Tory MSP criticises SNP policies over 'slopping out'

May 19 2011 by Leona Greenan, Hamilton Advertiser

TORY MSP Margaret Mitchell has slammed the landmark legal decision that slopping out has breached prisoners’ privacy rights.

The MSP, who was recently re-elected to the Scottish Parliament as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist member for Central Scotland, said: “This landmark legal judgement on slopping out means that Scotland's taxpayers are set to pay out even more money as a direct consequence of the SNP support to incorporate ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) directly into the 1998 Scotland Act.

“This disastrous decision was backed by all of the other main parties, except the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party.

“More worryingly still, other cases are thought likely to follow, which will lead to even more taxpayers' money being shelled out.

“On a daily basis, more evidence is emerging of how the SNP can't be trusted with the stewardship of our Criminal Justice System.”

However, the SNP’s Christina McKelvie, newly elected MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, hit back at Mrs Mitchell’s comments this week.

She said: “The whole compensation nonsense came about because previous Labour Justice Ministers, and before them Conservative Justice Ministers, ignored the warnings they were being given that these issues could arise.

“Labour, in fact, took money away from the prison modernisation funds and made the situation far worse.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said this week swift action had been taken three years ago to close a loophole allowing prisoners to claim compensation outwith a one-year time bar.

This meant £50m was saved from £67 million set aside for such compensation payments.

The spokesman continued: “The Scottish Prison Service is currently considering the full implications of this judgement.

“However, it is significant that the treatment of the prisoners in this case was not found to be in breach of their fundamental human rights and therefore potentially far less costly than previous judgements in similar cases.”