Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice Committee 29 September 2015

29 Sep 2015 · S4 · Justice Committee

Item of business

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Matheson, Michael SNP Falkirk West Watch on SPTV

I am grateful for the comments that various committee members have made. The intention behind amendment 226 is not to pre-empt anything. Instead, it creates an enabling power to ensure that if, following the consultation as recommended by the advisory group, it is felt to be necessary to create the statutory provision for searching those under 18 for alcohol, the Parliament will have an opportunity to address the matter. The inherent danger and risk in not agreeing to this amendment and not taking forward the provision is that if, as a result of the consultation, a gap is identified and it is recommended that we have something to deal with it, we will have no legislative vehicle for pursuing that. I am open to the idea of exploring, between now and stage 3, whether there is a way in which the provision could be further reinforced. For example, Elaine Murray has suggested that the provision should be subject to a super-affirmative procedure and, if the committee is minded that it should be, I am more than content to explore that idea further between now and stage 3. That would give the Parliament additional oversight before any such power could be introduced. Nevertheless, I have serious concern about the possibility that we will conduct a consultation, as recommended by the advisory group, find that it identifies a legislative gap but then have no legislative vehicle with which to address that deficit in the law. If, during the course of the consultation, nothing is identified that would justify having such a statutory provision, we have the amendments that would create a sunset clause to remove the provision from the bill. We decided not to accept amendment 229A primarily because of the recommendations of the advisory group, which considered the issue closely and decided not to be prescriptive about what the code should contain. It provided a draft code with the recommendation that we should have a consultation on that draft code, and that is what we intend to do. To assist that process, the advisory group will remain in place, with John Scott heading it up and other members supporting the consultation exercise and the drafting of the code, which will eventually be brought before Parliament for its consideration. The key point is that, as Rod Campbell said, the code of practice must be laid before Parliament and Parliament will have the ultimate say over whether its content is correct. We have decided to reject amendment 52 because of the findings of the advisory group on the matter. In its report, the group highlights that the approach that Police Scotland currently takes on data has improved and, in recommendation 5, recommends that practical measures be taken on a regular basis by the SPA and Police Scotland to ensure that there is adequate openness and transparency. That recommendation will be fully implemented along with the other recommendations in the report. There is, therefore, no need to put anything in the bill to achieve that. Amendment 223 agreed to. Amendments 224 and 225 moved—Michael Matheson—and agreed to. Amendment 226 moved—Michael Matheson.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 29 September 2015

In the same item of business