Theme: JUSTICE. The following 6 templates have been grouped together under the theme of Justice.

Transcription

1 Theme: JUSTICE The following 6 templates have been grouped together under the theme of Justice. The subjects of the templates are as follows: Template 1: Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Template 2: Drugs Template 3: Firearms Template 4: Retention of Fines/Proceeds of Crime Template 5: Road Traffic Offences Template 6: British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary This covers those subjects that are on the agenda for the Commission s plenary meeting on 19 November.

2 Proposal Theme: Sectors Heading: Betting, gaming and lotteries Greens - There remains significant concern over the operation of recent gambling legislation in Scotland, with a particular call for local authorities to have the power to put limits on the number of Fixed-Odds Betting Terminals in their areas. The devolution of betting, gaming and lotteries would allow this and other matters to be dealt with either in Scottish legislation or at local community level. Scottish Government/SNP Full responsibility for legislation on gambling and lotteries. Also for references to betting shops Theme: Regulation Heading: Payday loans and betting Labour - We will tackle the scourge of exploitative payday loans by giving local authorities the powers to prevent the proliferation of Payday Loan shops and Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. In relation to FOBTs, working within the framework of gaming and betting as reserved matters, we will extend the powers available to local authorities, in conjunction with the UK Government to address the licensing and technical constraints on Scottish local authorities. Background Betting, gaming and lotteries are reserved matters, although some limited functions in relation to the setting of conditions for gambling premises licences have been devolved. The devolved functions could not be used to limit the numbers of either betting shops or the fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs) within them. Gambling has a triple licensing system with licensing for individuals, premises and operators. Individuals and operators are licensed by the Gambling Commission but premises are licensed by local licensing authorities. This response refers to lotteries other than the National Lottery. 2. What would be the economic impact on the Scottish and UK economies of the proposal? Please include in your response your views on how this would affect (i) the UK s macroeconomic framework (ii) the productivity of, and investment in, both economies, (iii) trade and competition within the UK, and the competitiveness of both economies in European and international markets (iv), the impact on the Scottish and

3 UK labour markets, jobs and employment. Please clearly state any assumptions you have made. The economic impact of devolving responsibility for gambling, either in totality or in part, would depend on how the powers are used. Problem gambling can be defined in different ways, but it is generally understood to mean where a person is gambling to a degree that disrupts or damages family or personal life. Any impact on the industry would have to be seen in the context of the broader societal and economic cost of problem gambling. It is estimated that there are more than 30,000 problem gamblers in Scotland (Scottish Health Survey 2012). The British gambling industry has an annual gross gambling yield of around 6.3 billion and employs about 108,000 people (Gambling Commission Industry Statistics 2013).. 3. What would be the impact on the public finances and financial accountability of both the UK and Scottish Governments of the proposal? Please include in your response how this would affect the current financing arrangements between the UK and Scottish Governments Devolution would allow us to devise a regulatory regime tailored to Scottish circumstances. This would be funded by fees. 4. What would be the wider democratic, cultural and societal impacts of devolving the power to the Scottish Parliament? While gambling is a legitimate recreational and leisure activity, problem gambling has significant economic and social impact. Problem gambling is generally higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. The Scottish Health Survey 2012 showed a problem gambling rate of 0.7% as opposed to a figure of 0.5 or 0.4%, depending on the measure used, in the Health Survey for England The Scottish Health Survey also showed higher levels of problem gambling in areas of deprivation. The devolution of the powers to regulate gambling would allow Scotland to develop a distinctive Scottish approach to tackling problem gambling and make our communities safer, stronger and more secure. The Scottish Government already has the power through Planning legislation to address in part issues of proliferation of premises in terms of amenity and character of high streets and town centres. This is however only one aspect of the regulation of gambling.

4 In addition, changes to Planning controls would not apply retrospectively to existing premises. Planning controls relate to the overall use of premises rather than the provision of one particular service. Gambling also takes place in premises that have a different overall use, such as the sale of alcohol. There is widespread concern, reflected in previous debates in the Scottish Parliament, that the current arrangements do not allow local authorities to take action where there are local issues regarding the proliferation or clustering of betting shops. Additionally there is no scope to take action either at local level or Scotland-wide regarding problem gambling particularly in respect of the addressing the possible impact of FOBTs. There is also widespread concern that a number of developments may see rises in levels of problem gambling. These include changes in technology such as the arrival of FOBTs and internet gambling, changes in gambling mediums such as betting exchanges and spread betting growth and changes in regulation such as the Gambling Act 2005 which, in taking a broadly deregulatory approach, relaxed advertising restrictions and opening hours. The response to these changes has been slower than many would have liked. There are currently a number of studies looking at the impact of FOBTs and the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 was passed with a view to improve control of on-line gambling. 5. Are there any interdependencies, joint impacts or spill-over effects between this proposal and other proposals? If so, what are they and how do they operate? This proposal also covers the betting shop element of the Labour proposal headed Payday Loans and Betting Shops under the Regulation theme. Operational aspects of the proposal 6. How might the proposal be implemented? Legislation to remove reservation B9 in Schedule 5 of Scotland Act 1998 Full devolution of gambling would require consideration of a new regulatory model. This could involve a number of options. These are primarily: the existing regulator (the Gambling Commission) continuing either for an interim period or longer term, the establishment of a new Scottish Regulator or a new model with local authorities have greater or sole control (akin to the alcohol licensing system). Cost information on the current delivery of this service by the Gambling Commission is not broken down to the level of the devolved administrations. Determining costs of delivery of services will depend partly on the apportionment,

5 allocation and usability of assets of the Gambling Commission, including buildings, personnel and IT systems. They will also depend on future decisions about how and when new systems will be introduced, and the phasing of the transfer of powers. The administration of new powers in Scotland provides opportunities to design simple and more efficient systems. 7. Following devolution of the relevant power how long do you estimate it might take for the proposal to be implemented and the new power to become operational in Scotland? Please state whether additional primary or secondary legislation might be needed as part of the implementation (either by the UK or Scottish Parliaments) and whether any national, European or international consents would be required/appropriate or treaties amended. The establishment of a new regulator would be likely to require primary legislation. The exact timescale for that legislation would be for a future Scottish Parliament to determine. Following which a period of at least 12 months would be required to establish the new body and recruit staff. It would be expected that the existing regulator would continue in place for this period. Relationship with current or future reserved and devolved policies 8. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are currently reserved that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? Please outline whether (i) remaining reserved powers would require to be adjusted or amended in any way (ii) there are advantages or disadvantages to devolving the power in isolation of other areas of reserved policy and (iii) in the case of disadvantages, ways in which these might be overcome/managed jointly by the UK and Scottish Governments. Nil 9. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are already devolved under the existing Scotland Acts that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? Please outline whether existing devolved powers would require to be adjusted or amended in any way.

6 Problem gambling impacts a number of devolved areas e.g. mental health, justice, debt. Betting shops, other gambling establishments and pay day lenders also impact upon town centre environments. There are significant advantages in allowing Scotland and Scottish local authorities greater control over regulation of gambling as well as dealing with its consequences. Whilst levels of problem gambling are still relatively low they are generally higher in Scotland than in England and higher yet in areas of deprivation. This would argue for particular local or Scottish approaches to the regulation of gambling. 10. Could the same or a better outcome be achieved by devolving the power differently to that which is proposed or by devolving a different power or set of powers? Could that outcome be achieved by other means (for example, an intergovernmental agreement?). If so, how? Please consider current international examples of devolving the same or similar powers. A possible alternative to the proposals for devolving gambling entirely would be a more limited devolution of aspects of the existing regulatory regime which could for example allow the Scottish parliament to legislate to control FOBTs, betting shops and other gambling establishments physically located in Scotland whilst leaving the regulation of internet gambling and remote operators based in non-uk jurisdictions as a reserved matter. However, such partial devolution of the regulation of gambling would be complex. Northern Ireland already operates a distinct regulatory regime for gambling. Relationships between the Governments and other Devolved Administration 11. How would the activities and accountabilities of the UK or Scottish Governments change on the national and international stage? No specific impact, although regulation of remote gambling co-ordinated from other countries would be considered as part of any new regulatory system. Miscellaneous 12. Do you have any further comments you wish to provide on the proposal? No (Question 13 on contact details will answered centrally)

7 Proposal Theme: Criminal Law/Policing Heading: Drugs Greens - The range of criminal justice, health, housing and social services which come into contact with problem drug users are largely devolved. However the legislation in this area remains reserved. While there may be less consensus about the way forward here, it should be questioned whether a strong basis remains for this reservation. Scottish Government/SNP Specific - Full responsibility for legislation on drugs. Background 1. Please describe the current policy on, and operation of, the proposal. The control and classification of drugs is currently reserved to Westminster through the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; sections 12 to 14 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (substances useful for manufacture of controlled drugs); and so far as relating to drug trafficking the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act Whilst drugs policy is devolved, the subject-matter of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which covers areas such as the criminalisation of the production, supply and possession of controlled drugs and the definition and classification of controlled drugs remains reserved to Westminster. Since 2008, Scotland s drug strategy, The Road to Recovery, has led the UK in tackling drugs issues and has received international acclaim for its focus on care, treatment and recovery. Prevalence of problem drug use is generally higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK, although drug taking in the general population is falling and drug taking among young people is at its lowest level. 2. What would be the economic impact on the Scottish and UK economies of the proposal? A reduction in harm caused by drug abuse would lead to a significant economic benefit to society. Whilst not fully quantified at this time, it would be spread over many sectors such as health and welfare. 3. What would be the impact on the public finances and financial accountability of both the UK and Scottish Governments of the proposal? Negligible 4. What would be the wider democratic, cultural and societal impacts of devolving the power to the Scottish Parliament?. Prevalence of problem drugs use is higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Devolving all powers on drugs will allow decisions on drugs policy and the

8 subject matter of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to be taken together in a coherent way. Where new developments in drugs taking or drugs supply occur in Scotland, that may not be mirrored across the UK, then this could be addressed swiftly and specifically. As stated above, a reduction in harm caused by drug abuse would lead to a significant economic benefit to society in Scotland. 5. Are there any interdependencies, joint impacts or spill-over effects between this proposal and other proposals? If so, what are they and how do they operate? The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) provides for the confiscation or civil recovery of the proceeds from crime. Although implementation of the legislation in Scotland is devolved (since policing and crime are devolved), the legislation is reserved because the majority of cases that come to court are for drug-related offences. If drugs powers were completely devolved to Scotland, then the aspects of POCA which are currently reserved would also require to be devolved (as a consequential). There is a separate note on POCA. In addition, there is a link between this proposal and that on the Retention of Fines / Proceeds of Crime, which outlines the retention of POCA receipts by the Scottish Government. Operational aspects of the proposal 6. How might the proposal be implemented? Head B1 of Part II of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act reserves the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the powers under sections 12 to 14 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 and the powers under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 that relate to drug trafficking, and those powers would need to be removed and transferred to Scotland. Relevant provisions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 may also require to be transferred to Scotland. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs could remain a UK resource, operating under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Scottish and UK Governments. 7. Following devolution of the relevant power how long do you estimate it might take for the proposal to be implemented and the new power to become operational in Scotland? Please state whether additional primary or secondary legislation might be needed as part of the implementation (either by the UK or Scottish Parliaments) and whether any national, European or international consents would be required/appropriate or treaties amended. If the subject matter of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is devolved under the next Scotland Act, then from that point on the Scottish Parliament will be able to amend Scots law. This includes being able to make separate and different classified lists of controlled drugs. Amendments would be made by subordinate legislation. The new powers would become operational immediately, recognising possible lead-in time to gear up for new responsibilities.

9 Relationship with current or future reserved and devolved policies 8. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are currently reserved that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? Please outline whether (i) remaining reserved powers would require to be adjusted or amended in any way (ii) there are advantages or disadvantages to devolving the power in isolation of other areas of reserved policy and (iii) in the case of disadvantages, ways in which these might be overcome/managed jointly by the UK and Scottish Governments. Devolving legislation on drugs would provide coherence with the already devolved policy on drugs. Health and policing are both also already devolved. If drugs powers were completely devolved to Scotland, then POCA would also require to be devolved (as a consequential). 9. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are already devolved under the existing Scotland Acts that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? As above. No need to amend or adjust existing devolved powers. 10. Could the same or a better outcome be achieved by devolving the power differently to that which is proposed or by devolving a different power or set of powers? Could that outcome be achieved by other means (for example, an intergovernmental agreement?). If so, how? No Relationships between the Governments and other Devolved Administration 11. How would the activities and accountabilities of the UK or Scottish Governments change on the national and international stage? International considerations, especially Europe, would be a normal part of developing and changing the classified lists. UN conventions would still apply and policy decisions would continue to be informed by the European Monitoring Centre for Drug Addiction. That s not to discount the possibility, at a future point, that there may be some difference in policy application of UK and Scottish Governments. Miscellaneous 12. Do you have any further comments you wish to provide on the proposal? None (Question 13 on contact details will answered centrally)

10 Proposal Theme: Criminal Law/Policing Heading: Firearms Scottish Government/SNP Specific Full responsibility for the law on Firearms Background 1. Please describe the current policy on, and operation of, the proposal. Firearms legislation is currently reserved to the UK Government with the exception of responsibility for most air weapons, which was recently devolved via the Scotland Act The Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill includes provisions for the introduction of air weapons licensing in Scotland. Scottish Ministers have regularly called on the UK Government to update what is complex and difficult legislation to administer and enforce. The principal enactment is the Firearms Act 1968 but there are over 30 pieces of firearms legislation, some of which is inconsistent and confusing. 2. What would be the economic impact on the Scottish and UK economies of the proposal? Please include in your response your views on how this would affect (i) the UK s macroeconomic framework (ii) the productivity of, and investment in, both economies, (iii) trade and competition within the UK, and the competitiveness of both economies in European and international markets (iv), the impact on the Scottish and UK labour markets, jobs and employment. Please clearly state any assumptions you have made. Negligible under existing policy and also likely to be negligible even if firearms policy were to change as a result of further devolution. 3. What would be the impact on the public finances and financial accountability of both the UK and Scottish Governments of the proposal? Please include in your response how this would affect the current financing arrangements between the UK and Scottish Governments There would be no direct or significant impact on the public finances of the proposal itself. Devolving firearms would allow the Scottish Government to, for example, set fees for firearms licences at a level that realistically and reasonably relates more closely to the costs for the police and to a much lesser degree the Scottish Government in administering the licensing scheme. The current cost of a firearms licence is 50 for a period of five years. That fee level neither recovers costs nor does it compare well with other licence fees.

11 4. What would be the wider democratic, cultural and societal impacts of devolving the power to the Scottish Parliament? Please include in your response the implications for poverty, social justice and equalities. Please clearly state any assumptions you have made. As above, devolved power over firearms would allow the Scottish Government/Parliament to respond to the particular circumstances in Scotland, for example the numerous shooting estates in the Highlands. It would also allow coherence in policy on all types of firearms, including air weapons which are already devolved. 5. Are there any interdependencies, joint impacts or spill-over effects between this proposal and other proposals? If so, what are they and how do they operate? None Operational aspects of the proposal 6. How might the proposal be implemented? Please ensure that your response covers the legislative or administrative changes required, an assessment of the administration costs any whether new and/or existing institution(s) would manage the implementation. Please also set out, in broad terms, how they might work jointly on delivering the proposal (e.g. joint governance). The reservation of firearms (as set out in Part II (Section B4) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998) would need to be removed. Existing statutory requirements could then be amended by the Scottish Parliament to meet Scottish circumstances. An expert panel of advisors would have to be established to support the policy development process. 7. Following devolution of the relevant power how long do you estimate it might take for the proposal to be implemented and the new power to become operational in Scotland? Please state whether additional primary or secondary legislation might be needed as part of the implementation (either by the UK or Scottish Parliaments) and whether any national, European or international consents would be required/appropriate or treaties amended. Immediately, in the sense that the UK law would continue, and would be the relevant Scots law until the Scottish Parliament amended or repealed it. The legislation is complex and any significant revision of provisions may take some time (possibly years) to develop and progress through Parliament. Any changes to fee levels after devolution of powers could be done swiftly subject to Scottish Parliament s timetable for secondary legislation. Relationship with current or future reserved and devolved policies

12 8. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are currently reserved that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? Please outline whether (i) remaining reserved powers would require to be adjusted or amended in any way (ii) there are advantages or disadvantages to devolving the power in isolation of other areas of reserved policy and (iii) in the case of disadvantages, ways in which these might be overcome/managed jointly by the UK and Scottish Governments. None 9. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are already devolved under the existing Scotland Acts that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? Please outline whether existing devolved powers would require to be adjusted or amended in any way. Policing (the single police service in Scotland enforces firearms legislation) is already devolved. The licensing of most air weapons is also devolved and provisions for the licensing of air weapons in Scotland are included in the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill which was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in May Could the same or a better outcome be achieved by devolving the power differently to that which is proposed or by devolving a different power or set of powers? Could that outcome be achieved by other means (for example, an intergovernmental agreement?). If so, how? Please consider current international examples of devolving the same or similar powers. No Relationships between the Governments and other Devolved Administration 11. How would the activities and accountabilities of the UK or Scottish Governments change on the national and international stage? None.

13 Miscellaneous 12. Do you have any further comments you wish to provide on the proposal? No (Question 13 on contact details will answered centrally)

14 Proposal Theme: CRIMINAL LAW/POLICING Heading: RETENTION OF FINES/PROCEEDS OF CRIME Scottish Government/SNP - The Scottish Government should retain in full the value of court imposed fines and financial penalties. It should also be able to retain the full value of the proceeds of crime. Background 1. Please describe the current policy on, and operation of the proposal. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) is an Act of the UK Parliament which provides for the confiscation and civil recovery of the financial benefit made by way of criminal activity. It also contains the principal money laundering legislation in the UK. Although implementation of the legislation in Scotland is devolved, as policing and criminal justice matters are devolved, the legislation is reserved, because the majority of cases that come to court are for drugs-related offences. Scottish Ministers have limited powers to amend POCA, and the majority of amendments required in Scotland need a legislative vehicle in the UK Parliament, since the Act is reserved. Devolving the legislation to Scotland would result in Scottish Ministers being able to make changes as required, without needing a Westminster Bill. Fines are categorised as designated receipts which, under the terms of s64(6) of the Scotland Act 1998, are to be paid to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. Under the Act, the decision as to what shall be included among designated receipts is for HM Treasury, though it must consult with the Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Court Service (SCS) collects fines income in Scotland. There is an agreement with HM Treasury that SCS may keep some of the proceeds they collect to defray expenses, but designated receipts in general are payable to the Consolidated Fund. This is what happens to the majority of the income raised in Scotland from fines. Proceeds of Crime are collected by means of criminal and civil confiscation by the Serious and Organised Crime Division and Civil Recovery Unit of the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service, respectively. Again, there is an agreement with the UK Government about the proceeds. The agreement allows the Scottish Government to keep an amount up to a cap which is revised from time to time. This cap is 10% of the equivalent cap on the proceeds the Home Office is allowed to keep. Since 2010 the applicable cap in Scotland has been 30m. if the legislation were devolved, then all proceeds of crime would come to the Scottish Government

15 This proposal would align the income from justice enforcement activity with responsibility for justice matters. 2. What would be the economic impact on the Scottish and UK economies of the proposal? For fines, the amount involved in the proposal is the difference between the amount actually transferred to the Consolidated Fund and the notional amount received as Scotland s share of the overall fines income contributed to that Fund by all three jurisdictions of the UK. In recent years this has been a minimum of 7m. The maximum surrendered in fines income was some 32.9m in , which was some 18m more than Scotland s notional share of the fines income from all three UK jurisdictions in that year. For proceeds of crime the recovery is general 5.5m to 6m, with a maximum of 26m in However, since the cap on what Scotland retains is 30m, in no year would this have been exceeded. Therefore the overall difference made by this proposal for fines income and proceeds of crime together is unlikely to exceed the low tens of millions in in any year. This is unlikely to affect the macroeconomic position, productivity, investment, competition or the labour markets. 3. What would be the impact on the public finances and financial accountability of both the UK and Scottish Governments of the proposal? For fines the difference would be a net 7m 20m increase in income to the Scottish Government and the equivalent decline in funds available to the UK Government. For proceeds of crime, in view of the fact that the cap has never actually been reached the impact of its removal would, to date, have been none. This proposal would not open a new area of accountability for the Scottish Government since it is already ultimately accountable for the proportion of fines income retained by SCS, and the entirety of the monies raised from the proceeds of crime has to date stayed in Scotland anyway. 4. What would be the wider democratic, cultural and societal impacts of devolving the power to the Scottish Parliament? In terms of the Proceeds of Crime, devolving the power to the Scottish Parliament would enable any changes required specifically for Scotland to be legislated for simply and quickly, without having to wait for Westminster legislation.

16 In terms of fines, although all fines are designated receipts, HM Treasury has allowed the SCS to keep some of the proceeds of fines collection to defray expenses. The agreement has been changed from time to time to reflect SCS responsibilities, most recently when SCS assumed responsibility for fines levied in magistrates courts. Keeping all fines income in Scotland would avoid the need for HM Treasury to make future agreements about the retention of designated receipts, and such retentions would be agreed by the Scottish Ministers, who are responsible for funding the SCS. The wider impact would be to make the sum of money by which Scotland s contribution to the Treasury in fines income exceeds its notional return (as well as any future excess over the 30m proceeds of fines cap) available for use in Scotland. This sum could be invested in communities. Proceeds of crime are already used in a CashBack for Communities scheme which invests them into free activities and programmes for young people across Scotland. Since the inception of the programme in 2007, it has invested over 74 million recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act. The programme has funded 1.5 million activities and opportunities for young people. This investment includes 24 million on sporting activities and facilities projects, 10 million on grant schemes that support youth work projects across all 32 local authority areas and over 3.5 million on cultural activities involving arts, music and dance. This programme could be extended. By ensuring that fines income, as well as the proceeds of crime, were kept within Scotland the Scottish Government and its partners justice in general being a devolved matter would enhance the ability of Scottish law enforcement bodies to recover proceeds of crime, and to utilise fines as a means of combatting crime. 5. Are there any interdependencies, joint impacts or spill-over effects between this proposal and other proposals? If so, what are they and how do they operate? The joint impact is that more money would be available to contribute to the kind of programme described above. This proposal links directly with the proposal in relation to the misuse of drugs. Without full devolution of legislation on drugs, it would not be possible to make use of the vast majority of the powers contained within POCA. Operational aspects of the proposal 6. How might the proposal be implemented? Devolution of POCA to Scotland would not impact on the powers that already lie with law enforcement agencies in Scotland. Sections 64(5) and (6) of the Scotland Act 1998 allow the Treasury to designate receipts for the Consolidated Fund and oblige the Scottish Ministers to transfer them.

17 The Scotland Act 1998 (Designation of Receipts) Order 2009 designates forfeitures, fixed penalties and fines. If the order were repealed these monies would no longer be payable to the Treasury. The agreements between the Treasury on the one hand, and the SCS and the Scottish Ministers on the other, concerning the use of fines income and the cap on proceeds of crime respectively, would no longer be necessary. No change would be necessary to collection arrangements, so no administrative costs would be involved. 7. Following devolution of the relevant power how long do you estimate it might take for the proposal to be implemented and the new power to become operational in Scotland? Immediately. Relationship with current or future reserved and devolved policies 8. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are currently reserved that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? There is a key interdependency with the proposal for the devolution of legislation on drugs. In order to fully devolve responsibility for proceeds of crime there would be a need to amend sections A5 and B1 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 (which relate to money laundering and misuse of drugs, respectively). 9. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are already devolved under the existing Scotland Acts that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? In practice all proceeds of crime, and some fines income, is already retained within Scotland, and justice is in general a devolved subject. There would be no need to adjust or amend existing devolved powers 10. Could the same or a better outcome be achieved by devolving the power differently to that which is proposed or by devolving a different power or set of powers? Could that outcome be achieved by other means (for example, an intergovernmental agreement?). If so, how? The proceeds of crime and fines income raised in Scotland should be allocated to the Scottish budget. There is no simpler way of achieving that than this proposal. It is highly unusual, internationally, for such monies raised within a criminal jurisdiction to be allocated elsewhere than to that jurisdiction. US States keep their fines and forfeitures (and, as an example, in North Carolina they are constitutionally hypothecated to the State s free public schools).

18 Relationships between the Governments and other Devolved Administration 11. How would the activities and accountabilities of the UK or Scottish Governments change on the national and international stage? They would not change. Close relationships with UK Departments interested in and responsible for proceeds of crime would still remain to ensure approaches are as joined-up as possible and to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to keep hold of any benefit from their criminal activities. The actual collection of fines income levied in Scotland from persons present in jurisdictions other than Scotland (there are arrangements with ruk and the European Union), and vice versa, is done by SCS. The recovery of proceeds of crime is done by the Crown Office, which may request the assistance of the UK Secretary of State for collection abroad. These arrangements would continue to be the case. Miscellaneous 12. Do you have any further comments you wish to provide on the proposal? This proposal aligns the income from justice with responsibility for justice and with collection arrangements in a fashion common throughout the world. It is also extremely simple to achieve. (Question 13 on contact details will answered centrally)

19 Proposal Theme: Other proposals Heading: Criminal law/policing Scottish Government/SNP Full responsibility for the law on road traffic offences (a separate return has been done for firearms and proceeds of crime). Background 1. Please describe the current policy on, and operation of, the proposal. The vast majority of road traffic law is reserved. This includes how road traffic criminal law operates as well as such things as how enforcement of road traffic law operates. For example, the law on careless driving and dangerous driving is reserved which includes a) what conduct is criminalised, b) what penalties are available to the court and c) how enforcement can take place through, say, non-court disposals such as fixed penalty notices. A recent development has been the devolution to the Scottish Parliament through the Scotland Act 2012 of the power to set the drink driving limit. However, even within the narrow area of drink driving, other powers associated with drink driving remain reserved such as the powers to legislate for the penalties for drink driving and enforcement of drink driving such as the ability of the police to breath test anytime, anyplace (often known as random breath testing ) and the ability to institute lower limits for young or newly qualified drivers and for professional drivers (such as HGV and bus or taxi drivers). The proposal would be to devolve responsibility for all road traffic law, including drink driving law, careless driving law and dangerous driving law to the Scottish Parliament and enable decisions on how road traffic law should operate to be made in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament within the context of the Scottish Government s key transport priority to improve road safety. 2. What would be the economic impact on the Scottish and UK economies of the proposal? Giving powers to the Scottish Parliament in the area of road traffic law would not, in itself, have an initial direct impact on the Scottish and UK economies. The eventual impact would depend on the policy choices made by the Scottish Parliament with, for example, the potential to save money elsewhere in the public sector (e.g. health spending, road traffic policing) if effective policy decisions can lead to improved driver behaviour, making our roads safer and reducing the economic and social cost of road traffic accidents through, for example, reducing the burden on our emergency services. 3. What would be the impact on the public finances and financial accountability of both the UK and Scottish Governments of the proposal?

20 There would be no direct impact on the current financing arrangements between the UK and Scottish Governments. Over time, if effective policy decisions made by the Scottish Parliament in this area can help encourage improved driver behaviour, this could make our roads safer and reduce the economic burdens on areas such as health and policing. 4. What would be the wider democratic, cultural and societal impacts of devolving the power to the Scottish Parliament? Effective policy decisions made in Scotland would give clarity about where responsibility lies for helping make Scotland s roads safer. Scotland has its own Road Safety Framework with unique targets and commitments and one of the main pillars of the Framework is enforcement activity. This is publicised through a road safety publicity approach under the banner Don t Risk It and is supported by research which shows that the risk of being caught by the police and the lifestyle consequences of that can represent a significant and credible motivation to drivers to change their behaviour. Overconfidence in a driver s own ability, and the belief that nothing will happen to me is often reinforced by the fact that most journeys are completed safely and there are no bad consequences' of irresponsible driving. What drivers are less confident about is where the police are located, and it is this perceived threat of being caught and the resultant consequences which research and evaluations have shown to be most effective, running in tandem with enforcement activity. This approach would be strengthened by the ability of the Scottish Parliament to set our own offences and penalties. An example of differences in policy is the Scottish Government has asked the UK Government on several occasions to make not wearing a seatbelt a more serious offences than it is at present (by making it endorseable on a person s driving licence). Seatbelts is one of the priorities identified in Scotland s Road Safety Framework along with others including Drink Drive, drivers aged and speed. 5. Are there any interdependencies, joint impacts or spill-over effects between this proposal and other proposals? If so, what are they and how do they operate? Making effective use of policy powers in relation to road traffic law has a clear link to the much wider issue of transport powers residing in Scotland in areas where decisions can be in Scotland for the benefit of Scotland and strengthens our ability to create conditions which help reduce road casualty numbers in accordance with our challenging road safety targets. However, there is no direct set of interdependencies as decisions on road traffic law can be made independently on the wider set of transport powers being sought. Operational aspects of the proposal 6. How might the proposal be implemented? The reservation at Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 would need to be repealed. Continuity of law would ensure current road traffic law continued at the point when powers were devolved. Policy options could be considered by the

21 Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament which could then lead into specific legislative proposals such as changes to drink driving penalties and changes to enforcement. 7. Following devolution of the relevant power how long do you estimate it might take for the proposal to be implemented and the new power to become operational in Scotland? Immediately. Relationship with current or future reserved and devolved policies 8. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are currently reserved that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? None. 9. What are the key interdependencies with other policies which are already devolved under the existing Scotland Acts that need to be considered if the proposal is implemented? The power to set the drink drive limit was devolved under the Scotland Act There was also some devolution of powers over speed limits on certain categories of road within the 2012 Act. Having the power to set the drink drive limit is helpful, but it is only through having all the necessary powers to tackle drink driving that can allow a holistic approach to lead to Scottish priorities being the key consideration as policy choices are made in this area. It is the case that without having the overall cluster of overall road traffic law powers in Scotland, attempts to address particular issues through specific Scottish solutions, such as lowering the drink drive limit, could potentially be undermined by UK Parliament decisions (say, if drink drive penalties were weakened at the same time). For reasons of coherence and transparency, having all the powers in Scotland could be beneficial and would allow the flexibility to fully pursue policy ambitions in Scotland s Road Safety Framework. 10. Could the same or a better outcome be achieved by devolving the power differently to that which is proposed or by devolving a different power or set of powers? Could that outcome be achieved by other means (for example, an intergovernmental agreement?). If so, how? The Scottish Government has been happy to work with the UK Government to progress priorities in this area. For example, prior to the devolution of the power to set the drink drive limit in the Scotland Act 2012, the Scottish Government indicated that we would be happy for the UK Government to legislate to reduce the drink drive limit in Scotland and we would work with them to help facilitate this process. However, the UK Government s policy on drink driving did not accord with the Scottish Government s policy and it is the case that such things as intergovernmental agreements would not achieve the desired Scottish outcome if policy wishes diverge as they did (and continue to do) on drink driving.

22 Scottish Government officials have engaged from time to time with the UK Government on other aspects of road traffic law such as reform to enforcement of minor traffic offences through use of non-court disposals like fixed penalties. The proposed reforms would have assisted in improving the efficiency of the Scottish justice system and were raised with the Scottish Government by justice partners such as Scottish Court Service and Police Scotland. Although both the Scottish Government and UK Government officials were in general agreement on the suggested reforms, it was not possible to progress legislative reform due to an apparent lack of priority being afforded to the issue by the UK Government. An intergovernmental agreement that ensured appropriate priority was afforded to such issues within the UK Government would be helpful when dealing with reserved areas where both Governments agree on the policy reform proposed. Relationships between the Governments and other Devolved Administration 11. How would the activities and accountabilities of the UK or Scottish Governments change on the national and international stage? There would be no direct changes. Miscellaneous 12. Do you have any further comments you wish to provide on the proposal? (Question 13 on contact details will answered centrally)

23 Proposal Theme: CRIMINAL LAW/POLICING Heading: BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE/CIVIL NUCLEAR CONSTABULARY Scottish Government/SNP - the staff and powers of the British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary should be brought within the remit of Police Scotland to improve coherence and operational flexibility. Background 1. Please describe the current policy on, and operation of, the proposal. British Transport Police (BTP) the BTP is the national police force for the railways, providing a policing service to rail operators, their staff and passengers throughout England, Scotland and Wales. It is divided into seven geographical areas, one of which is Scotland. The BTP is funded by the rail industry (Network Rail, passenger franchisees and freight operators) and overseen by the British Transport Police Authority (BTPA). Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) at present the CNC is predominately an armed police service dedicated to the nuclear industry with Operational and Support Units based at Nuclear Sites in England, Scotland and Wales. The Civil Nuclear Police Authority (CNPA) is a public body established by the Energy Act 2004, charged with securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective Civil Nuclear Constabulary. 2. What would be the economic impact on the Scottish and UK economies of the proposal? BTP None. BTP is funded by the rail industry and that would not change under these proposals. CNC None. CNC is funded by the nuclear operating companies to which it provides a service and that would not change under these proposals. 3. What would be the impact on the public finances and financial accountability of both the UK and Scottish Governments of the proposal? BTP Through funding for Network Rail and subsidy payments for the ScotRail franchise the Scottish Government is already largely funding the BTP in Scotland. A contribution of over 16m was paid to rail service providers directly by the Scottish Government in It is therefore appropriate that it should be managed within the single police service and be accountable to the Scottish Police Authority and Scottish Parliament. There are potential costs savings as well as operational benefits from integration - for instance, existing BTP corporate costs in Scotland of approximately 3-4m per annum could be subsumed within Police Scotland through integration with existing HR and IT services.

24 CNC We would not expect there to be a significant impact on public finances as CNC is currently funded by the nuclear operating companies. As with BTP, there may be scope for some efficiency savings though integration with Police Scotland and accountability to the Scottish Police Authority. 4. What would be the wider democratic, cultural and societal impacts of devolving the power to the Scottish Parliament? BTP There are 7 areas of impact that this proposal would have: Improved Accountability it is the Chief Constable of Police Scotland who is responsible for ensuring the safety and protection of the people of Scotland and in doing this he is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Parliament. It is anomalous to have an additional pool of 225 officers operating in Scotland but accountable to a Chief Constable who is based in Birmingham and under the direction of the UK Parliament. High Level of Containment BTP in Scotland operate under a high degree of autonomy, which is reflective of other devolved arrangements in rail. The connection is stronger between the policing of the railways in Scotland and the wider policing of Scotland than it is to the policing of the railway elsewhere in the UK. Diminished Rationale It is essential that any structural and governance change does not disrupt the established confidence in the service provided by the BTP. The national approach of the BTP previously provided a uniform understanding of the priorities of the rail industry when set against the fragmented regional policing model involving 8 different command structures. However, the added value of this approach is removed with introduction of a single police Service. Integration would mean that the principle of uniform governance and coordination of policing activity would be delivered under one senior Command. An Integrated Approach to Transport Policing there is opportunity to further enhance the operational policing function by bringing together the policing of all transport modes under a single divisional arm of Police Scotland. This will not only protect and maintain the values, relationships and principles that are already in place but will enhance them with a shared understanding and access to resource presently associated with the policing of the air, port, bus and road network. Integration would bring an increased flexibility for the deployment of officers, and increased access to specialist skills and equipment. Public Benefit Integration would ensure a single point of command that would better support the officers working to manage any situation. The public do not see boundaries, instead they seek safety, service and action to prevent them becoming victims of crime they do not understand or need two different police services operating in Scotland. Clearer and Simpler Control and Response Arrangements integration would mean that operational control would be transferred to control centres in Scotland. Benefit for BTP Officers The organisation in Scotland is relatively small (circa 225 officers) and with this comes limited opportunity for advancement and development of wider policing skills. At present, there is a low level of