Victims and Witnesses
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2241, in the name of Hugh Henry, on victims and witnesses, and two amendments to the motion.
I am convinced that, unless the diverse needs of victims and witnesses are properly identified and efforts are made to meet those needs, the justice system will fall short of what we wish to achieve for the people of Scotland. Those sentiments underpin our commitment in the partnership agreement and the criminal justice plan to support victims and witnesses fully. That commitment sets us new challenges to ensure that victims of crime are treated with respect, are recognised as key participants within the justice system and receive services that help them to deal with the impact of crime.
In our "Scottish Strategy for Victims", we said that we wanted a system that better understood the needs of victims, ensured that they were better informed and supported and secured for them more opportunities to participate effectively in the administration of justice. Four years on from the strategy's publication, we have in place laws that mean that victims and witnesses will be at the centre of the justice system, where they rightly belong.
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 enhanced the rights of victims to be heard in the judicial process. It gives victims the opportunity to make to the court, after conviction and prior to sentencing, a statement about the personal impact of the crime on them. The judge or sheriff is then expected to consider that statement when reaching a decision on what sentence to impose. We are in the middle of piloting the victim statement scheme and, once we have reviewed its impact, we will decide how best to roll it out to the rest of the country.
The 2003 act also gives the victims of serious crimes the right to be notified about the release of their offenders. The victim notification scheme also gives victims the right to be told when the offenders are to be considered for parole and the opportunity to give to the Parole Board for Scotland a statement on the crime's impact on them. It should be remembered that although the victim notification scheme came into effect only on 1 November, it is open to all victims of serious crimes for which offenders were imprisoned for four years or more and are still serving their sentence in custody or on licence in the community. Those are significant steps towards involving the victim in the release process and represent a major advance over previous practice.
We also know that appearing as a witness in a trial can be very distressing and upsetting. That is why we now have the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, which will formalise existing special measures and introduce new ones that are aimed at reducing the stress that until now has meant that many witnesses were prevented from giving their best evidence. We are phasing that act's commencement.
Just as the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 improved victims' rights of participation, so the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004 will increase the certainty of victims and witnesses about the progress of High Court trials. The prevention of unnecessary adjournments will mean that victims and witnesses have a much better idea of when a case will be called. The result will be a reduction in waiting in court, delayed trials and the distress and anxiety that that causes.
The Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 has given victims of rape and serious sexual assault increased protection. I know that that law and others that deal with rape and sexual offences have come under increased scrutiny recently and that is why the Minister for Justice asked the Scottish Law Commission to examine the provisions as part of a wider review of the law on sexual offending and to make recommendations for reform.
It should be clear from that round-up that our commitment to victims and witnesses has underpinned our legislative reforms of the criminal justice system. It has also informed our thinking about how we can improve our judicial processes and change the culture of the justice system to meet the needs of victims and witnesses better.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has done much commendable work to raise awareness and improve practices relating to victims and witnesses throughout the Scottish prosecution service and the Solicitor General for Scotland will highlight some of that work.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has been a key player in developing policy for victims and witnesses. A notable example is the work on supporting child witnesses. I am delighted to report that much has been achieved in implementing the recommendations of the Lord Advocate's working group on support for child witnesses. Recommendations that have been implemented include those on the publication of guidance on best practice for child witness court familiarisation visits, interviewing child witnesses and questioning children in court.
The minister will be aware of some discussion in relation to the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill in the Justice 1 Committee about the age at which someone is considered to be a child. The criminal justice system appears to have a variety of definitions and ages at which a person qualifies as a child. In line with the relevant European Union directive and United Nations charters, is it time universally to define children as those who are under 18?
That is a complex issue that strikes at the heart of many fundamental aspects that we take for granted. Such a definition would change considerably the status of 16 and 17-year-olds in our society. We need to consider which recognised age definitions can coincide, but we must proceed with caution before accepting 18 as a universal definition. A debate is needed in relation to a range of issues, not least some of those that Stewart Stevenson mentioned.
Another good example of partnership work is the recent publication of an advice pack that provides family and friends with information about the aftermath of a homicide. The advice covers not just what to expect from the criminal justice system but practical issues such as finances, housing and compensation, which can cause anguish adding to the pain of a sudden loss.
As well as promoting a culture change through publishing guidance on best practice, we are supporting others to provide services directly to victims and witnesses. Victim Support Scotland has an unequalled record in the voluntary sector in supporting the diverse needs of victims and witnesses. With the assistance of our grant, VSS makes more than 80,000 contacts with victims per year through its Scotland-wide network of professionals and volunteers. It also works with more than 60,000 witnesses a year through the witness service, which is now present in every High Court and sheriff court.
One form of specialist support that involves VSS and is assisted by the Executive is support for victims of youth crime. In a recently completed 12-month pilot, Victim Support Scotland and the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration delivered a service that provided generic and case-specific information to victims of youth crime at key stages of the children's hearings process. We are reviewing that work.
Court procedures need to be considered. They are being adapted and improved in ways that will be of direct benefit to victims and witnesses. I touched on reform of the High Court, but other initiatives are also making their contribution. One benefit to victims and witnesses of the youth court pilots in Hamilton and Airdrie is that fast tracking young offenders allows them to be dealt with quickly and results in a swift outcome.
The youth court model is being replicated in Glasgow with the piloting of a dedicated domestic abuse court, which it is hoped will secure the same benefits of fast tracking for victims and witnesses. The Glasgow pilot comes with the assist project, which is supported by the Scottish Executive and is specifically aimed at supporting the information, advice and support needs of victims and their families. We have supported a permanent Scottish domestic abuse helpline, which now provides a 24-hour service every day of the year, and 57 local projects have been supported by the third round of the domestic abuse service development fund. All those projects are meeting the needs of victims and their families.
I recognise the importance of meeting the diverse information and support needs of victims and witnesses, but I also appreciate how threatening and intimidating physical surroundings can appear. As a result, the Scottish Court Service is carrying out a major review of its estate. That includes considering the provision of better waiting facilities for witnesses and up-to-date video transmission and recording equipment that will greatly assist child and vulnerable witnesses to give their best evidence.
There continues to be much discussion about the use of restorative justice. At its simplest, restorative justice invites the offender and the victim to meet, to try to reach an agreement about what reparation, if any, can be made, and to try to give each person an understanding of the other's viewpoint. We have applied the principles of restorative justice to youth justice and are in the process of increasing the number of places that are available to young offenders on various restorative justice programmes from 3,000 to 6,000. We think that such early interventions represent a real opportunity to tackle reoffending among young people. The jury is still out on the effectiveness of restorative justice for adult offenders, but I am sure that any restorative justice scheme must give full attention to victims and ensure that the offender takes full responsibility for his actions.
I turn to future developments. Members will know that we are in the midst of a review of summary justice. I want the needs of victims and witnesses to be just as central to any procedural changes in the summary court system as they have been to the reforms of the High Court.
Protecting our children is a priority for the Executive and we must ensure that the law in that area is robust and allows for early intervention in order to help to prevent predatory sex offenders from targeting and abusing children. Use of the internet by paedophiles is particularly worrying, and the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced in October, makes grooming a specific offence. We think that that will greatly help.
I recognise that there is much to do to change attitudes and processes. We are in the throes of updating the Scottish strategy for victims. Over the past few months, we have worked with key stakeholders on that strategy. In the revised strategy, we want to meet the support needs of families and friends who are bereaved by murder and culpable homicide, improve the training and awareness of all organisations that might come into contact with victims and assess the local delivery of services to victims. We want to identify gaps and overlaps in service provision and opportunities for improving local capacity and co-ordination.
There are a number of other issues that I do not have time to develop, unfortunately. In particular, there are issues to do with developing national standards of service that victims can expect to receive. That is critical. We must do more to support child witnesses, and further information and guidance will be produced on that following work by the Lord Advocate's group. I do not have time to talk about work that is being done on the pilot of vulnerable witness officers, which could be critical.
In conclusion, a huge range of work has been done to change legislation, culture and practice to improve services for victims and witnesses. I understand some sentiments in the SNP's amendment, but a couple of specifics in it lead me to reject it. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' amendment simply replays the same old gramophone record and it has more to do with an election than with the needs of victims and witnesses.
The Executive is committed to making improvements. Changes to laws and procedures are only one side of the coin. We must change and challenge inappropriate attitudes and assumptions throughout the criminal and civil justice service, but we must remember at all times that the rights of victims and witnesses are essential to the proper working of Scotland's justice system, as are the rights of the accused.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges that the interests and diverse needs of victims and witnesses are central to criminal justice reform; welcomes recent legislation that improves the status of victims and witnesses in the justice system, including the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003; notes the progress made in implementing the Strategy for Scottish Victims and the recommendations of the Lord Advocate's Working Group on Support for Child Witnesses; notes the major steps that have been taken within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, in particular the establishment of the Victims Information and Advice Service and the instigation of a detailed review of the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences, and recognises the Executive's commitment to make further improvements for victims including the reflection of their interests in proposals for reducing re-offending.
We have no hesitation in fully supporting what the minister said and the terms of the motion. We appreciate that a great deal of work has been going on in the background.
What we are seeing today is to some extent a reflection of our due democratic system. When such policies arose previously, they were ratified by the Scottish Office and imposed on the judicial system without any attempt at democratic scrutiny. It is clear that there is democratic scrutiny now. We are happy to endorse the points that have been made and we look forward with interest to hearing about additional matters that might be mentioned by the Solicitor General. We will be happy to support them because some matters are not ideological but systemic.
Many of the problems that we have in the judicial system—how we treat witnesses and how victims are addressed—are not the fault of the current Executive or a past Administration of whatever political hue; they are down to the system that we have. Unfortunately, we have a legal system that is not necessarily about addressing injustice; it is about how we administer it. Hence the maxim that the law is not necessarily the same as justice. It is the administration of these matters that has to be addressed. As the minister said, taking cognisance of the victims of crime and those who give evidence in court is just as important as addressing the problem of perpetrators. We have no dispute with the Executive in that area.
We take cognisance of the doubts that the minister expressed about our amendment. We recognise that we lodged it at late notice without discussion. However, we raise matters of some concern and if the Executive is not prepared to accept our points at present, we would like to be satisfied that they will at least be factored in.
I thank Kenny MacAskill for allowing me to develop the reason why we are rejecting the SNP amendment. We do not have a problem with some of its generalities, for example on additional assistance for rehousing and protection. However, the point about a specific Scottish witness protection programme causes us problems. We know that very often witnesses ask to be relocated elsewhere within the United Kingdom, which raises significant cross-border issues. Changes are being made in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. Notwithstanding some of the differences between us about Sewel motions, we will come back with Sewel motion proposals on some of the measures to strengthen witness protection arrangements throughout the United Kingdom, which would be of benefit. We have a difference with the SNP on that specific point.
We are more than happy to accept that, to some extent, it is the duty of the Opposition to propose generalities and the duty of the Administration and the Executive, together with the civil service and the secretariat, to fine-tune and deliver the work.
I also accept that when it comes to witness relocation, moving someone from Glasgow or the west of Scotland to the northern isles or the Western Isles is not best suited to maintaining anonymity. Moving people to Liverpool, Manchester or urban London is what happens. It is clear that there has to be some cross-border harmonisation. We think that such matters could be addressed even within a specific Scottish witness relocation programme, but we accept the points that the minister made.
We are not prepared to accept the Tory amendment. We all know where the Tories stand and we disagree with the concept of ending early automatic release. They are entitled to that position, but we are trying to address the matter of victims and witnesses, which would have been better addressed without the Tories giving us their mantra chant. We know that an election is coming in May, but we are trying to address an oversight of which we have all been culpable—past and present Administrations, the Opposition and the Government. We have to do better, and rather than singing an electioneering song, we should try to improve matters and move forward. Therefore, we will not be supporting the Tory amendment.
It is clear that victims and witnesses are critical and their needs are distinct. Witnesses and victims have both been taken for granted. Numerous analogies and examples can doubtless be given by every member, but we all have to do better. We accept that progress is being made and credit has to be given to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for trying to address the problem.
We are bringing Scotland forward from a time when such matters were dealt with shamefully. We are all aware of the anecdotal evidence of witnesses languishing in witness rooms not having been told that the trial had been discharged. We are aware of instances, whether in Forfar or anywhere else, where the facilities for a witness are provided by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. I do not denigrate that institution in any shape or form because what it does is worth while and beneficial but, at the end of the day, is it the most appropriate body to cater for witnesses? When nobody else is available, the WRVS steps into the breach and we are thankful for that, but we must treat witnesses better. People often have to wait for several hours to give evidence despite the fact that they are doubtless considerably inconvenienced and worried—they must be able to get a cup of coffee or tea during that time. That must be addressed.
Our view on victims is to some extent much the same as the Executive's. Some issues have been overlooked. We address victims' immediate needs, but we forget about their long-term requirements. The minister mentioned our amendment and I will talk about two points in it. We recognise that giving evidence is difficult. It would be one thing for the Lord Advocate or me, who live in the suburb of the Grange within about five doors of each other—although I should add that we have not been on holiday together—to give evidence in a trial, but everybody is aware that, in many suburbs in small-town Scotland, people who give evidence face not only the feeling that they are breaching the no-grassing culture, but intimidation: their windows get panned in and their children are harassed. Such things happen.
The situation is a no-brainer and we must address it. Giving evidence can be extremely frightening. It is a citizen's duty, but it is one thing for the Lord Advocate and me from the safety of our salubrious homes to carry it out, and quite another for a person in Craigmillar or Easterhouse who knows that their children will be intimidated and that their windows are likely to get a brick through them to do so. If we are to allow such people to carry out their duty as citizens, we must support them. The police try to provide support, but the right hand in government does not know what the left hand is doing. Local authorities will not work with police authorities because they say that matters are being addressed in other ways or that people will use the system to queue jump in order to get a house. We must do better.
With victims, we must accept that both psychological and physical injury matter. People get recompensed for a broken nose, but there is no recompense for old ladies who have difficulties going out at night or young women who feel intimidated by crowds of youths. Society has let down those who suffer in such ways. We do not address properly psychological or psychiatric matters and we must consider that. The budget is not unlimited, but we must do better.
I move amendment S2M-2241.2, to insert at end:
"; further notes that, whilst it is a citizen's duty to report crime and testify, in doing so significant difficulties and dangers can be encountered by many; calls for additional assistance to be given towards rehousing and protection including a specific Scottish Witness Protection Programme, and further recognises the serious psychological effect that being a witness or victim of crime often involves and so calls for any future reform in this area to include adequate provision for treatment of trauma."
If our criminal justice system is to be effective, it is important that vulnerable witnesses and victims are supported throughout the process of cases. I speak as someone who has been a victim in a criminal case in which the accused was duly convicted. Not only does such support provide individual reassurance; it plays an important role in encouraging people to do their civic duty. There is no doubt that significant progress has been made in the past 20 years. A courtroom is a serious forum and it is inevitable that the atmosphere will be austere and sometimes forbidding, but it is vital that no witness should be so intimidated that the giving of essential evidence is inhibited or impaired. In that event, justice will not be served and the criminal justice system will be discredited.
It is right to acknowledge the progress that has been made, to which the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 has made an important contribution. There is no doubt that special measures such as closed-circuit television, video evidence, evidence on commission, the use of screens and the use of a supporter do much to dispel austerity and apprehension and to offer reassurance. However, the 2004 act is in its early days and the minister will be aware that the phased implementation defers certain measures. It is also right to acknowledge the Executive's strategy for victims, which was launched in 2001. A report in November showed the progress that had been made on that issue.
I have several observations. First, delays still occur. Nothing is more irritating or off-putting to witnesses and victims than to be subjected to abortive court proceedings because a witness cannot be found or the accused has not turned up. Such delays still take place and too many of them lead to proceedings being abandoned. Written answers to parliamentary questions have shown that, last year, 9,000 cases in the sheriff courts were marked "no proceedings" because of delay or the time bar. For every case marked "no pro", there is a potential denial of justice and a frustrated and angry victim and, probably, frustrated and angry witnesses.
Secondly, the victim information and advice service may have been extended to all 11 procurator fiscal areas, which is welcome, but who is monitoring the system and is it operating consistently throughout those areas? For example, are victims being told when a petition is going to be served and, which is important, when it has been served?
Thirdly, we now have a presumption in favour of bail, which is allowing many individuals who have been charged with serious crimes to walk the streets. That leaves many victims and witnesses feeling frightened and vulnerable, results in accused persons not turning up for trial, which causes adjourned trial diets, and allows reoffending during the bail period. The interference in the court's primary responsibility to ensure the victim's peace of mind, to protect the public, detain an accused person who is likely to abscond and to exercise judicial discretion accordingly is intolerable. The availability of bail to people charged with serious crimes is utterly unacceptable. When such individuals, many of whom offend on bail and fail to appear for trial, are cosseted with rights while victims are left afraid and the law-abiding majority is put at risk, we have reached unprecedented levels of absurdity. Something has to be done about that, which is why I refer to the matter in my amendment.
Implicit in any discussion of witnesses and victims is the acknowledgement that crimes have already been committed. In that regard, I will deal with the criticisms of my amendment that were proffered by the minister and Mr MacAskill. Surely a priority should be given to trying to reduce violent crime, drug crime, rape, attempted rape, handling of offensive weapons and criminal homicide, the incidence of all of which is well up on 1997 levels. If we can reduce such crime—and I am responding here to Mr MacAskill's challenge—we will have safer communities, fewer victims and, therefore, fewer witnesses. There have to be more police officers in our communities to deter the commission of crime and detect it more swiftly when it is committed.
I agree that it is important that communities see visible signs of police on the streets, but does the member agree that intelligence-led policing is important in relation to many crimes such as sexual crimes against children and internet pornography? The issue is not simply about putting more police on the streets; it is about ensuring that those crimes are prevented, detected and brought to the courts.
I do not think that the two elements are mutually exclusive and I would say to the minister that a lot of intelligence can be gleaned from communities by having officers working there not as a negative presence but as a co-operative, encouraging presence among our citizens.
I recently heard with concern of the proposal in the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland's "Beating Bureaucracy" report that officers should be selective about what laws to enforce. That is a disastrous suggestion that flies in the face of what works. The priority is to get substantially more police officers in our communities. Criminals must be thinking that Christmas goes on all year when they hear of such proposals.
It is also clear that abolishing the automatic early release of convicted criminals will act as a deterrent and will cut avoidable crimes of the type perpetrated by people such as James Campbell and Stuart Leggate and will greatly restore public confidence in our criminal justice system. That is why I have lodged the amendment in my name, which I have much pleasure in moving.
I move amendment S2M-2241.1, to insert at end:
"; believes, however, that the best support and protection that can be given to witnesses and victims is to cut crime in Scotland, and therefore calls for a greatly-increased police presence in our communities to deter and detect crime, a review of the use of bail and an end to automatic early release from prisons."
I welcome the opportunity to recognise the various needs of victims and witnesses and to acknowledge that much has been done by the Executive and the Parliament to deal with those needs.
Before I expand on that issue, I want to highlight the role that is played in our justice system by jurors—ordinary men and women who are taken away from their daily lives to sit in judgment on their peers. At best, even if the case is relatively minor, jury duty can involve a loss of earnings and disruption of family life. At worst, a juror can be picked for jury service in relation to a distressing murder or high-profile rape trial. I feel strongly that the Crown Office and Scotland owe a debt to our citizens who fulfil their civic duty in that way, and I wonder what counselling or other services are available to assist jurors, following involvement in a violent rape case for example. What work have the courts and the Crown Office done to evaluate jurors' views of the system and how it affected them? On a lesser, administrative note, I inform members that one family in my constituency contacted me to say that, nearly two years after her death, one of their grandmothers, who was in her 80s, was contacted with a request to do jury duty. As a result, I discovered that the authorities were working from an electoral register that was three years old. I do not think that that represents good administration, never mind the upset that it might cause people.
The Scottish Executive and the Parliament have already gone a long way towards improving the position for victims and witnesses—that includes the extra support for victims of domestic abuse that the minister outlined. During 2003-04, the Scottish Executive provided £6 million for victim and witness services, including providing £3.3 million to Victim Support Scotland for a range of services such as the excellent court-based witness service, which I experienced when I was called as a witness to the sheriff court. I am pleased that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has extended the victim information and advice service to all areas. I know from feedback from constituents that that has made a real difference.
In 2003-04, more than 127,000 cases were prosecuted in the Scottish courts—that means that there were just as many victims, and even more witnesses, whose lives were disrupted and sometimes destroyed. As a society, we must do all that we can to support victims and witnesses and I am pleased that arrangements are now in place to refer victims to support organisations and practical help.
We must ask ourselves what victims and witnesses want and we must do all that we can to deliver it. Victims want fair and speedy justice that respects diversity. They want information about what is going on and they want the justice system to be effective. They also want to be able to report crime without putting themselves and their families in danger, and I whole-heartedly agree with many of the comments that Kenny MacAskill made about that. In parts of my constituency, certain other parts of Edinburgh and areas across Scotland, life is such that people cannot do that.
First and foremost, people want offenders to be caught. With record numbers of police and support staff and the highest police clear-up rate in a quarter of a century, I believe that the Executive and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are on track to do just that. Secondly, people want the justice process to be as quick as possible, with the minimum of delays. We have already introduced a number of measures that will speed up the process, particularly in the High Court. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004 introduced preliminary hearings and other initiatives that should cut the number of delays and reschedulings. I do not believe that anybody agrees with the present system, whereby more than 50 per cent of cases at the High Court in Glasgow are delayed or rescheduled.
People want a system that is fair when they are waiting to give evidence, when their family is waiting to hear them give evidence and when they give evidence. Many of the measures that have been introduced through the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 will go a long way towards improving the reality of giving evidence in court. Those include the prohibition of the accused from conducting his own defence in sexual offence cases and the special measures for vulnerable witnesses, including children. Those improvements not only benefit witnesses but allow them to give a better quality of evidence, and therefore they improve the system overall. I am keen to hear a little more from the Executive about the current situation with regard to the victim statement pilots that are operating in Edinburgh and elsewhere. How will their success or otherwise be evaluated?
Crucially, victims want to ensure that offenders do not offend again. That is why the Liberal Democrats are committed to working to tackle reoffending and why we welcome the recent commitments in the criminal justice plan to introduce a greater range of options for doing just that.
Victims want to be treated with respect from the beginning of the process, when they become victims, and we can do that by ensuring that the police respond effectively and timeously to calls about not only serious crimes but the less serious but persistent offences that make some people's life a misery. The Parliament, rightly, passed the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 not only to recognise the problem but to give police and local authorities greater powers to deal with such harassment. I appreciate that the police must prioritise, but they must respond to all calls if we are to maintain public confidence, which is a crucial ingredient in a successful justice system.
A number of people have lost faith in the justice system, including many victims of sexual offences. That is hardly surprising, given that we get convictions in only 6 per cent of rape cases and that male rape does not even exist as an offence. That is why we support the Executive's review of the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences.
I welcome the fact that the Executive has turned its attention to those who are more likely to become the victims of hate crimes: Scots from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Incidences of racist and homophobic attacks appear to be on the increase, but there is a strong argument that that is partly because of the good work that police forces, including Lothian and Borders police, are doing.
I welcome the strong stand that the First Minister has taken on sectarianism and racism, but it is time for him to do the same on homophobia, no matter where it comes from—including the archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, given his remarks in the chamber.
The Executive can be proud of many of its initiatives so far to improve the experience of victims and witnesses.
I whole-heartedly support the motion.
We move to open debate. I will give Marlyn Glen six minutes but, as we are a bit behind the clock, I give notice to Bruce McFee and subsequent members that I will give them only five minutes.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to talk about the fundamental reforms that the Executive has made, and continues to make, to the criminal justice system. I also welcome the opportunity in this more general debate to consider the bigger picture rather than the finer detail that we concentrate on week by week in committee. For example, last year the Justice 1 Committee examined the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which was designed to speed up the judicial process by reducing adjournments and postponements, which can be so detrimental to victims and witnesses. I welcome whole-heartedly the changes that have been introduced. It is extremely enlightening to see how the act slots into the wider strategy of reform, but the reforms must be given time to take effect.
The Scottish Executive's strategy for victims is a new and welcome approach to dealing with the consequences of crime. Developed with a range of agencies that are involved in the criminal justice system, the strategy aims to make the whole process more supportive of victims by ensuring that victims are given emotional support as well as practical assistance and information. The strategy will also ensure that all agencies are working together.
One aspect of the strategy is the victim notification scheme, which has been mentioned. The scheme gives victims a voice when the Parole Board considers a prisoner's application for release. The Minister for Justice's reply—for which I thank her—to my recent letter, asking what steps the Executive is taking to ensure maximum publicity for the scheme, informed me that victims who are eligible are automatically contacted by the procurator fiscal. Victims can opt into the scheme at any point up until the offender is due to be released. I welcome that flexibility of registration, given that a victim might not want to consider such an issue immediately after the end of a trial.
I welcome the general information leaflet on the victim notification scheme that has been distributed to advice organisations, but I would like to see greater media publicity for the scheme. It was highlighted in a recent Dundee Evening Telegraph & Post article and I would be delighted if other newspapers followed suit. The scheme is an important part of the Executive's strategy to help victims to participate in the process and to have their views heard.
Such reforms encourage changes in the public's expectations of the support that they will receive when they are victims of crime. They create higher expectations, which must be met. For example, Scottish Women's Aid has provided so much support for victims of abuse that victims now know that they are entitled to information and support. Its listen louder campaign and the "It's OK to talk" initiative mean that victims know that it is okay to report abuse and to expect and accept support. It is essential that the Executive continues to fund organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid that provide such an invaluable service.
Linked to the reforms is the public perception of crime, which presents a real challenge. The Executive aims to challenge perceptions about crime through many initiatives, including the excellent video identification parade electronic recording scheme—VIPER—which allows victims of crime to attend a virtual identity parade by looking at pictures on a laptop computer in their own home. Allied to those initiatives is the introduction of restorative justice schemes and specialised courts, which will work to improve the justice system by making it more effective and efficient. I welcome those initiatives and hope that they have a positive effect on the perception of crime in communities and of how crime is dealt with.
We must also promote and publicise the reforms. How safe people feel is bound up with their perception of crime. Statistics alone cannot convince people, especially when there is scaremongering and headline grabbing—as always seems to happen. One example of a successful scheme is the Dundee co-ordinated anti-crime network—or DUNCAN initiative—which was set up in 2003. The initiative aims to make Dundee city centre a safe and secure environment in which people can live, work and socialise without fear of becoming a victim of crime. The scheme has been successful beyond all expectations and the Executive now hopes to use it as a model for the rest of Scotland. It has also led to Dundee becoming the second Scottish city to receive the British Retail Consortium's prestigious safer shoppers award.
An essential element of making people feel safe is the management of prisoners, which, despite appearances, is connected to this debate. I welcome the work that is being done to reduce reoffending. The Justice 1 Committee's inquiry into the rehabilitation of prisoners is finding that huge changes have already been made in the Scottish Prison Service and that the pace of change is very fast. Rightly, expectations of prisons are now much higher. It is no longer enough to lock up prisoners; work must be done to change and improve their behaviour, so that when they return to our society, our communities continue to be safe.
I look forward to seeing all the initiatives that I have mentioned come to fruition in this wide-ranging and welcome reform of criminal justice.
I believe that over the past few years we have been travelling in the right direction in the provision of services for both victims and witnesses. I refer to measures such as support for child witnesses and vulnerable adults; the ability to give evidence through video or CCTV; attempts to protect witnesses from intimidation in the court setting, such as the long-overdue scheme to complete the separation of defence and prosecution witness facilities; the introduction of the pilot victim statement scheme; the right of victims to learn of the release of an offender; and improved support and information services to victims and witnesses, which enable them to understand how the system operates. We wait to see how the Bonomy High Court reforms will work out in the long term, especially those in relation to adjournments and discounted sentences for early guilty pleas.
It would be remiss of me and the Parliament if we did not recognise the enormous contribution that organisations such as Victim Support Scotland have made. Composed largely of volunteers, Victim Support Scotland provides emotional support, practical help and essential information to victims, witnesses and others who have been affected by crime. The service is confidential and is provided free of charge by community-based victim services and court-based witness services in all the High Courts and sheriff courts in Scotland. I believe that the aim is eventually to provide services in our district courts. Because of demand for the service and the referral changes that police forces have made, the number of referrals to Victim Support Scotland has doubled in the past few years. Now, around 90 per cent of referrals come from the police. The situation is reversed for under-16s, the vast majority of whom are referred by parents or carers.
The SNP amendment refers to
"a citizen's duty to report crime and testify",
but recognises that
"significant difficulties and dangers can be encountered by many"
in doing so. I want to highlight one or two of those issues.
There is still a need to improve information in the court system and the experience of both victims and witnesses. The process of plea bargaining, when defendants agree to plead guilty to specific crimes and other charges are significantly reduced, often makes victims and witnesses very angry, as in their view it diminishes the crime that has been committed against them for no apparent reason and leaves them wondering why they bothered reporting matters or becoming witnesses in the first place. Some charges are dropped completely as part of plea-bargaining deals or for a variety of other reasons, and sometimes those reasons are not explained either to the victim or to witnesses.
A lack of information or communication also lets down our systems for providing feedback to victims of crime. Although victim services are now relatively successful in providing victims with information on the disposition that has resulted from a trial, the information seems to be harder to obtain when a guilty plea has been entered. When the perpetrator is a child, the situation for victims is even more difficult. When a case is heard by a children's panel, feedback to victims is almost zero. I would be grateful if the Executive would indicate, when summing up, whether it is prepared to consider that matter.
Although victims are now told about the release of an offender, they are not informed about the pre-release of the offender as part of the process of preparing that individual to come back into the community. We must consider that issue.
Another matter on which we let down victims relates to housing. Just before Christmas, I had occasion to contact the police about the case of a young lady in Paisley. She was unable to remain in her home because of the level of harassment that she was experiencing from people who were connected to an individual who had been arrested by the police. As is common procedure, the housing association contacted the police to ascertain the truthfulness of the young lady's story and to assess the threat that she was under. When I phoned the police, the police officer confirmed that the housing association had contacted them three months ago but said that they had not yet responded to the request for information because it was not a high priority and they did not resource such a service. In the meantime, the young lady was a prisoner in her own home.
Unfortunately, as my time has been cut, I will conclude at this point. Much has been done over the past few years to improve services, but I suggest that we must travel a lot further to provide services that encourage witnesses to report crime in the first instance and to encourage witnesses and victims to testify in court. I look forward to any further proposals that are announced.
Bruce McFee is correct to say that the justice system is totally reliant on people coming forward to give evidence. If they are inhibited or frustrated in attempts to do so, the justice system comes under a great deal of pressure.
Depending on the individual and the circumstances, giving evidence in court can be either a minor inconvenience and a pain in the neck or a very traumatic situation. The Parliament and the Executive have been correct in recent years to address various issues that relate to the treatment of witnesses. Undoubtedly there has been an improvement, particularly when the witness can be described as vulnerable. In those situations, a difficult balance must be struck between the rights of the witness and the rights of the accused. That balance must always be borne in mind. Time alone will tell whether we have struck the right balance, but genuine progress has been made.
Although there has been progress in one direction, there have been failures in another. I put a simple equation to the minister: less crime equals fewer victims and fewer witnesses. In many cases, the witnesses are the complainers and the victims of the crime. If crime is cut, it is clear that the problem will be reduced. I suggest to the minister in the strongest possible terms that the Executive's policies on policing and law enforcement in general are unlikely to achieve that aim.
I do not know which policy on policing Bill Aitken is complaining about. Is it the additional and record numbers of police who are on the streets compared with the situation when the Conservatives were in power? Is it the very effective policing that takes place? On there being more crimes, is he also complaining about our attempts to ensure that there is proper recording of some crimes that were not properly recorded under the Conservatives?
When the minister seeks to obfuscate and hide the facts from Parliament, that is one thing; but when he tries to delude himself, the issue is perhaps more serious. The fact is that there are not more police on the streets. He might well say—and I accept—that more police officers are employed, but there has been a significant reduction in the number who are on operational duties. He should not try to confuse us into thinking that additional police numbers mean that there are more police officers on the street.
Let us consider some of the situations that arise. Recently, I was involved in the citation of witnesses on summary matters. The new citation system, which is based centrally in Glasgow, appeared to work, but when I wanted to fix my parliamentary diary, I could not find out what happened at the intermediate diet because nobody would answer the phone, and that was the case over a period of about two days. When I was about to phone the Solicitor General for Scotland, another idea occurred to me, so I phoned the Glasgow procurator fiscal's office and got a bypass number.
The fiscal in Edinburgh then looked into the matter and said, "The accused didn't turn up. There's a warrant out." Another trial diet has been fixed, but what is the chance that the accused will turn up on this occasion? I would suggest that it is very small. Basically, we must consider bail, because although the issue does not really matter in the case in which I am involved, in High Court cases the problem merits serious consideration, as it impinges on people's liberties as well as on their personal safety. Recently, I received an e-mail from a lady whose son had been subjected to a vicious assault with a baseball bat at Christmas in 2003. The case has been adjourned in the High Court twice because the accused failed to turn up. I shall copy the e-mail to the Solicitor General.
When situations such as that arise, there is a serious problem, and I am very pleased indeed that the Sentencing Commission for Scotland will take the matter on board and report back with recommendations. Unless we speed up the system, there will be reluctance on the part of witnesses to give evidence. Where there are delays, there is more time for people to be intimidated and more time for people's evidence to become less reliable. Inevitably, there is also a chance that those who have been cited will move and contact with them will be lost.
Let us speed up the system and improve the services to witnesses, and there will be real progress. Most of all, we must ensure that the policing situation is resolved. That will cut crime.
All members recognise the vital importance of ensuring that witnesses in the criminal justice system have a positive experience that leads to feelings of safety, confidence and trust, as that will impact on their willingness to report crime in the future and on their ability to give evidence in court. Having a negative experience—whether because of the outcome of a court case or because of a court's physical ability to support people in a way that is relevant to them—can lead to outright hostility rather than merely to simple distrust. Crimes going unreported because people have those feelings and are not willing to report crimes or are not able to give evidence when they get to court means that no Government policy of any kind, no policing policy, and not even having as many police on the streets as any Conservative could dream of, will be able to deliver justice.
Therefore, I was pleased, as other members were, to support the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004. During the passage of the bill, we supported calls from Justice for Children for the use of intermediaries and the right to therapy in court. Since then, we have pursued the question of intermediaries through parliamentary questions, in the hope of drawing attention to the work that is taking place in countries such as South Africa rather than merely the work that is being done in England and Wales. The Executive has responded by promising a detailed assessment of the pilots in England and Wales and a comparison with the work in other countries. In the minister's closing statement, it would be good to hear something about how quickly the issue can be addressed and what the timescale might be for having that assessment carried out. I also welcome the commitment to careful monitoring of implementation of the 2004 act, and I add our weight to calls for regular reports on its implementation.
It is important to recognise that the need for a positive and supportive experience applies in exactly the same way to victims as it does to witnesses. They need trust and confidence if they are to be willing to report future crimes. Most important of all is the role of Victim Support Scotland, which I am glad that Hugh Henry and other members mentioned. It is not only the criminal justice system and the courts that can ensure that victims have a positive experience; Victim Support Scotland can also ensure that that happens and that victims feel that they are recognised and taken seriously.
However, that in itself is not enough. Many victims also want to see meaningful consequences for offenders—not just prison sentences or fines, but consequences that have meaning and that are relevant to the offence. Many want to see offenders taking responsibility for their offences, but all too often that is turned into a suggestion that offenders can be made to take responsibility. "Making offenders take responsibility" is either an example of rhetoric or it shows a misunderstanding of the issue. After all, people cannot be made to take responsibility any more than an anti-racism campaign can make people not be racist or a health promotion campaign can make people live a more healthy life. Taking responsibility is a voluntary act; the offender must buy into it. Achieving that will require us to work with offenders on their own terms. As a result, I agree strongly with Marlyn Glen that our treatment of offenders, including prisoners, is an important aspect of the debate on victims and witnesses. They are not separate groups in society; they live in the same society and do not experience separate criminal justice systems.
That brings me back to some of Hugh Henry's comments about restorative justice. Although I welcome many of the Executive's measures in that respect, the approach is still in its infancy. Indeed, some people dismiss it as a fashionable idea that has no substantial value while others regard it as peripheral. The position and perception of restorative justice have not been helped by the rhetoric about being tough on crime. For example, the Executive still promotes retribution as a purpose of the criminal justice system. Restorative justice should be seen not as a bolt-on to a punitive or retributive system of justice but as a rejection of such purposes. Improving offenders' lives is part of the same equation as improving victims' lives. That does not mean that we should give offenders an easy ride; instead, we should make them less likely to be offenders and make victims less likely to be victims in future.
I say to Hugh Henry that, although the jury is still out on restorative justice for adults, it has come in on retribution, prison and brutalising prisoners. Such approaches do not work and, until we end them, we will make no progress towards achieving the reduction in reoffending that we all want.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short speech in this debate. That said, I am slightly unnerved by all the agreement in the chamber, as it does not exactly suit my debating style.
To the outside observer—and, at times, to humble back benchers—politics can be a slow business. The wheels of government seem to take an age to grind. However, in the Scottish Parliament at least, if people make their case repeatedly and stick to it, those wheels certainly will grind.
The way in which the criminal justice system treats victims and witnesses—if that is the way to describe what happens—is a prime example. It is clear from other members' speeches that I am not the only MSP to represent constituents who, after falling victim to an offence, felt excluded and humiliated by the system. Victims or their families were effectively told that matters such as the Parole Board system were nothing to do with them and, after conviction, their involvement came to an end. That was the case for decades. Indeed, I recall two of my constituents telling me of almost identical experiences, despite the fact that the incidents in question occurred almost 20 years apart.
If the Scottish Parliament is good at one thing, it is the reform of specific aspects of the legal system. Indeed, we have started to take a number of big steps in that respect, such as the passing of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. Provisions such as victim statements, new rights to information about an assailant's proposed release and the right to make representations to the Parole Board about any release have all put a few pounds on the victims' side of the justice scales.
Now that the wheels have been set in motion, they show no signs of slowing down, as the publication of the criminal justice plan at the beginning of last month shows. It is hard to disagree with the plan's aim of restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system, but the key to any such approach must be a reduction in reoffending rates. After all, what is the point of working harder to catch and convict criminals if, at the end of their sentence, they are simply allowed back on to the streets to commit more crime?
The international comparisons are not favourable. In America, 47 per cent of prisoners reoffend within two years of their release. In Norway, the figure is 43 per cent and in Germany it is 36 per cent. In Scotland, to our shame, 67 per cent of prisoners—six out of ten—reoffend within two years of their release, in a cycle that not only wastes valuable time and money but creates a whole new set of victims each time round. It is right that a top priority for the plan is to break that cycle and put a spanner in the revolving doors of our prisons and courts.
I restate my view that the Parole Board must be made more accountable. It is only fair that we should have the right to challenge Parole Board decisions and be given reasons for prisoners' release on licence. I look forward to the Executive's continuing work in the area.
We are all members of the public and as such we are not disinterested bystanders. The justice process exists to serve us and we must be at its heart.
I will depress Duncan McNeil by saying that I agree with what he said. My job will not be too onerous, in that my colleagues Margaret Smith and Mike Pringle know much more about the subject than I do and address it with great sense. I will just make a few personal observations.
I am reading one of the numerous books that have been published recently about Edinburgh in the golden age. Members of the legal profession were the top dogs in Scotland for a long time. That was a good thing in some ways, in that after the union of 1707 it kept alive the Scottish individuality and national spirit that might have died altogether. However, it meant that the legal profession ruled in a sort of one-party state. Ever since then, the courts and the legal system have been run for the benefit of the lawyers. The Parliament has made progress in trying to deal with that, but we must do much more.
I agree with Annabel Goldie that we devalue and do not give a fair amount of attention to witnesses and victims. Kenny MacAskill in particular spoke strongly on that point and I will ruin his career by saying—I think for the second time in recent debates—that he made a good speech.
People must have confidence and faith in the legal system. However, quite a lot of people do not have confidence in the system, because it seems to be pretty obscure and to be run for the lawyers' benefit. For example, there are many delays in the system. As the minister said, we have been trying to tackle delays but much remains to be done. Delays are often to do with the incompetence of lawyers, or are tactical moves by lawyers. We can respect human rights while keeping people up to scratch so that they cannot unduly delay the process.
We can all understand that there might be justification for plea bargaining, even for people such as Mark Thatcher. However, many people who are involved in cases do not understand that at all. The system must be explained and communicated to the outside world much better than currently happens. All systems are bad at communicating, because the people who work in a system understand it and assume that everyone else does—we are guilty of that, too. We must explain to the public who become involved in the system how it works.
In coming new to the subject, I was interested in the proposals for intermediaries. Children 1st produced a paper on the matter and claim that the system works well in South Africa. I have no idea whether that is correct, but the idea of intermediaries between child witnesses and the court seems sensible and could be explored in a worthwhile way.
I was also interested in Kenny MacAskill's proposal for a Scottish witness protection programme. The minister might be perfectly correct and there might be technical reasons why we should not just jump into having a single scheme. However, we could develop a programme gradually, perhaps throughout the United Kingdom, to help witnesses, who get a raw deal and are often put in danger, as Kenny MacAskill, Margaret Smith and others said.
Margaret Smith's suggestion that, as well as speaking to witnesses, we should speak to jurors to find out what they think of the process was a good one. We are not very good at speaking to people at the sharp end to find out how the whole system works in their practical experience.
We have advanced a great deal on domestic abuse. The Parliament and the Government deserve credit for that, but we could do more to encourage people to come forward and to give them the support that is necessary.
Restorative justice is another important issue. It helps the victim a bit in that he or she has explained to them what the issue is. The same explanation is given to the offender and the fact that the victim and the offender come together may help to sort matters out a bit more effectively.
Other members have spoken about the pointlessness of short sentences, but we must keep making that point, because it is easy for the system to continue what it is doing. It is difficult for a machine that makes sausages to stop making sausages and to start making bacon instead, but that is what the justice system must do.
I begin by declaring a partial interest. My parliamentary assistant has spent the week in Dunfermline sheriff court waiting to be called as a witness in a case and my work is backing up. Like me, she is exasperated at the length of time that it is taking for that case to proceed. The minister and others have said that that is a regular occurrence. When the wheels of the justice system turn so slowly, it is perhaps no surprise that people lose faith in it or that citizens throughout Scotland are often reluctant to get involved in the process of reporting crime. That said, what people in Scotland want most of all is to have confidence in their justice system and to believe that it is fair. They want to see justice being done and they want cases to be handled thoroughly; they are not interested in speed just for the sake of it.
As the minister knows, I have broadly welcomed the legislation that has been introduced to improve the rights of victims and witnesses; I said as much during committee consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.
Donald Gorrie said that Duncan McNeil would be depressed that he agreed with him, but I do, too—on his point that working-class people who witness or are the victims of crime often feel left out in the cold by what they see as a criminal justice system that is dominated by the middle classes and which leaves their interests unconsidered. That is a big issue for the Executive to tackle.
The real challenge is to ensure that the changes that we introduce to improve the circumstances of victims and witnesses are introduced in a way that does not lessen or compromise in any way the right of defendants to a full and fair trial. I have raised concerns about that in the past with ministers. Changes that run the risk of prejudicing a fair trial are not helpful to victims, witnesses or anyone else.
If we are honest, we must admit that, under new Labour, fears about the integrity of the right to a free, full and fair trial are haunted by the Government's record at Belmarsh prison. The minister will be aware that, before Christmas, defence counsel Ian Macdonald QC resigned over his belief that the right to face one's accuser in a trial on the charges that have been brought is consistently denied to inmates at Belmarsh under the cover of the war on terrorism.
I hope that the minister, who is now on his feet, will—along with me and other members—express his concern about that situation.
Colin Fox might not be fully conversant with the terms on which he was elected to the Parliament or with its responsibilities. The issue that he raises is purely a reserved matter. We are trying to concentrate on our distinct Scottish legal system. We want both to consider the huge benefits that it offers and to admit that it has failings and weaknesses that we need to address. That is why we are using the powers that are available to us to improve our distinct legal system. The issues that Colin Fox raises are nothing to do with this Parliament.
The minister will be aware that, although it is a reserved matter, both he and I have the right to an opinion on it. I offered him the chance to condemn what happened at Belmarsh, but he refused to do so. He understands, as I do, why campaigners refer to Belmarsh as Britain's Guantanamo bay. I raise it in this debate because only improvements for victims and witnesses that do not prejudice the right to a fair trial are welcome in this chamber.
I welcome the developments in the victim information and advice service, as mentioned by the minister. He has already accepted that there is a long way to go to defeat the frustration that victims and witnesses feel by letting them know that their interests are included in cases and that they have a part to play. I welcome the improvements to the victim statement scheme that have been mentioned. I hope that the minister accepts that such statements will have credibility provided that they are acted upon where they are reasonable and benefit the criminal justice system.
The Scottish Executive has promised that all victims of crime committed by young people should have access to restorative justice services, which is a good thing. Is funding to be made available to roll out that service beyond the seven local authorities that are presently covered? Does the minister intend to expand the scheme to include crimes committed by adults? He alluded to that in his speech and said that the jury is out. I offer him the opportunity to elaborate on that point in his response to the debate.
I finish by commenting on the amendments. I have sympathy with the Tories' amendment, which calls for more community police. Of course, they are right. Police numbers are higher, but they are not where people want them to be. People want the police to be in their communities and accountable to their communities. Nonetheless, I will oppose the Tories' amendment, because it is too one-sided. Not only do we need more police to combat crime, but we need to combat the causes of crime and invest in diversion from crime and early-intervention schemes to prevent crime from escalating from low-level offences.
For largely the same reasons, I have concerns about Kenny MacAskill's amendment. Although citizens may well have a
"duty to report crime and testify",
he has to recognise that citizens have an equal right to share in the wealth of society. We cannot have one without the other. Perhaps the member who will respond to the debate for the SNP can assuage those concerns and reassure us that the right to share in society's wealth goes alongside the duties that Mr MacAskill mentioned.
First, I declare that I am a member of the Highland abuse survivors project, which seeks to support adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and that I am an unpaid director of Ross-shire Women's Aid, of which I have been a member for nearly 25 years.
Through my involvement with Women's Aid, I am well aware of the trauma experienced by vulnerable witnesses and victims in their dealings with the justice system, be it the police, the fiscal or court procedures. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the terror felt by abused women when faced with a court appearance where they are required to give evidence of their abuse, face to face with their abusive partner. Women's Aid workers have seen women shake with fear or be physically sick at the prospect of such an ordeal. That can be corroborated by other support groups, such as Rape Crisis.
One of the greatest achievements of this Parliament and the Executive has been the recognition of the need to make our justice system victim and witness centred. Indeed, the victims in domestic abuse, rape or common assault cases are the principal witnesses.
Those who work in our courts have not always appreciated how alien an environment the courts are for most people and have defended the robes, wigs, gowns and uniforms as necessary to uphold the majesty of the law. That, together with the presence of the abuser and hostile questioning by the defence solicitor, have caused victims to drop charges rather than face the ordeal, or to refuse to testify. In the past, that led to the police's reluctance to charge, fiscals' reluctance to prosecute and sheriffs' irritation and cynicism at cases being abandoned. The fact that witnesses were too afraid to give evidence led to cynicism all round in the justice system, which did not make for good practice. Thank goodness that has changed.
We are beginning to address the reasons why abuse, assault and rape victims do not report crimes, do not wish charges to be pressed, or wish to abandon the process once started. Every time that happens it is possible that an abuser or a rapist goes free to commit a similar act again.
Protecting vulnerable witnesses and victims and being sensitive to their needs in court is not about feeling sorry for or mollycoddling people; it is about enabling them to give their best possible evidence, free, as far as possible, from fear.
I believe that the Protection of Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 represents a huge step forward. It will protect children, vulnerable adults and those who are terrified of confronting their abuser or the person who raped them. Now, the police, solicitors and the court will identify vulnerable witnesses and provide them with appropriate support through the presence of a friend, through the possibility of giving evidence on commission and through the use of video links, so that their fears are allayed and they are able to give evidence in conditions that are as free from fear and pressure as possible, which, as I have said, allows them to give their best possible evidence. I look forward to the rolling out of the provisions of the 2004 act, first in criminal cases and then in civil cases. It is important that those provisions apply in civil as well as in criminal cases, so that they can cover matrimonial cases and cases of protection from abuse.
Two issues still trouble me, however. The first is the low number of convictions in rape cases, which I know concerns us all and has been mentioned in the chamber before. There is currently uncertainty surrounding the definition of rape. I know that the Executive is having those matters examined and I hope for a satisfactory outcome.
The second issue is one of practicalities. Last week, three child abuse cases were heard in Highland courts: one in Fort William, one in Portree and one in Dingwall. Such cases are not unusual. How will rural courts cope with the requirements of the 2004 act? As the minister knows, I am particularly concerned about the capacity of small rural courts, where space is often constrained. It might be difficult, for example, to provide video links for witnesses easily. The Scottish Court Service has worked very hard in the Highlands to provide for the changes that have been needed to deliver the on-going programme of witness support and for the needs of child witnesses to date, but we need to plan for serious money to be spent on modernising and rationalising the court estate in rural Scotland. I hope that the minister will consider that.
The needs of victims and witnesses fall into six broad categories: first, getting information throughout the criminal justice process; secondly, emotional and counselling support; thirdly, courtesy, respect and sensitivity to the experience that they have lived through; fourthly, assistance in coping with physical difficulty, speech or hearing impairments or language or cultural differences; fifthly, comfort when attending court; and finally, physical protection and security. I acknowledge that progress has been made in a number of those areas, but I will concentrate my remarks on the final category—that of witness protection, not just at court but also before and after the trial.
Although some degree of witness protection is available from certain police forces, including Strathclyde police, other forces operate such a policy on an ad hoc basis. That is simply not good enough. We need a properly established, specialist witness protection programme. I was sorry to hear the minister's view on the proposal for a Scottish witness protection programme. I understand the need for cross-border co-operation, which is fairly obvious to us all, but that would be entirely possible in the context of a Scottish witness protection programme.
The fear of crime is palpable in many communities, and so is the fear of retribution by criminals or by the friends, families and associates of those who commit crime against those who come forward with evidence about the people who have been responsible for carrying out crimes in their community. The fear of retribution is something that we have as yet not properly addressed in our attempts to assist vulnerable witnesses. We have all heard of high-profile cases in which people who have agreed to be witnesses against criminals have suffered as a result. It is incumbent on the criminal justice system to ensure that people are properly protected from retribution against them by the perpetrators of crime or their supporters.
There is a widespread view that only big-time criminals, such as those who are involved in the illegal drugs trade or organised crime, take revenge on witnesses. However, people can also fear petty criminals, vandals, young adults and even children trying to stop them coming forward and reporting crime. Many people's lives can be ruined by the actions of petty criminals, who terrorise decent people just because they did the right thing and gave evidence to the police about criminal activity. The psychological impact of such intimidation on individuals and families can be devastating. People experience problems ranging from heightened anxiety to complete mental breakdown. Children often find that their schoolwork suffers: they do not sleep properly; they cannot concentrate while at school; and they are constantly worried about their parents.
I have no wish to overemphasise or exaggerate the problem, but it is clear that it exists. Even if the fear of retribution far exceeds the likelihood of any such action actually occurring, the mere fact that people are afraid to come forward means that we must act to overcome that. Many other countries around the world have witness protection programmes already. It is time that we caught up in this area of criminal justice.
Most people have heard of the witness protection system that is in place in the United States of America, but America is far from alone in providing that level of protection to witnesses. For example, in 1996, the Canadian Witness Protection Program Act was passed, and the International Criminal Court has established a victims and witnesses unit. Not only large countries such as Canada and the USA, but small European countries, have such programmes in place. Recently, Macedonia drafted legislation that will establish witness protection measures and create a panel that will be responsible for overseeing the protection programme. When that legislation was announced, Macedonia's justice minister stated that all other countries in the west Balkans have enacted such legislation and that the proposals would bring Macedonia into line with international standards.
When even countries such as Macedonia are upgrading their criminal justice systems by introducing witness protection programmes, surely it is time that the Executive backed the proposals that are outlined in the Scottish National Party amendment, which include a specific Scottish witness protection programme.
I acknowledge the progress that has been made so far—my experience on the Justice 2 Committee and, previously, the Justice 1 Committee has allowed me to see much of the good work that has been done for vulnerable witnesses and victims—but I urge the Parliament to keep the momentum going by supporting the SNP amendment.
I believe that no member would dissent from the view that the needs of victims and witnesses and an improvement in their status within the criminal justice system are central to the development of a system that is fit for our times. Like many of the members who have already spoken, I am firmly of the view that our Government's progress so far in implementing the Scottish strategy for victims is to be welcomed. All the main players that are involved in Scotland's criminal justice system—the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Court Service and the Scottish Prison Service—are working in co-operation, which is vital in moving towards improved support for victims of crime. The strategy has the backing of Victim Support Scotland and is based not only on experience in Scotland, but on international experience and developments in Europe.
Supplying emotional and practical support to victims and ensuring the provision of information to them is just as important in the development of a quality justice service as dealing effectively with those who commit crimes. A recognition of the central importance of victims and their right to have their voices heard is vital at all stages of the criminal justice system and is the correct philosophical basis on which to build a successful strategy.
The Parliament has, as other members have noted, worked hard to enact legislation that puts statutory muscle on the strategy, including the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003; the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, which gives child witnesses in particular an automatic entitlement to help in court; and High Court reform, such as the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004, which expedites procedures in relation to High Court trials. All those measures support victims of crime in practical ways and show the Parliament at its best: passing laws that support Scotland's citizens.
That approach and those measures mean that the Parliament has taken significant commonsense strides to advance the cause of our fellow citizens who find themselves as witnesses, victims or both. Such progress is commendable, but we cannot be complacent, as there remains much to do to improve matters further. There is still a problem of repeat offending in Scotland, which is highlighted by the worrying statistic that more than 60 per cent of those leaving prison will be reconvicted within two years. International comparisons show that Scotland has a particular problem with reconviction rates. There is also the challenge of reducing the number of persistent youth offenders. Bald statistics on reoffending illustrate the continuing human cost that victims pay and emphasise the necessity for us to do all that we can through the criminal justice plan to target various types of offenders in a complex of ways. Our constituents seek partnership working that will lead, via a range of measures, to a reduction in criminal activity and thus to safer communities and fewer victims.
I will mention briefly two approaches that are part of supporting victims and creating such a safer society. Restorative justice has a significant part to play, especially in respect of young people. I was pleased to hear the deputy minister make positive comments about restorative justice. The Government has invested heavily in creating 6,000 places on restorative justice projects and I hope that the system can be rolled out further. Used appropriately, that approach, which creates a greater likelihood that victims will be willing to resolve matters in that fashion with young offenders, should be pursued. It is to be commended as an innovative approach that deserves the support of us all.
The victim notification scheme is an imaginative and necessary support for victims. I ask the Solicitor General to say whether the scheme is intended to be extended to all victims regardless of the length of sentence that is imposed on offenders.
Too many of Scotland's people have been victims of crime. The intention of our Government and the Parliament is to support such victims in practical ways and to create a justice system and a society that establish safer communities in which citizens do not become victims. On that basis, I commend the motion.
I might know a little more about the subject than Donald Gorrie does, but there is no doubt that I bow to his knowledge of Edinburgh's history. I am glad that the Executive has enabled us to debate this important topic. A major highlight of my first year in the Parliament was scrutinising the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill at stages 1 and 2 as part of the Justice 2 Committee. The Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 allows child and vulnerable witnesses to benefit from several special measures that help them to give evidence. It will be phased in from spring 2005 for child witnesses in the High Court, the sheriff court, in solemn cases and in children's hearings court proceedings.
The Liberal Democrats had a manifesto commitment to help communities and victims. We promised in particular to support victims of crime during court cases and in rebuilding their lives. The 2004 act goes quite a long way towards doing that.
Bruce McFee and Duncan McNeil referred to the lack of information for the victims of young offenders. Such information is important. Those members might be heartened by my experience when I visited Dundee with Marlyn Glen. We visited a project called victims of youth crime—VOYCE. Like me, I am sure that many members receive complaints from victims of crime that they never know what is happening after a crime has been committed against them. In Dundee, that is where VOYCE comes in. The victim is kept informed at all times of what is happening to the young offender. I was given a good example of young men—members might guess that they were men—who overran a garden that was run by disabled people. After the offenders were caught, VOYCE brought two of them back to the garden to speak to some of the disabled people who ran it and the two youngsters became involved to an extent in the garden. Such a project deserves our support.
Annabel Goldie referred to an ACPOS report that said that minor crimes would not be prosecuted. That statement came not from an ACPOS report, but from a report by Fife constabulary's deputy chief constable. I have a copy of what The Scotsman said about the subject. The report was to Fife police board and was in answer to a query about the response to minor crime in that area. The report certainly was not from ACPOS.
Guidance that was published in June 2004 enabled restorative warnings to be given to youth offenders. Victims will be kept informed of progress and the action that is taken against youth offenders.
The deputy minister referred to improvements in the physical state of our courts, which are greatly to be welcomed. I remember going to Edinburgh sheriff court many years ago, when I was lumped in a very smoky room with all sorts of people from the defence and the prosecution and with police. That was a nightmare. Two or three years ago, I was back in that court, which is now excellent. Prosecution witnesses are kept entirely separate from defence witnesses, which is to be welcomed. We must improve facilities for court witnesses in such ways.
Kenny MacAskill, Annabel Goldie and Stewart Maxwell referred to intimidation when people want to go to court. It is clear that intimidation is extremely bad news and that we must do something about it. The pilot victim statement scheme that has been running in Edinburgh and other places allows victims of most crimes to make a written statement about the physical, emotional and financial impact that the crime has had, and that statement is submitted to the court. The victim can say whether they have been intimidated. The sheriff can read the statement once the offender has pleaded guilty or has been found guilty. The scheme will need to be evaluated until 2006, but I am sure that it is already reasonably successful, and I would hope and expect to see it rolled out across Scotland.
One of the excellent schemes that the Executive has set in place is the victim advice unit. Some £1.3 million has been set aside for it, and I am pleased that £3.3 million has been made available locally through Victim Support Scotland. Local circumstances often require a different local approach. I am sure that the needs of people in urban areas are different from the needs of those in the Western Isles, for example. That local money means that the support that victims need will be tailored to the area that they are in.
I am pleased to see the Deputy Minister for Justice and the Solicitor General taking part in the debate. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has now extended the Victim Support Scotland scheme to the entire country. The scheme provides legal information to victims. Legal procedures are often impenetrable. Many members have referred to witnesses going to court who have no idea of what is happening or about the process, and we should help them. Ending victims' and witnesses' confusion when they go to court is extremely important. Any service that helps them through the legal minefield must be extremely welcome.
One of the Liberal Democrats' key manifesto messages in 2003 was to help to improve victims' rights. That commitment is being delivered by the Executive, and I welcome that.
I call Stewart Stevenson.
I am sorry. I call Margaret Mitchell.
Duncan McNeil has left the chamber, but I will further depress him by saying that the debate has confirmed the consensus among members that the concerns of victims and witnesses are central to criminal justice reform. We acknowledge that the Scottish Executive has made addressing those issues through legislation a priority, and we welcome the strategy for Scottish victims and fully support its three key objectives.
However, legislation and strategies are not enough—they must deliver in practice. Therefore, although we applaud the important work that is being carried out in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service with the establishment of the victim information and advice service, it is not, as Annabel Goldie pointed out—and despite Margaret Smith's anecdotal comments—adequately monitored. More generally, we have grave reservations about the adequacy of funding in the COPFS. As a result, it is far from clear that the main thrust of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004—to prevent delays and ensure that trials proceed earlier—will be achieved. There does not appear to be any prospect of significant progress in that respect as long as the police and fiscal services remain under-resourced. The minister must realise that nothing undermines victims' and witnesses' confidence more than being told that their case will not proceed. Colin Fox, Duncan McNeil and Mike Pringle share our concern about the lack of adequate information for witnesses when their trial is delayed.
Delays are particularly distressing for children. A day can be a long time for an adult, but it is a lifetime for a child. I join Patrick Harvie and Donald Gorrie in calling on the minister to consider the introduction of intermediaries in an attempt to ensure that children have every opportunity to give their best evidence and to help them to cope with their experience in court. Research has indicated that that measure would give children and their families greater faith in the criminal justice system and that it would tackle the under-reporting of crimes against children.
There is little doubt that all victims and witnesses want crimes to be resolved without undue delay. To that end, there is no substitute for ensuring a visible police presence on the street to deter and detect crime. At present, there are a meagre 140 police officers on the beat throughout Scotland at any given time. The minister does not like to hear that statistic, but I make no apology for repeating it. The situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Perhaps, at her leisure, Margaret Mitchell will give me the source for that statistic and the confirmation of that number.
I will pass that on to the minister later. It is a good statistic for him to look at in detail.
More funding is required. However, in addition to funding, there are various ways in which police resources could be released. In that context, I hope that the Executive will seriously consider introducing in Scotland the violent offender and sex offender register software system, which would help police forces in Scotland to manage programmes and information about sex offenders. The system is already in place in England and Wales. After the initial cost of implementation, there have been subsequent savings from, for example, the sharing of information and avoiding the duplication of work. There is also the potential for a reduction in recidivism, which would certainly help to increase confidence in the justice system.
Why should the public be encouraged to report crime when the alleged perpetrator is charged and then released back on to the street, free to threaten, intimidate and continue offending, simply because bail is too readily available? As Bill Aitken pointed out, a radical new approach to the bail system is required.
A point that seems to have totally escaped Kenny MacAskill of the SNP is just how soul-destroying the effect of early release can be on victims and witnesses. That was highlighted by the sense of outrage and despair of one victim of sexual abuse who related how, upon conviction, the abuser had three legal representatives in court to argue whether he should serve 18 or 24 months in prison. In fact, he served only nine months and was home for Christmas. The minister has it in her power to introduce honesty in sentencing and to end that injustice now.
I have much pleasure in supporting our amendment, the intention behind which is to put victims and witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system by implementing the measures already discussed, by establishing a greater police presence to deter and detect crime, by ending automatic release and by reviewing the use of bail.
I had a sense of déjà vu a few minutes ago. In our SNP candidate training, we role-play from time to time, during which we ensure that all the parties are represented. It is confession time—all too often for my comfort, I am selected to play the role of a Tory. Do I get time off for good behaviour and can I plea bargain? Had I been invited to sum up on behalf of the Tories, my speech might have come out just a little different. The differences between the SNP and the Tories are long standing and well known. I will revisit some of them.
In his speech, Hugh Henry referred to restorative justice and how it is not yet clear that it is delivering for adult offenders in England in particular. I hope that we can persist with the idea and find ways to make it effective. In relation to children, whether they are 18, 16, 14 or 12—I throw that back into the debate—restorative justice appears to play an important role in returning children to a path of probity and commitment to society.
I was slightly surprised when the deputy minister appeared to say that the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill specifically addresses grooming, although he may take this opportunity to clarify what he said. The bill certainly does not refer to grooming, although it may deal with some aspects of it. We will give the bill a fair wind and I do not seek to criticise it, but there may be more work to do on that subject. I suspect that members of all parties on the Justice 1 Committee will assist the minister with that.
Annabel Goldie made an astounding claim about Stuart Leggate, who was responsible for the horrendous sexual murder of a young boy in Paul Martin's constituency. Annabel Goldie said that early release was somehow directly responsible for Stuart Leggate's offence. I am interested to know the argument for that connection. I was unable to intervene on Annabel Goldie, as she made the comment within 35 seconds of having to sit down. Stuart Leggate was understood to be an evil person, both when he was in prison and thereafter. The real issue with the Leggates of this world—there are others of similar character—is supervision.
My point was that the two individuals whom I mentioned were free to commit more crimes because they were released early.
Had they been released later, they would also have been free to commit their crimes. My point is that there is no connection between release date and commission of crimes. Annabel Goldie's point does not help to promote good argument on the issue.
Colin Fox had, of course, a rather different approach. He came up with one insight that I should mention when he talked about the slowness of justice. I disagree with him slightly in that I do not think that the speed of justice is the primary issue. Justice should be faster, but the key point is that we should search for ways to make the progress of the justice system more predictable for all those who are involved. For example, if victims and witnesses had to attend on 14 February and knew that something was to happen then, they would not willingly trade that for thinking that things might happen on 31 January. We must have speed, but if increased speed must be traded against reduced stability and predictability, I suspect that most people would go for predictability.
Colin Fox seemed to say that, in a capitalist society, socialists have no duty to society. That is an interesting concept for him to articulate, given that we have previously thought that socialists, even if we disagree with them, espouse more strongly the concept of society than do we lesser mortals.
Will the member give way?
Sorry; I am running out of time.
I have a few suggestions as I head towards my conclusion. We use professional witnesses in civil cases, particularly in housing matters, and there is a case for examining whether professional witnesses have a role in the criminal justice system.
I want to highlight some statistics on where crime happens, which I understand will be published in the not-too-distant future and which were requested by the Scottish Prison Service. The statistics show that 25 per cent of the total prisoner population on 30 June 2003 came from just 53 of Scotland's 1,222 local government wards, and that 50 per cent came from just 155 wards. In other words, there is a concentration of criminality, which makes witnesses vulnerable in those areas. Furthermore, there is a direct relationship with deprivation. In communities in the bottom decile of deprivation—the most deprived areas—953 out of every 100,000 people are in prison, whereas at the top level, the figure is 4 out of every 100,000.
There are actually 269 local authority wards in Scotland that have no one in prison. We also have densities of people in prison from many of our local authority wards that exceed the density of people in prison per head of population from Harlem and the Bronx. The figures are made up mainly of young men. That concentration creates real problems—even threats—for people who engage with the criminal justice system, report crimes and become witnesses.
Plea bargaining has been referred to a few times during the debate, in particular by my colleague Bruce McFee. I would like to pose a thought, not make a proposal. Plea bargaining involves the offender and the offender's representatives. I wonder whether there could also be a role for the victim and the victim's representatives in that process, particularly in relation to serious cases. I do not know whether that is done anywhere else but, after all, the analogous processes in civil cases would involve both sides of the argument.
I make no apology for returning to the subject of fines—as the SNP has done over a number of years—and to the suggestion that it is time that we considered relating fines to the income of the offender. A fine might represent a small amount of an MSP's income, but the same fine might represent a much more significant penalty for someone with a lower income status. If the offence is the same, the conviction should be the same.
The Prisons Act 1839 gave prison the purpose of reforming criminals. It is amazing that that purpose was put at centre stage so long ago. Our criminal justice system must continue to hold that principle at the centre of what we do after we have convicted people. There is no point in simply convicting people if we do not seek to reform them as part of the process.
My late mother-in-law had the misfortune to be the victim of theft when two young men took her cash card and withdrew money from a cash dispenser. It was a great comfort to her, however, that one of the sentences that was passed by the court was for compensation and that one of the two young men paid that compensation. Financially, the measure was not of great importance but in terms of her ability to feel that the criminal justice system had dealt properly with her case, it was important.
Victim support for mental health is one of the elements of the strategy that I particularly commend. We will, of course, be supporting the Executive's motion, but we hope to see support for our amendment as well.
The Solicitor General for Scotland (Mrs Elish Angiolini):
This has been a constructive and useful debate. I welcome the comments that have been made by Kenny MacAskill, Annabel Goldie and Margaret Smith among others, who recognised the progress that has been made over a substantial period—the past three years in particular—in bringing about great changes in the system.
As members have acknowledged this afternoon, witnesses are fundamental to the operation of the criminal justice system. We ask much of witnesses and victims and there can be no doubt about the need to transform our criminal justice system into one that puts those who are most vulnerable at the centre of its culture, rather than its treating witnesses and victims as marginal and disparate issues that are related to the system but not central to it.
As a prosecutor—sadly, now a prosecutor of some vintage—
A fine vintage.
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
I am obliged for that comment.
As a prosecutor of some vintage, I am encouraged that a major change in culture is now under way. That momentum brings with it new challenges for the system as a whole and particularly for prosecutors, defence lawyers, justices and judges who must respond by further raising their game. The Deputy Minister for Justice has set out a wide range of legislative and practical initiatives that herald no less than a sea change in how we view and deal with victims in our courts. The impact of those changes will be profound and radical but, once they are in operation, they will provide a platform that will allow us to re-examine how we can further eliminate the secondary victimisation of victims by the system.
Colin Boyd has set out an ambitious and visionary programme for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland. However, in 1999, in a speech to 700 of the world's prosecutors, Nelson Mandela set a challenge to prosecutors around the world that we in Scotland are happy to take up. He said:
"It is your duty to build an effective relationship with the community and to ensure that the rights of victims are protected. It is your duty to prosecute fairly and effectively according to the rule of law; and … without fear, favour or prejudice. It is your duty to build a prosecution service that is an effective deterrent to crime and is known to demonstrate great compassion and sensitivity to the people it serves."
The manner in which the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service interacts with victims of crime has changed dramatically since the publication of the "Scottish Strategy for Victims" and we are in a period of intense development and adjustment. I am grateful to the many members who acknowledged the considerable work that is being done by officials in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and its related organisation VIA, to progress those changes. There has been a huge effort on their part. There has also been a considerable amount of good will from a number of other agencies that have collaborated with the COPFS to ensure that those changes take place and have effect.
As members will be aware, there have been profound internal changes in the structure of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Those changes include increased focus on the importance of service delivery to the public, including victims and witnesses, and they have underlined the need for consistency of approach. The COPFS is committed to being sensitive and responsive to the needs of the public, including victims. In our prosecution code, we describe how the prosecutor is required, in deciding who to prosecute, to take the victim into account by considering the effect of the crime on the victim, the victim's attitude to prosecution, and any reasons why a prosecution might be damaging to the victim, such as ill health or frailty.
Of course, the public interest and the interests of the victim do not always coincide and responsibility for decision making properly rests with the prosecutor, who must exercise that duty independently. Bruce McFee made a point about plea negotiation, although he referred to it as plea bargaining, which is an American concept rather than a Scottish one. Plea negotiation can be characterised in a way that makes it sound like a bargain that is made in a dark smoky room, but it is the public prosecutor's duty to consider any plea of guilty that is put forward only when it is in the public interest. In certain cases, that might mean that difficult decisions have to be taken.
A victim might feel let down because a plea is accepted in respect of three charges but not in respect of a fourth. However, a plea of guilty results in a conviction, a sentence and certainty. A trial always brings uncertainty and it brings distress because of the need for cross-examination, which must be taken into account. Any suggestion that the process is related to resources or costs is quite simply an insult to the procurators fiscal throughout Scotland, who work long hours in the interests of justice and who work day in and day out to ensure that justice is done when they accept such pleas. I have the greatest faith in prosecutors. They do not abuse their discretion; that should be recognised by Parliament.
I am delighted that VIA has been acknowledged in the debate. Margaret Smith and Annabel Goldie mentioned the contribution that the development of VIA has made to the criminal justice system. Annabel Goldie quite correctly suggested that it is important for the service to be monitored to ensure consistency throughout Scotland, so we have done exactly that. Sue Moody, who is the director of VIA, has been assiduous in ensuring such monitoring and consistency of standards throughout the country. Indeed, the independent inspectorate will examine the operation of VIA during the next year.
Does the Solicitor General agree that in petition cases it is helpful to the victim to know when the petition will be served, given that it then passes outwith the control of the Crown Office, pending service?
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
I certainly accept that there are certain circumstances in which the victim should have that information. However, in some cases there are clear operational reasons for not alerting a victim to the service of a petition. A petition is essentially a warrant that gives the procurator fiscal and the police the power to search someone's house and arrest them. We do not usually broadcast that activity, and even though a victim might have an interest in it, it is not always necessary or appropriate to impart information about it. The procurator fiscal must exercise discretion and must be trusted.
VIA has a duty to provide information about the progress of a case. I am pleased to report that, as of 31 December 2004, all procurators fiscal throughout the country have access to VIA. It is a tremendous achievement for Sue Moody, her staff and those in the procurator fiscal service to have reached that point within three years.
On provision of information, VIA has a target that all victims who are subject to the service be provided with information within 24 hours of the granting of bail. That is an important service, which is being achieved in more than 90 per cent of the cases that are the subject of VIA's services. I accept that information is especially important in cases in which no proceedings are taken, as it can cause dismay to victims not to know the reasons behind such decisions. The Lord Advocate has committed our department to a review of that policy and we are currently considering how we can be more open and accessible in providing reasons in such cases. We will report progress on that to Parliament. Our being more open will help to remove the mystery and mystique or secrecy with which the prosecution service has traditionally surrounded itself in its approach to such issues. Such secrecy often exists for very sound reasons, as it is not always possible to give the reasons for a decision to take no proceedings, but that process must be communicated to victims.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Members who are entering the chamber may be indifferent to the Solicitor General's speech, but I happen to be interested in it; I am not alone in that.
I was just about to say that members entering the chamber must do so quietly.
The Solicitor General for Scotland:
I am obliged.
In addition to the other initiatives on which we are collaborating with other parts of the system, in June 2004 the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service issued chapter 22 of the book of regulations. Chapter 22, which is now available on our website, provides all procurators fiscal with detailed guidance, which will be followed up with guidelines, on how the service should communicate with victims, and the standards that victims and witnesses can expect. Victims of crime and those who represent their interests may consult the website to learn what type of service they can now expect from procurators fiscal across the country.
In addition, as several members mentioned in the course of this afternoon's deliberations, we have supported the development of a child witness pack and guidance on how to deal with child witnesses.
Kenny MacAskill and Stewart Maxwell mentioned witness protection, which plays an important role in the system. Victims give a great deal, so it is important that we take into consideration the vulnerability of those who give evidence. I accept that in many cases such witnesses disproportionately come from areas of some deprivation. A great deal is being done on the matter. Overall responsibility for witness protection lies with, for example, the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency in respect of serious crimes and with local police forces in local circumstances.
The position of jurors is obviously not for the prosecution. Members would be rightly concerned if the Crown Office had a role in providing support for jurors, given that we are constrained by the law on contempt of court. However, I am advised that a service is available to jurors who have had to hear traumatic evidence during the course of a trial. The judge can intimate details of that service, which provides support to jurors for what they have had to experience during the trial. That is an important development that should be welcomed.
The victim notification scheme was also mentioned by members. To some extent, the scheme has transformed the way in which victims are treated. I have spent 20 years as a prosecutor, so I know that the notion of giving information to the victim at the end of the offender's sentence would have seemed beyond possibility for most witnesses even 10 years ago. To start with, the scheme applies to those who are victims of crimes for which a sentence of imprisonment in excess of four years has been imposed. However, I understand that Cathy Jamieson is considering the possibility of extending the scheme.
As we improve services for victims and witnesses across the criminal justice system, people's expectations are, quite rightly, being raised. We welcome that and we look forward to responding to those.
Maureen Macmillan mentioned rural courts. In my experience as a procurator fiscal in the Highlands and Islands, many rural courts have some of the best accommodation in the country. However, the Scottish Court Service is looking carefully at the estate in preparation for the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004, which should come into effect later this year.
Although this afternoon's debate has focused on the past three years, the Deputy Minister for Justice—I almost promoted him by calling him the Deputy First Minister—also referred to some of the legislative initiatives that are yet to be implemented. Given that delay has featured in many members' concerns, I think the Bonomy reforms to the High Court could herald our greatest opportunity to bring about certainty, to avoid churning and to ensure that witnesses are not required to attend court more often than is necessary. More than anyone, procurators fiscal and advocate deputes are aware of the trauma, distress and frustration that is caused when witnesses have to come to court not simply once or twice but more often than that.
As many members will appreciate, one cannot in any system eliminate the possibility of adjournments. Accused persons do not work to a social calendar and generally are not very concerned about victims. Often getting together all the characters in a trial, including victims, witnesses and the accused, can be a challenge. We are addressing that issue, and the Bonomy review provides us with one of the best opportunities for doing so. I look forward to seeing what contribution the prosecution service can make to the process over the next two years.
Exciting opportunities are ahead in the criminal justice system. This is a great time to be involved in the system and I am proud to be a prosecutor in this country because of the dedication that prosecutors show and the close working that takes place with Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and a number of other agencies that work together to improve the lot of witnesses and victims. There is much more to be done and I look forward to continuing that work with the Lord Advocate.