Committee
Justice Committee 08 September 2015
08 Sep 2015 · S4 · Justice Committee
Item of business
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Amendment 54 would raise the age of criminal responsibility from eight to 12, which would bring it in line with the age of criminal prosecution. That was raised to 12 in 2010 to reflect the extensive body of evidence that children should not come into contact with the justice system at a young age. However, we are left with an anomaly with regard to criminal responsibility. The law is out of touch with our understanding of children’s maturity and their capacity to make decisions and understand the consequences of their actions. Statistics that I have secured from the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration using freedom of information legislation show that around 1,500 children between the age of eight and 11 were referred to children’s panels on offence grounds during the past four years. Almost all of them automatically received a criminal record because they accepted those grounds of referral. The children’s hearings system will no doubt subsequently help most of the children to address their offending behaviour and they will mature into responsible adults. After all, that is what we want to achieve. Surely it is perverse to subsequently further punish and disadvantage them as they move into adult life by branding them as criminals? Their childhood convictions will need to be declared for decades or even the rest of their lives. How can that be right? How can we allow a child’s opportunities to be curbed so severely at such a young age? Handing criminal records to eight or nine-year-olds is a destructive, inappropriate response to their offending. I want the law to change. When very young children display troubling or criminal behaviour it is most often because they are themselves deeply troubled and vulnerable. Many such children will have experienced trauma or neglect or have been victims of abuse. They are first and foremost in need of protection. Scotland has the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe—it trails painfully behind international best practice. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated that it expects 12 to be the “absolute minimum” age of criminal responsibility. Tam Baillie, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, was right to say that criminalising children as young as eight has “long tarnished” our international reputation. Yesterday, members received a joint letter in support of the amendment from 17 organisations, including Barnardo’s, the Aberlour Child Care Trust, Together Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights, and the Scottish Youth Parliament. The Law Society of Scotland has also backed the amendment. I hope that all members will join me in ensuring that Scotland upholds the human rights of some of the most vulnerable children in our society. I move amendment 54.
In the same item of business
The Convener
SNP
I move on to item 8. I welcome Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I also welcome the officials who are here to support the cabinet secret...
The Convener
SNP
We start with the group on corroboration, which consists of amendments 9, 1 to 6, 66 and 68. Amendment 9 is in the name of Graeme Pearson, who I know does no...
The Convener
SNP
Thank you. Amendment 9 not moved. Section 57—Corroboration not required
The Convener
SNP
I therefore call amendment 1, which is grouped with amendments 2 to 6, 66 and 68. I call Margaret Mitchell to move amendment 1 and to speak to the other amen...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
Section 57 provides for the abolition of the requirement for corroboration—a provision that triggered a storm of controversy that was aggravated by the intra...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Michael Matheson)
SNP
Good morning, convener. Not only has it been quite some time since the Justice Committee last considered the bill, but there have been significant developmen...
Gil Paterson (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
SNP
I intended to come here today and not say too much. I am a reluctant participant, cabinet secretary. However, I am forced to speak. First, I need to declare ...
Roderick Campbell
SNP
I will make a few brief points. Despite the negativity of Margaret Mitchell’s comments, we ought to pay tribute to Lord Bonomy’s reference group for the ster...
Alison McInnes
LD
There is no doubt that the proposal to remove the requirement for corroboration was the most contentious element of the bill. As it was drafted—and is still ...
Christian Allard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
I put it on the record that there has been a very good debate on corroboration, but I make it clear that I have not changed my mind. The bill is not just abo...
John Finnie
Ind
I will support Margaret Mitchell’s amendments, although I do not support many of her comments or the personal comments that have been made. This is about pro...
Elaine Murray
Lab
I, too, will support Margaret Mitchell’s amendments. A lot of things were said, particularly in the stage 1 debate, that would have been better not said. I w...
The Convener
SNP
Unusually, I, too, want to speak. The cabinet secretary knows of my long-standing opposition to and concern about the abolition of the requirement for corrob...
Michael Matheson
SNP
Convener, it might be helpful if I commented on the point that you have raised on jury research. I have announced today that we are going to take forward jur...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
There was no intention to crow in my opening comments, but it was important to set out the situation that brought us to the point at which we almost had the ...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP) Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP) Finnie, John (Highlands and Island...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1. Amendment 1 agreed to. Section 58—Effect of other enactments Amendment 2 moved—Margaret Mi...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP) Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP) Finnie, John (Highlands and Island...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1. Amendment 2 agreed to. Section 59—Relevant day for application Amendment 3 moved—Margaret ...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP) Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP) Finnie, John (Highlands and Island...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1. Amendment 3 agreed to. Section 60—Deeming as regards offence Amendment 4 moved—Margaret Mi...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP) Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP) Finnie, John (Highlands and Island...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1. Amendment 4 agreed to. Section 61—Transitional and consequential Amendment 5 moved—Margare...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP) Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP) Finnie, John (Highlands and Island...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1. Amendment 5 agreed to. Schedule 2—Modifications in connection with Part 2 Amendment 6 move...