-front funding if they are to achieve their dual objectives of securing effective payback to communities that suffer from criminal and antisocial activities and of providing better rehabilitation of offenders so that they bother the public less in future.
Today is not the day for a detailed examination of the issues, but I want to say as clearly as I can that the cabinet secretary's stated desire to spend the money on pensioners not prisoners must also mean adequate investment in the criminal justice system. That funding is needed to support speedier, targeted and relevant community payback orders, which, if they do not work properly, give pensioners and the wider community so much angst and travail.
I know that that funding is not earmarked in a direct sense, but I want the cabinet secretary to be in no doubt that the support of the Liberal Democrats in due course for the worthwhile and necessary reforms that he has set out is likely to be closely dependent on the availability of significant funding to support those reforms and reassure communities. It would be a modern alchemy if we were to transform money that had been used for an unsatisfactory purpose into a resource with the potential to bring about real public advantage.
On this day of consensus, I want to distance myself from the Justice Committee convener's comments on the European convention on human rights. From time to time, the convention can have unanticipated consequences, but it nevertheless offers a powerful analysis of and tool for our justice system—the dusty corners of which may not have been looked at for many years. The convention takes a modern approach and has been of particular advantage to our criminal justice system in Scotland.
There is not much more to say on the bill. It is a necessary and a desirable bill; one that is in the public interest. I am sure that the Parliament will pass it without dissent at 5 o'clock.
We move to the open debate. I call Mike Pringle.
The closing debate, Presiding Officer.
The programme that the Parliamentary Bureau agreed has no closing speeches—that was agreed for such a short debate. You can speak in any case, Mr Pringle.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
As I said in my closing speech earlier in the day, many people have put in a great deal of work and effort over a considerable length of time in bringing the bill to the chamber. I congratulate all of them on getting it to this stage.
Today, we expect to resolve a legal anomaly. The bill represents a significant milestone in overcoming what has been a difficult period for Scottish prisons. As the cabinet secretary said, it will put Scotland into the same position as other parts of the UK and other countries in Europe. Of course, it is right to put Scotland in the same position as others.
There has been much talk about the money that will be saved—Richard Baker and Robert Brown referred to that. If the amount is £50 million—and I realise that it is a one-off payment—I hope, as Robert Brown said, that the money will be directed towards the criminal justice system in one way or another to the benefit of our communities.
The changes in Scotland's prison system since Jim Wallace began the reform process have been significant. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the great work that Andrew McLellan has done. He has made an immense contribution as Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, and I am sure that the whole Parliament will join me in wishing him all the best for his retirement.
In his final annual report, for 2008-09, Andrew McLellan captured the scale of change, particularly in accommodation standards, better than I could ever express it:
"The biggest single difference in Scotland's prisons in the last seven years has been the transformation in the living conditions of prisoners. This transformation is not yet complete; but it has been remarkable. My earliest reports make comments like ‘the conditions in "C" Hall (Perth) are dreadful; and conditions in Argyll and Spey Halls (Polmont) are very bad.' Recent reports, on the other hand, say ‘It provides a much improved standard of cell, furniture and toilet access'".
That is what the bill is all about—improving conditions. As Andrew McLellan said:
"these better conditions are good for prisoners and also help to improve the working environment for staff".
He went on to remark:
"Unfortunately, it still cannot be said that all prisoners live in civilised accommodation."
While the practice of slopping out continues at HMP Peterhead, that might continue to be the case. However, there is no question but that, during Andrew McLellan's seven-year tenure, Scotland's prisons turned the corner. It is my hope that, with continued sentencing reform, prisoner rehabilitation will continue to improve.
I thank members for their contributions. I will briefly comment on the matters raised in this debate that were not raised in this morning's stage 1 debate or to which I did not respond this morning—thus avoiding repetition of what I did say this morning.
I say to Robert Brown and Richard Baker that no decisions have been made about how to spend money that, at this moment, we do not have. It is the Government's practice not to spend money that we do not have. I commend that practice, especially to the Liberal Democrats who are with us here in the chamber.
When I appeared in the sheriff court, like Mr Brown used to, I invariably found that I was slapped down when I strayed from relevance. It is fortunate that that does not always happen here, Presiding Officer. I will not respond to some of the other points that have been made.
We have made good progress today. The bill will end an anomaly, as all members have said. It will protect the public and strike a fair balance with the human rights of individuals.
I thank the officials for the work that they did on the bill. It was a sterling effort on their part, under considerable pressure, and they paid painstaking attention to detail. I am sure that we all wish to recognise the efforts that the officials made in that regard. Finally, I am grateful to all those members who have contributed to the debate. I hope that the Parliament will vote unanimously to pass the bill.
In the interests of good parliamentary management of business, I suspend proceedings for five minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—