Plenary, 04 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 4, 2004

Official Report 638KB pdf

---

Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill

Resumed debate.

We continue with the debate on motion S2M-699, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Jackie Baillie's speech was cut short before midday, so we will begin by allowing her to complete her speech or to make any further comments that she wishes to make.

It is not often that I am invited to speak at length on any subject, especially by you, Presiding Officer. In fact, I completed my comments before First Minister's question time, albeit in a rushed fashion. I am happy to echo those comments now, and to thank the ministers for the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill. It will make a significant contribution to modernising the justice system in Scotland. That is all that I require to say.

I have no notice of any other members who wish to speak, other than those who are designated as closing speakers, so I call Margaret Smith to close for the Liberal Democrats.

Liberal Democrats welcome the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and we also welcome the support that the bill has received across the Parliament. It is important to set the bill in the context of some other developments. The victims and witnesses unit within the Scottish Executive Justice Department has been one of the most important developments. The Executive's wider work on support for victims and witnesses includes commitments on the expansion of victim support and court support schemes and commitments on improving information for victims on the progress of cases, including release dates of offenders, which is important. The victims and witnesses unit will play a big part in that wider support strategy.

Will the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill do what we want it to do? It will be successful only if it is part of a wider package that involves the victims and witnesses unit and some of the changes that will be introduced through the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. That bill will attack one of the major problems—the number of adjournments that victims and witnesses have to go through.

Jackie Baillie, Nicola Sturgeon and Maureen Macmillan spoke about the horror of the system. Members should imagine being an 11 or 12-year-old who has been the victim of sexual abuse, who then has to wait for 14 to 18 months, involving several adjournments, before they can get their day in court, in an adversarial court system. At the end of all that, we know that the conviction rate is low. I ask any parents in the chamber to consider whether they would suggest to their 11 or 12-year-old child that they should go through the justice system as is currently exists. If we are completely honest, our answer would probably be no. We now have an agenda that will help those children and their parents, and will help the justice system to tackle some of the problems of delay and of the adversarial system. I hope that we can bring about an improvement in the conviction rate for these horrendous crimes.

There is a lot to be welcomed in the bill. Some important work will be done by the court system. Work will also be done on early recognition of problems by the police and other sectors. There is a definite need for proper training in a number of sectors. However, the bill will provide better protection for children and vulnerable witnesses. It will help the justice system because it will help witnesses to give the best possible evidence.

I want to make a couple of points about amendments that we heard debated earlier. First, I welcome the fact that the minister and the deputy minister, having looked at pilot schemes elsewhere, have not ruled out the idea of having intermediaries. We will have to continue to monitor the legislation and to ask ourselves how we can keep on improving it.

Secondly, I welcome the fact that the Executive accepted Mike Pringle's amendment 47. Evidence that is to be taken by a commissioner will not be taken in the presence of the accused unless in exceptional circumstances, which improves the bill. Indeed, I acknowledge the fact that the Executive took on board several amendments at stage 2 and today at stage 3 that improve the bill.

I want to ensure that we monitor how the bill works in practice. That said, I think that it strikes the right balance between the rights of vulnerable witnesses and the accused's right to a fair trial. I hope that the Executive will take the whole strategy forward.

The Liberal Democrats support the bill. We believe that it will bring greater humanity to what is often a gruelling experience for witnesses and victims.

The debate has been consensual and useful; many valuable contributions have been made. As Annabel Goldie said, I suspect that the bill will pass unanimously. Indeed, it would be quite proper for it to do so.

For most of us, the idea of appearing in court as a witness is a nuisance. We see it as an inconvenience—as something that causes disruption to our everyday lives. However, for the vulnerable members of our society, the matter is much more serious. The Conservatives support any action that can be taken to improve the situation.

In its evidence to the Justice 2 Committee, the Faculty of Advocates stated that what is suggested in the bill is largely carried out already. Although there is some merit in that, not everything is being done. The bill introduces valuable measures to address a number of areas, which we applaud.

We must consider the situations that affect the vulnerable. I am talking not only about the traumatic effect on their lives but about the fact that, in many instances, justice is not done. The minister was correct to reject some of the amendments that members lodged. That said, I accept fully that some of them, including those lodged by Patrick Harvie, were lodged in a constructive manner and had a degree of merit to them.

In the bill, a balance must be sought between the rights of the victim—and also, in this case, the witness—and the need to ensure that the accused person gets a fair trial. If the Executive had gone down the route that Patrick Harvie suggested in his amendment 34 on the use of an intermediary, I am a little bit concerned that the rights of the individual to a fair trial might have been prejudiced.

I recollect a trial in Glasgow district court, in which a middle-aged man was charged with a nasty assault on a young boy. The complainer came into court and gave a lurid tale of how he was punched and kicked repeatedly and had his head stamped on while he was on the ground. The second witness, who was also a young boy, spoke to a completely different assault, and the third witness, again a young boy, corroborated totally the complainer's evidence in every detail. However, when the third witness was subjected to cross-examination, he became quite indignant and said, "Well, hold on. You have to appreciate that I did not actually see it." He said that Jimmy, who was the complainer, had told him what had happened.

The youngster was not trying to mislead the court deliberately, but he was giving hearsay evidence. I am not satisfied that we would have got to the truth of the matter if an intermediary had been used. Indeed, the accused might well have been convicted on what was, as I said, a fairly serious charge. I am not satisfied that the introduction of intermediaries would benefit the judicial process.

I congratulate the Minister for Justice on having introduced the bill. However, lest she rests on her ministerial laurels, let me suggest that there are many other things that she could do. If she is to ease the situation of real people in real situations—as she so eloquently stated—she will have to consider the pressures that are put on witnesses in other directions.

Intimidation is a real issue both in courts and on the streets. I suggest firmly to the minister that the main way in which intimidation can be reduced is by accelerating the judicial process. The existing situation of intimidation will most certainly not be eased when the victim, witness and complainer—one person, under three headings—lives cheek by jowl with the person who assaulted them, sometimes for many months before the case comes up. I also suggest that the task of victims and witnesses is not made any easier when time and again the person who allegedly assaulted them is released on bail and commits further offences while on bail.

Finally, I suggest that the language that the minister evinces when she talks about her remit generally, which seems to be devoted exclusively to trying to keep people out of prison, is not likely to strike a sympathetic chord with victims of crime and witnesses, who are the real people in real situations who walk in the real streets of Scotland.

The minister is entitled to the Parliament's congratulations on the bill, but her job is not even half done; she has much more to do. Thus far, certainly under the other headings that I have mentioned, she has failed to convince me and, I suggest, is manifestly failing to convince any impartial onlooker. Until other measures are introduced, the bill, while welcome, is not likely to be very effective.

Even by my standards, Bill Aitken's speech was an extremely uncharitable one at the end of what has been a consensual debate. Bill Aitken would be wise to reflect on the fact that many of the offenders who commit offences daily on our streets have already been in prison, often not once or twice, but three, four or five times. To me, that shows that a prison sentence is not always the most effective way in which to deal with certain categories of offenders, precisely because it does not help victims of crime.

Does Ms Sturgeon agree that prison sentences are not likely to be particularly effective when the minister has staunchly resisted any efforts on our part to review the system of remission, under which the vast majority of offenders are released from jail when they have spent only 50 per cent of their sentence time in custody?

I would rather see an effective penal system in which people are sent to prison when they deserve to go there and when public safety and punishment demand a prison sentence, and in which many other offenders are dealt with outside prison. I want that, not because it is a soft option, but because it is a more effective option. If a penal system is to be in the interests of victims of crime, it should not simply be tough; it should be effective. It is worth reflecting that the Tory Government failed on both counts.

We have launched a consultation exercise on reducing reoffending that will run for the next 90 days, 12 weeks or three months—however Bill Aitken wants to calculate it, it may well seem like a sentence to him—that will give people the correct opportunity to feed in their comments. However, that should not detract from the valuable work that is being done through the bill, which Nicola Sturgeon has recognised.

I turn from Bill Aitken to the minister. I welcome the consultation, but I pause to reflect on the fact that it is a touch strange for the minister to say that she wants to expand the range of alternatives to custody, while her activities—or, more precisely, those of her deputy in the past few weeks—have withdrawn funding from an alternative to custody that has been proven to be effective.

I am sure that it will delight members to hear that I have little to add to the comprehensive comments about the bill that I made at the start of the debate. Bill Aitken rightly said that the debate has been consensual, although he went on to shatter the consensus. The reason why the debate has been consensual is that the bill will be a good piece of legislation that has been a long time coming. The bill is one of the many reminders that the Scottish Parliament is worth having and does good work that benefits people throughout Scotland.

The bill should not be seen in isolation, but as part of a legislative package and as part of a bigger package. I repeat my earlier comments that we must ensure that the culture change continues apace and that sufficient resources are provided to allow changes to be implemented in practice.

The bill will make a difference. I will not repeat the concerns around the edges that the ministers know I have. I conclude by welcoming the passage of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.

At the end of a good and constructive process of trying to improve the system of justice for witnesses and victims of crime, it is somewhat unfortunate that Bill Aitken could not resist the usual cheap Conservative party jibes. It is almost as if that party's members have received instructions from elsewhere to include certain phrases in every debate, regardless of its subject matter.

Bill Aitken suggested that Cathy Jamieson spoke exclusively about keeping people out of prison, but I can only conclude that he was half listening. While she spoke at great length about alternatives to custody and keeping those for whom prison is inappropriate out of prison, she has also said on many occasions that those who deserve imprisonment—those who commit serious crimes—should receive serious and lengthy prison sentences. It is fair to consider that Cathy Jamieson has been asking for a balanced approach.

The bill is part of a justice revolution that the Parliament is undertaking, which addresses issues such as the reform of the High Court, the summary justice system and alternatives to custody. As a number of members said, for the first time in many years, serious consideration is being given to those who have been overlooked by the judicial system. Stewart Stevenson said this morning that witnesses and victims are often forgotten by the system and that is true. As Bill Aitken said in his contribution, victims and witnesses often feel the pressures of intimidation in court and before they enter court. It is unfortunate that they also often feel intimidated after the court case has concluded.

We want to accelerate the judicial process and we have made some other proposals to that end. We want to examine issues such as bail, and we await with interest the discussion that we will have on that issue in the coming months. The bill offers us a collective opportunity—which, I am delighted to say, parties across the Parliament have taken—to do something for those at the sharp end of the justice system, who are often forgotten. As Margaret Smith said, the bill enables us to show greater humanity in our judicial process.

Mike Pringle said earlier that the experience of witnesses in the judicial system has not been good. As Nicola Sturgeon said this morning, we now have the opportunity to enable evidence to be given in a less stressful manner. It is right to say, as she did, that the bill serves the best interests of justice by enabling the best evidence to be given and heard.

A number of members said this morning that they are concerned to ensure that what we are presenting is part of other changes that might not necessarily be included in the bill. Jackie Baillie and Maureen Macmillan said that we should ensure that something is on the record about guidance and other things that are being done by the Executive and the Crown Office. It is right that such pressure should be put on us. Karen Whitefield was right to speak about some of the work that will be done by the victims and witnesses unit.

If we are serious about this bill making a difference, we should ensure that the finances are in place and that the necessary commitment exists on the part of the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office and others, as Annabel Goldie and others said. We should not only produce strategies, but ensure that we deliver on the strategies that we produce.

We want to deliver on the recommendations of the Lord Advocate's report on support for child witnesses and we want to see proper implementation of victim statement and victim notification systems. We want a full and effective witness service to be delivered and we want to see more effective victim support for people who turn up in court. We are right to consider the piloting of the vulnerable witnesses service and some of the other measures that have been introduced.

Essentially, the bill has enabled us to create a partnership in the Parliament, to work together to serve the best interests of people who have often been badly served by the judicial system. We are also working in partnership with a range of organisations that have tried to make a difference for victims and witnesses for many years and which have done a remarkable and effective job. We have enabled them to influence our parliamentary process and to influence legislation. Although I recognise that some of the changes have not gone as far as Jackie Baillie, Patrick Harvie and other members would have liked, we can demonstrate to organisations that we have listened and delivered. We will continue to review, to monitor and to reflect.

I argue that this is a good day for the Scottish Parliament; a good day for those whom we represent; a good day for victims and witnesses; and a good day for a judicial system that has long been in need of a shake-up and overhaul. I hope that we see the bill as part of a process that has much further to go.