Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 April 2012
19 Apr 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Presiding Officer, I think that I deserve full marks for bravery as the first non-member of the Justice Committee to venture into these choppy waters without the benefit of the committee tutorials. However, I have read the committee’s excellent report. I note the committee’s view, which was expressed near the beginning of the report, that the bill might have benefited from more consultation, and I agree with the emphasis that Jenny Marra put on the need for more consultation on data protection, in particular.
From my reading of the report, I agree that, in relation to part 1, there was a genuine problem that needed to be dealt with and that the judiciary should be given appropriate discretion. However, I noticed several quotations about the complexity of the proposed solution. As Jenny Marra said, James Wolffe QC told the committee that the Government had taken an extremely complex piece of legislation and made it more complex—and I award full marks to Christine Grahame for trying to unpick some of the complexities.
According to the Scottish Government, the bill is not unnecessarily complex but, as I listened to the cabinet secretary, the words went through my mind: “Explaining legal matters to the nation—I wish he would explain his explanation.” The committee was attracted by the relative simplicity of alternative approaches. Perhaps some of those could be investigated during stage 2.
It is not surprising that—like, I suspect, the general public—I am more interested in part 2. I have a general interest in the Megrahi case and I found several of the issues that the committee raised in its report interesting. For example, a former member of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission suggested that the Government, rather than the commission, should make the decision to publish the statement of reasons. I note that the committee did not agree with the suggestion and I am happy to go along with the committee in that regard. However, I also noted a discussion about whether the factors to be taken into account by the commission should be spelled out in the bill. That certainly seems worthy of discussion at stages 2 and 3.
The report made clear that data protection was the main issue that was raised during discussions about part 2. I have been puzzled by the cabinet secretary’s insistence—until very recently—that data protection was an obstacle to publication of the statement of reasons and I hope that he will talk more about that when he winds up the debate, if he is doing so.
The Information Commissioner’s Office said in written evidence, which is quoted in the report:
“the Bill contains a robust legislative framework which will ensure that such disclosure is fair and lawful.”
I am sure that many members read Lucy Adams in the Sunday Herald on 1 April. She said:
“The Information Commissioner’s Office ... wrote to The Herald to deny claims that the report was held back by data-protection laws.”
She went on to say that the ICO had told the minister that, too. If that is not the case, the minister will no doubt want to say so. I am genuinely puzzled. David McLetchie has a particular political explanation for the Government’s approach. I do not particularly want to go down that route, but it is puzzling that data protection was for so long held to be the main obstacle to publication.
Having said that, I think that there are genuine data protection issues with regard to other aspects of the legal system. That is not the main subject for today’s debate, but perhaps the Presiding Officer will forgive me if I briefly refer to a constituent who came to see me during the past couple of weeks. She was most concerned that a full 20-page transcript of a protracted divorce proceeding that she had been involved in was published on the Scottish courts website. The document gave intimate personal details, as well as—believe it or not—details of specific bank accounts. I do not know whether that happened by accident or whether it is routine practice, although I believe that such reports are routinely put on the Scottish courts website at the discretion of sheriffs. I contacted the Scottish Information Commissioner and he told me that reports of court proceedings must comply with all eight data protection principles, so I think that there is a genuine data protection issue, which the Government, the Lord President and whoever else has an interest in the matter should address.
However, I do not think that that issue is relevant to the publication of the statement of reasons in the Megrahi case. That being the case, I hope that the SCCRC will officially publish the statement of reasons very soon, although many people will have already read it thanks to the Sunday Herald.
16:06
From my reading of the report, I agree that, in relation to part 1, there was a genuine problem that needed to be dealt with and that the judiciary should be given appropriate discretion. However, I noticed several quotations about the complexity of the proposed solution. As Jenny Marra said, James Wolffe QC told the committee that the Government had taken an extremely complex piece of legislation and made it more complex—and I award full marks to Christine Grahame for trying to unpick some of the complexities.
According to the Scottish Government, the bill is not unnecessarily complex but, as I listened to the cabinet secretary, the words went through my mind: “Explaining legal matters to the nation—I wish he would explain his explanation.” The committee was attracted by the relative simplicity of alternative approaches. Perhaps some of those could be investigated during stage 2.
It is not surprising that—like, I suspect, the general public—I am more interested in part 2. I have a general interest in the Megrahi case and I found several of the issues that the committee raised in its report interesting. For example, a former member of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission suggested that the Government, rather than the commission, should make the decision to publish the statement of reasons. I note that the committee did not agree with the suggestion and I am happy to go along with the committee in that regard. However, I also noted a discussion about whether the factors to be taken into account by the commission should be spelled out in the bill. That certainly seems worthy of discussion at stages 2 and 3.
The report made clear that data protection was the main issue that was raised during discussions about part 2. I have been puzzled by the cabinet secretary’s insistence—until very recently—that data protection was an obstacle to publication of the statement of reasons and I hope that he will talk more about that when he winds up the debate, if he is doing so.
The Information Commissioner’s Office said in written evidence, which is quoted in the report:
“the Bill contains a robust legislative framework which will ensure that such disclosure is fair and lawful.”
I am sure that many members read Lucy Adams in the Sunday Herald on 1 April. She said:
“The Information Commissioner’s Office ... wrote to The Herald to deny claims that the report was held back by data-protection laws.”
She went on to say that the ICO had told the minister that, too. If that is not the case, the minister will no doubt want to say so. I am genuinely puzzled. David McLetchie has a particular political explanation for the Government’s approach. I do not particularly want to go down that route, but it is puzzling that data protection was for so long held to be the main obstacle to publication.
Having said that, I think that there are genuine data protection issues with regard to other aspects of the legal system. That is not the main subject for today’s debate, but perhaps the Presiding Officer will forgive me if I briefly refer to a constituent who came to see me during the past couple of weeks. She was most concerned that a full 20-page transcript of a protracted divorce proceeding that she had been involved in was published on the Scottish courts website. The document gave intimate personal details, as well as—believe it or not—details of specific bank accounts. I do not know whether that happened by accident or whether it is routine practice, although I believe that such reports are routinely put on the Scottish courts website at the discretion of sheriffs. I contacted the Scottish Information Commissioner and he told me that reports of court proceedings must comply with all eight data protection principles, so I think that there is a genuine data protection issue, which the Government, the Lord President and whoever else has an interest in the matter should address.
However, I do not think that that issue is relevant to the publication of the statement of reasons in the Megrahi case. That being the case, I hope that the SCCRC will officially publish the statement of reasons very soon, although many people will have already read it thanks to the Sunday Herald.
16:06
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Tricia Marwick)
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02617, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill.I wi...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
It would appear that we have a problem with Mr MacAskill’s card. Can we do something about the sound? Interruption. Thank you.I call Mr MacAskill to speak to...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
Thank you for your forbearance, Presiding Officer.I thank the Justice Committee for its careful stage 1 scrutiny of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review...
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s view on whether a less complex approach could have been taken had the bill been a bit more ambitious in scope. In ...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
That is not the case. There are two separate matters. The Petch and Foye judgment caused considerable concern and was commented on not only by me but by just...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Does the cabinet secretary accept that it would have been helpful to have consulted the information commissioner at a much earlier stage in order to resolve ...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
It was not up to us to consult the information commissioner, because these matters have to be dealt with by the SCCRC. We have always sought to facilitate ev...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Con
I call Christine Grahame to speak to the motion on behalf of the Justice Committee.15:11
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Justice Committee—at least, that is what it says here. I thank all those who gave evidence to t...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Alongside other committee members who are present, I had the opportunity to scrutinise the bill closely as it passed through the Justice Committee. I want to...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
Does the member accept that part 2 of the bill has a wider application than just Mr al-Megrahi’s case?
Jenny Marra
Lab
John Finnie may, like me, hope that part 2 will have a wider implication in future, although it is difficult to predict when that might be. However, we will ...
David McLetchie (Lothian) (Con)
Con
As other members have done, I speak as a member of the Justice Committee, which has had responsibility for scrutinising the bill, the first part of which was...
John Finnie
SNP
Does the member accept that the Government’s position remains that the manifesto commitment will be implemented once the terms of the McLeish commission are ...
David McLetchie
Con
Yes—I accept that that is the position, but that is a cover-up for not implementing anything, as Mr Finnie will realise, the longer he serves in this Parliam...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
I will concentrate on part 1 of the bill—the easy bit. We know that part 1 resulted from the much-talked-about Petch and Foye case. As we have heard, part 1 ...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
I note John Finnie’s light touch in describing part 1 as “the easy bit”. On that basis, I look forward to his forthcoming book, “A Treatise on Scots Law”, be...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I refer members to my entry in the register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. One of the advantages of the recess is that it enables one ...
Humza Yousaf (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
As a member of the Justice Committee, I, too, thank everybody who came forward and gave evidence on the bill.There is a constant underlying theme in the deba...
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
SNP
Hear, hear.
Humza Yousaf
SNP
Thank you. However, luckily, my wife studied law, which was very helpful to me. I have sympathy for Alison McInnes and for Colin Keir—who has disappeared fro...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Presiding Officer, I think that I deserve full marks for bravery as the first non-member of the Justice Committee to venture into these choppy waters without...
Mark McDonald (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Where Malcolm Chisholm leads, I will boldly follow, as another non-member of the Justice Committee entering bravely into the fray. Never has the old quotatio...
Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
The Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill is needed to remedy the judgment handed down in Petch and Foye v Her Majesty’s Advocate. The bill ...
Colin Keir (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
SNP
Over the past year, members of the Justice Committee have been faced with some complex material to digest in the course of their deliberations.As we have hea...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
Like other committee members, I am grateful to everyone who submitted evidence on the bill, because they certainly helped us to get to grips with an extremel...
Dennis Robertson (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
SNP
When I was given the task of being a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, I never thought that I would be grateful for that...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I have to say that I confused myself. John Green is an intruder.
Dennis Robertson
SNP
I thought that it was males who had the problem with reds and greens.The matter that we are debating is very serious, and it needs to be resolved. I congratu...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
That brings us to closing speeches. I remind members who were in the chamber for the debate that they should be here for closing speeches.I have a little bit...