Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 10:15 am on 18 January 2007.
Murray Tosh
Conservative
10:15,
18 January 2007
Group 9 is on justice of the peace courts: drug treatment and testing orders and community service orders. Amendment 35, in the name of Mary Mulligan, is grouped with amendment 36.
Mary Mulligan
Labour
10:30,
18 January 2007
When proposals for the bill were being considered at committee, the future of the district courts was also discussed. I am pleased that the bill that is before us provides for the continuation of the district courts, albeit that they will be known in future as justice of the peace courts. The process has given members the opportunity to consider the role and powers of the new JP courts. Amendment 35 seeks to remove from the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 the need for ministers to notify the new JP courts before the courts can begin to use drug treatment and testing orders.
When members of the Justice 1 Committee met members and officials of the West Lothian district court and subsequently met a number of JPs prior to Christmas, we heard—indeed, it was stressed to us—how useful DTTOs would be as a disposal in the new JP courts. As everyone said, a large percentage of the accused who come before the present district courts are there as a result of drug-related offences. In light of the success of DTTOs as a community disposal in the sheriff courts, I believe—in common with many others—that it would be beneficial to give the new JP courts the power to make DTTOs. In a similar vein, amendment 36 would allow the new JP courts to have as a disposal community service orders. Amendment 36 would remove the need for ministers to notify the new JP courts that they can use community service orders as required under the 1995 act.
During the progress of the bill, we have extended the role of the procurators fiscal and the disposals that are available to them. It seems logical for the disposals that are available to PFs to be made available to the new JP courts. That would be in line with the move to increase community-based disposals. I hope that the Minister understands why I lodged amendments 35 and 36. They are supported by many people who give their time to make our district courts an effective part of our judicial system.
I move amendment 35.
Stewart Stevenson
Scottish National Party
The district courts, which will become the JP courts, are an important part of our criminal justice system. Of course, in tapping into the voluntary effort of people in our communities, they provide an effective link between the criminal justice system and wider society. As parliamentarians, we should always encourage the idea of getting something for nothing; it means that money is left available for the things that we have to pay for. To be serious, the McInnes report put the district courts under some attack. There is a wide sense of relief across the chamber that we are now in a position of building on the success of the district courts in the JP courts. I welcome Mary Mulligan's amendments 35 and 36.
Of course, given the antipathy on the Conservative benches to DTTOs, I am particularly interested to hear what Margaret Mitchell will say about giving DTTOs to the JP courts. That antipathy is entirely consistent with the line of swinging this way and that that the Tories have taken on drugs policy. I am glad that the Tories are visiting the excellent clinic in Oldmeldrum today to learn—as every other party has done—about the excellent work that is done there. I hope that the visit leads to greater consistency on those benches in that policy area. I also hope that Tory members will join the rest of the chamber in supporting Mary Mulligan's amendments 35 and 36, which are worthy of consideration.
Margaret Mitchell
Conservative
I am grateful to Stewart Stevenson for highlighting the inconsistency in SNP policy. He appears not to know, although he should know, that the Conservatives have argued consistently for the district courts—the new JP courts—to have DTTOs as an available disposal.
I welcome the amendments in the group, which Mary Mulligan lodged in response to an appeal that was made by the District Courts Association. I hope that the Minister will accept them. That said, it must be pointed out that the amendments were not necessary. At any time, the Minister for Justice could have introduced DTTOs under the existing legislation. That would have made sense, given the need for early Intervention in trying to solve the serious problem of drug abuse.
I also very much welcome the proposal to enable community service orders to form part of the disposals that are available to justices of the peace. However, that still leaves a gap in the range of disposals: we should ensure that supervised attendance orders are a disposal of first instance instead of being used only when someone has defaulted on a fine. I would welcome the minister's comments on that.
Johann Lamont
Labour
The Executive takes the view that it would not currently be appropriate to extend the use of DTTOs and CSOs in the way in which amendments 35 and 36 envisage. That is not to say that we do not recognise the role and value of the district courts or the potential for such extension in the future. Our first priority for DTTOs was to roll them out in sheriff courts first, and it is heartening that they have been as successful as they have been. Moreover, although we might want to consider broadening the options for disposals in district courts, it is not necessary to support amendments 35 and 36. We are alive to the possibility of broadening the options and are willing to consider it further.
Less than 1 per cent of district court cases outside the stipendiary magistrate courts result in custodial sentences. Currently, CSOs and DTTOs are explicitly regarded as alternatives to custodial sentences. Therefore, there are very few cases at present in which it would be appropriate for district courts to impose such orders. However, that might not be the case in the future, as district courts might take on work that is more appropriate for custodial sentences and, therefore, the use of CSOs and DTTOs could perhaps be extended.
It is worth noting that district courts currently have access to a number of community sentences. For example, they can and do impose probation orders. In addition, supervised attendance orders for fine defaulters have been available to district courts for many years. We are exploring how the range of community disposals that is available to district courts might be extended. For example, the use of SAOs as a disposal of first instance is being piloted in Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire. Mary Mulligan and other members will know that we are, as ever, alive to imaginative and creative ways of developing and using community disposals. We are also piloting the use of community reparation orders as disposals for dealing with acts of antisocial behaviour in three areas. Both sets of pilots are being independently evaluated and the findings will inform decisions on wider roll-out. If wider roll-out is thought to be appropriate, it could be achieved by an administrative circular rather than by amending primary legislation.
The current sentencing practice of district courts suggests that there is little need for additional disposals that provide direct alternatives to custody. However, if a significant change to the current situation were to occur as a result of the bill's other provisions, we could and would think again about whether there was a need to reconsider the availability of DTTOs and CSOs in the district courts. If such a move was thought to be appropriate, it could be achieved administratively without a need for legislative change. For that reason, the current position
We are not saying that we should never widen the use of DTTOs and CSOs, nor are we disregarding the opportunities that the district courts provide. The use of DTTOs and CSOs could be widened in the future and we do not consider amendments 35 and 36 to be necessary or appropriate at this stage. Therefore, I invite Mary Mulligan to withdraw Amendment 35.
Mary Mulligan
Labour
I was aware that the Minister already had powers to extend the use of DTTOs and CSOs. However, given that those powers had not been used, it was important that we have the debate, because it provided us with an opportunity to consider what powers district courts—or JP courts, as they will become—will have in the future.
I note that the minister says that, at present, DTTOs and community service orders are used as alternatives to custody. However, the point has been made that they could also be used as a means of early Intervention and, therefore, I welcome the minister's comment that the Executive will consider such use. I also welcome the fact that she referred to the pilot projects that are under way, which could inform us further about how to ensure that the appropriate disposals were available to all sections of our judicial system.
On that basis and knowing that, should the evidence that would provide for the extension of the orders be found, the minister has the powers under the 1995 act to implement such an extension, I seek leave to withdraw Amendment 35.
Murray Tosh
Conservative
Do members object to the withdrawal of Amendment 35?
Murray Tosh
Conservative
In that case, the question is, that Amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Murray Tosh
Conservative
There will be a Division.
Division number 5
For: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Crawford, Bruce, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Lochhead, Richard, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McLetchie, David, Mitchell, Margaret, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Petrie, Dave, Robison, Shona, Scott, John, Stevenson, Stewart, Swinney, Mr John, Turner, Dr Jean, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra
Against: Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Baird, Shiona, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Brown, Robert, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Deacon, Susan, Eadie, Helen, Ferguson, Patricia, Finnie, Ross, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Godman, Trish, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McMahon, Michael, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stone, Mr Jamie, Wallace, Mr Jim, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Abstentions: Curran, Frances, Fox, Colin, Kane, Rosie
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
The political party system in the English-speaking world evolved in the 17th century, during the fight over the ascension of James the Second to the Throne. James was a Catholic and a Stuart. Those who argued for Parliamentary supremacy were called Whigs, after a Scottish word whiggamore, meaning "horse-driver," applied to Protestant rebels. It was meant as an insult.
They were opposed by Tories, from the Irish word toraidhe (literally, "pursuer," but commonly applied to highwaymen and cow thieves). It was used — obviously derisively — to refer to those who supported the Crown.
By the mid 1700s, the words Tory and Whig were commonly used to describe two political groupings. Tories supported the Church of England, the Crown, and the country gentry, while Whigs supported the rights of religious dissent and the rising industrial bourgeoisie. In the 19th century, Whigs became Liberals; Tories became Conservatives.
An intervention is when the MP making a speech is interrupted by another MP and asked to 'give way' to allow the other MP to intervene on the speech to ask a question or comment on what has just been said.
The Conservatives are a centre-right political party in the UK, founded in the 1830s. They are also known as the Tory party.
With a lower-case ‘c’, ‘conservative’ is an adjective which implies a dislike of change, and a preference for traditional values.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
