Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4712, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the general principles of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill.
As members will recall, in December 2004 we published our criminal justice plan, which detailed the most fundamental reform of our criminal justice system for a generation. The plan was intended to tackle head-on the scourge of offending and reoffending and was designed to deliver safer daily lives, supported by an efficient and effective justice system.
We have already done a great deal to deliver the plan, to improve the operation of the justice system and to set it on a path that will ensure that it tackles offending at every step. For example, we have new powers under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, as well as powers to reduce violence, tackle drugs and ensure the effective management of offenders. Moreover, High Court reforms have led to fewer adjournments, thereby sparing thousands of witnesses the stress of unnecessary trips to court. Those changes are increasing people's confidence in the system.
The provisions in the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill will build on those achievements by protecting public safety; by ensuring that the interests of the law-abiding majority are put first; and by improving the system's speed and efficiency to ensure that it plays its part in helping to reduce reoffending. Those provisions have, of course, been carefully considered and stem from two expert reports on aspects of the criminal justice system. The independent Sentencing Commission for Scotland's report on bail, which was followed by our bail and remand action plan, called for greater clarity of and consistency in bail and remand decisions. The bill clearly sets out the law on bail and makes it easier for the public to understand.
However, the bill does not stop there. It also makes clear that the court should grant bail only in exceptional circumstances if the accused has been charged with serious violent, sexual or drugs offences and has a previous record of such offending.
The minister will be aware of a current case in her constituency, where an individual who has been charged with serious offences—attempted murder, in this instance—has been released on bail, despite having a serious criminal record. Can she assure me that that individual and others like him will not be eligible for release on bail in the future if the bill is passed?
I am aware of cases in my constituency, but it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on a matter that the court will have to consider further. I will revert to Mr Gallie on that case, as I indicated when he approached me about it previously, and I can assure him that the bill toughens up the penalties for breach of bail. Accused persons who are given bail will be in no doubt that they are in a position of trust and that action will be taken if they abuse that trust. Judges will be required to make clear the consequences of breaching bail conditions in every case, further underlining the responsibility of an accused who is on bail.
I also make it clear to the Parliament that we will respond to a suggestion that was made by the Justice 1 Committee by lodging a stage 2 amendment to make it explicit in the bill that consideration of public safety implications is always part of the bail decision. Again, I hope that that will reassure the chamber. The bill is all about ensuring that we have increased respect for bail, increased public confidence in the justice system, and safer communities as a result of that.
The majority of the bill relates to reform of the summary justice system. As members know, summary courts deal with around 96 per cent of criminal cases coming to court—more than 130,000 cases each year. That is the entry point to the criminal justice system for most of those who experience it, and we believe that a quick and effective response at that stage offers our best opportunity to stop a first-time offender becoming a persistent offender. It is a chance to stop a life of crime in its tracks.
Members will recall that Sheriff Principal John McInnes and his committee were asked to examine the system. Their view was that the procedures were seen as too slow and bureaucratic and that the system sometimes seemed to focus more on its own needs than on those of the victims, the witnesses and the communities. They found that the structures were not ideal, particularly the way in which the summary courts were administered, and that the disposals that were available could be improved in order to tackle offending quickly and effectively.
I reiterate that I recognise the dedication and professionalism of the people who work in our summary justice system day in, day out. They do a difficult job and I want to equip them with the tools that they need to ensure that our justice system meets the demands of 21st century life in Scotland. I want a smarter summary justice system and I believe that the bill will deliver that through a number of changes; some of those might seem small on their own, but as a package they will give us the right procedures, structures and interventions and, crucially, the right people.
The bill makes a number of changes to the detailed law of criminal procedure, to allow cases to be handled more flexibly. Each of the changes plays its part in speeding up the system as a whole. For example, there will be greater scope to roll up outstanding multiple cases against an accused where it makes sense to do so.
The bill provides for a unified courts administration, with the Scottish Court Service taking on responsibility for running all Scotland's criminal courts. It has been recognised across the chamber in previous debates that it makes sense for one agency to use its specialist knowledge in running the courts, freeing up local authorities to concentrate on their core priorities.
The Scottish Court Service will also take on responsibility for collecting and enforcing all fines that are imposed in the criminal courts. The newly created role of fines enforcement officer will use smart and effective enforcement measures to tackle those who can pay but do not pay and to offer advice and assistance to those who face real difficulty. We will take steps, using the provisions in the bill, to end the ludicrous business of some people who could pay not paying but instead opting to go into prison, at greater expense to the public purse. That is unacceptable. The bill will allow us to stop people electing to go to jail rather than pay their fines. I hope that that will be welcomed.
The bill will ensure that we deal with offending at the right level. Increased sentencing powers for our sheriff summary courts will ease the pressure on the higher courts and new measures will allow appropriate cases to be dealt with by the offer of a fiscal fine, compensation or unpaid work. The offer will be able to be quickly accepted and robustly enforced. It is important to say that anyone accused of an offence will still have the option of taking their case to court if they want. However, the offer of an alternative is often the smart option. It can resolve a case quickly, ensure that action is taken and give the courts the capacity to deal with more serious cases.
We believe that the long-standing role of lay justices in our courts is essential in ensuring that communities have a direct link with their justice system. However, that has got to be more than just a tradition, so the bill sets out to revitalise the role of lay justices with new provisions on their appointment, training and appraisal. I hope that that will improve the connection between the justice system and local communities so that the public know that the system is on their side. Comprehensive reform of that crucial level of the justice system will deliver real improvement and help to create the safer daily lives that we all want.
I welcome the Justice 1 Committee's constructive and helpful scrutiny of the bill at stage 1 and its support for the bill's general principles. The committee's scrutiny and its comprehensive report have already led to proposals for a number of amendments that we will lodge at stage 2. I look forward to having further debate with the committee members then.
We must regard the bill as part of our wider work to reform the summary system. A programme of practical work is under way to ensure that we can put the changes into practice. It is worth stressing that those are changes that must help us to realise the bill's key aims of reducing reoffending, improving public safety and ensuring that our criminal justice system builds safer daily lives for all those who come into contact with it.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Bill.
It is not for Parliament or MSPs to micromanage the criminal justice system, but it is for us to create the environment in which effective management can operate, and to hold the Government accountable for what happens in the system. The Scottish National Party will support the bill at 5 o'clock because we want to help summary justice to do its business.
The widely welcomed and successful Bonomy reforms of the solemn justice system have delivered, by and large. The McInnes reforms, as moderated by the Government's views and refined by the Justice 1 Committee and the Parliament at the bill's later stages, must deliver similarly beneficial changes for court cases that are dealt with via the summary justice system before a sheriff or a justice of the peace, which are the huge majority of court cases. I expect that we will hear from MSPs who are former JPs—I am not one—at later stages of the debate.
The bail system is the subject that more than anything else in the bill is debated in the pubs, clubs, streets and homes of Scotland, but it is the system's defects rather than its successes—or rather its perceived defects and failures—that form the subject of common debate. The successes are rarely talked about and are not particularly easy to find. However, individual failures or perceptions of failures too often touch on the subject to which the minister referred, which is that of public safety. I welcome the minister's indication that she will respond to the committee's view that although public interest encompasses public safety, "public safety" is the phrase and the sentiment that we have to bring to the forefront so that the people outside the chamber understand that we are taking things seriously.
The member has quite rightly highlighted perceived deficiencies in the bail system, but I can assure him that it has actual deficiencies, too. Does he regret the fact that his party supported the Labour-Liberal Administration's hasty reform of the bail laws, which was supposedly undertaken to ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights? Does he agree that the changes that have now been proposed demonstrate that there was no need for such reform?
I think that the member will know that among SNP members and, I suspect, members of all parties, apart from that to which Mr Gallie and his colleagues belong, there is firm support for the principle of human rights. For everyone who may be subject to the bail system, there must be a rule that allows them to demonstrate before the court and the sheriff that there is a case for bail. The bill will draw much tighter the mesh of the net through which serious criminals or those people who have been accused of serious offences might escape temporary incarceration in advance of their trial. I am sure that that measure will receive a broad welcome; we certainly welcome it.
It is worth returning to the subject of public interest versus public safety. In the 1700s, John Locke said:
"They who would advance in knowledge … should not take words for real entities."
Although we agonise about the words that appear in legislation, outside the Parliament public safety is what people are thinking about.
We welcome subsection (3) of proposed new section 23D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which clarifies that when the accused has a previous conviction for drug trafficking bail will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. There might be further debate to be had about that because there will be circumstances in which although someone has no previous conviction, orders have been imposed on them that might lead us to conclude that it would be appropriate not to grant bail and to keep them locked up.
The key aspect of the bail proposals that will engage the general public relates to the perception—which is too often the reality—that too many people at the lower tariff end of offences flout bail and fail to adhere to the conditions that the court imposed when it granted bail. When the committee went to Glasgow sheriff court, we found out about a number of people who had committed a long list of bail breaches. In cases in which someone has a track record of bail breaches, bail should not be granted.
The bill will do something to help people who have genuine difficulties understanding what they have been told. We hope that it will ensure that accused persons receive greater explanation and are given a written record of their bail conditions and of when they must appear in court. We support the proposed increases in the penalty for breaching bail from three months to 12 months in summary cases and from two years to five years in solemn cases. We are in favour of the increased emphasis on ensuring that people who are bailed have a better understanding of the conditions to which they are subject.
The speaking-time clock has just jumped forward by five minutes, but I am sure that the Presiding Officer will ensure that I am on time. We welcome the greater use of liberation on undertaking, although the effect that it will have on police resourcing is not clear. We will monitor that as the bill progresses. More details need to be provided to allow us to understand what will happen.
We welcome the idea that more will be done on intermediate diets, although we do not know exactly how that will work, and we must consider whether consequential reforms of legal aid will be necessary.
Finally, I come to fiscal fines and fiscal compensation orders and the presumption of acceptance. Fiscal fines have a role to play. They are already used, but the bill will extend their use and increase the fine limit. That is probably a good idea because it will mean that many cases can be taken out of court. The minister mentioned that a person who was offered a fiscal fine would have the option of going to court—yes, but no: given the presumption of acceptance, if someone does not go back to the fiscal and say, "I reject your offer," they will not have the opportunity to go to court to clear the issue. Further thinking will have to be done on the matter.
I remain somewhat concerned about fiscal compensation orders. Although I do not come home drunk on a Saturday night and kick in a window, rich gits like me could afford to pay the fiscal compensation order, whereas someone who is financially less well set up could not.
In their contributions, my colleagues will develop our position on other aspects of the bill. The SNP will support the motion at decision time, but—and this is critical to our position—we will also seek to improve it at stage 2.
The aim of the bill is to improve the operation of the summary courts that deal with all non-jury criminal prosecutions in Scotland. That constitutes a staggering 130,000 cases a year or 96 per cent of all criminal prosecutions. The bill is wide ranging and contains many of the recommendations of the summary justice review committee, which was chaired by Sheriff Principal John McInnes.
Although Scottish Conservatives warmly welcome the general principles of the bill, we have concerns and reservations about certain provisions; in particular, we are concerned about the distinct lack of detail and guidance on the way in which some provisions will operate. Given that it is simply not possible for me to cover everything in the time that I have been allocated, I will concentrate on the most important areas.
The bill re-emphasises and re-establishes respect for the law and allows for tougher and more consistent handling of bail breaches and failures to appear. Clearly, given that she referred to it in her opening speech, the minister is aware of the recommendation by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland that public safety should be included as a ground for determining whether bail is granted. I hope that the minister's confirmation that specific reference will be made to public safety represents a reversal of her previous rejection of the recommendation.
I want to ensure absolute clarity on the matter. Previously, our view was that the public interest ground covered public safety considerations. However, I make it clear that the Executive will lodge an amendment to ensure that there is no doubt on the matter. I hope that that gives the member the reassurance that she seeks.
That is very welcome. It will make bail regulations more easily understood.
Currently, there is some ambiguity about the court's ability to refuse bail applications that are not opposed by the Crown. I welcome the clarification that is contained in proposed new section 23B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which makes it explicit that the stance of the prosecutor towards granting bail is not a restriction on the court's ability to grant or refuse bail. The provision that is contained in proposed new section 23D of the 1995 act will ensure that bail will be granted
"only if there are exceptional circumstances"
for persons accused of
"a violent or sexual offence"
or "a drug trafficking offence".
The provision seeks to rectify the problems that were created by the direct incorporation of the ECHR into Scots law.
Further clarification is required from the minister on what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" and on the Law Society of Scotland's evidence on proposed new section 23C of the 1995 act. Given that the new section sets out the standard criteria for bail—including the requirement to have regard to whether the offence is of a serious nature and whether the accused has an analogous previous conviction—the Law Society queried whether it is necessary to include the exceptional circumstances provision in the bill.
The strengthening of the provision to make clear the reasons for granting or refusing bail should lead to greater transparency and clarity in the process. However, it is important to realise that it is often the case that people who are the subject of bail conditions lead chaotic lives. I hope that the minister will take on board Victim Support Scotland's evidence on the need to ensure that information is communicated more effectively to the person who is given bail. I hope that she also accepts that the detail of bail conditions and consequences of any breaches cannot be communicated within the formal judicial process alone. I particularly hope that she will look favourably on the committee's suggestion that bailed individuals be given a paper containing that information, together with the dates on which they are required to appear in court again.
Furthermore, I hope that the minister will consider a requirement to provide and resource measures to deal with the root cause of certain individuals' failure to appear at court, which is often related to drug and alcohol addiction problems.
The proceedings provisions in part 2 aim to
"improve the speed with which cases can be processed".
That being the case, it is disappointing that there appears to have been no attempt to introduce specific measures to ensure
"greater and more proactive judicial management of intermediate diets"
and encourage the more effective use of intermediate diets.
I appreciate that the volume and diversity of the offences that are prosecuted under summary justice means that it is not possible to introduce the same provisions that have, by all accounts, helped to speed up proceedings in the High Court.
You have one minute left.
Nonetheless, there requires to be greater dialogue between procurators fiscal and defence agents to sort out issues before the court sits. That might be done by adopting Sheriff Principal McInnes's suggestion that fiscals should make themselves available to defence agents for that purpose the day before.
The specific requirement for the early disclosure of evidence is welcome, and the deputy Crown Agent's announcement that he intends to disclose a summary of prosecution evidence with the complaint is particularly welcome. It is clearly desirable for the accused to have an indication of the strength of the case at the earliest possible stage in order to encourage an early plea. Current legal aid rules appear to militate against that, as they offer a premium for maintaining a not guilty plea until the last possible moment. It would be sensible for the Executive to consider reforms to the legal aid system to take that into account in the context of the bill.
It is of course not possible to go over everything in the bill but, with your indulgence, Presiding Officer—
I am afraid that you have to wind up now.
There are a couple of areas that I wanted to mention. I will do so very briefly, then. We need more information on how the liberation on undertaking provisions will work in practice. On trial in the absence—
No—I am afraid that you must wind up.
You did allow quite a lot of latitude to—
I am telling you that you have to wind up.
I am sorry that there is no time for me to say anything more, but I warmly welcome the general principles of the bill and I look forward to the discussions at stage 2 on the points that have been raised.
The bill represents a continuation of the extremely good work that the Scottish Executive has been doing to improve the legal system and how it operates. The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004, which received royal assent on 4 June of that year, are all acts that have made a huge improvement to the running of the justice system. In particular, the last of those has considerably improved efficiency in the High Court.
I believe that the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill will make similar improvements in the sheriff and district courts—now to be renamed justice of the peace courts—to those that were made under the previous legislation for the High Court. As has been said, 96 per cent of criminal prosecutions—130,000 cases—proceed under summary justice. The bill will therefore have huge consequences for most crime that is carried out in Scotland.
A thread running through the bill that I much approve of is the willingness to show the general public and victims that they have to be treated in a fair way and that they must be able to see that justice is being done by the courts. Much is being done to protect witnesses in the High Court and in some sheriff courts by keeping them apart from the accused, but that must apply right across the court system.
The Justice 1 Committee very much welcomed the work done by Victim Support Scotland and the victim information and advice services but, in the lower courts, there can be a lack of segregation of witnesses and accused, so we urge the Executive to consider more radical proposals so that the same protection is offered in the proposed new JP courts. Other areas in which it is intended to improve perception are in the reform of the bail system, the speeding-up of the judicial process and trial in the absence of the accused, to which I will return in a few moments.
During the committee's scrutiny of the bill, we made a number of visits to various courts. We attended a bail court at Linlithgow sheriff court. At the end of each bail hearing, as the accused left the court he or she—mostly he, I have to say—was given a note detailing when he or she next had to attend and any bail conditions. That is an easy and simple idea, but it is has not been adopted universally. One of the problems of bail is getting the accused to take it seriously and return to court when cited. Linlithgow has tried in the way that I have described to address what I think is a serious problem.
We can all agree that the current bail system in Scotland is not operating effectively in terms of crime reduction for those who are granted bail, or in terms of sentencing policy. Under section 2(2), the court will have the responsibility of explaining the implications of being granted bail, the bail conditions and the consequences of a breach of such conditions.
I welcome the proposed increase in penalties for bail offences and in particular the proposal that such penalties will run consecutively. I have never seen the sense in sentencing people and then saying that the terms will run concurrently. However, I welcome the call in the committee's stage 1 report for the Executive to
"take a more radical approach and invest resources into addressing the root causes why individuals do not attend court hearings".
I suggest to the minister that we should adopt the idea from Linlithgow and give the accused dates of when to return to court.
I come to part 2. The idea of liberating an accused on an undertaking that they will attend on a fixed date is fraught with difficulties. The aim is admirable, but how will it work? The Lord Advocate will give guidance, but only after the bill is passed. How will ACPOS or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service make it work? A lot of work in that area needs to be done during stage 2.
The provisions on trial in the absence of the accused led to considerable discussion in the committee. I think that we all accept that it will happen rarely. I realise that the legal fraternity is not in favour of it, but I cite the example of a case in which I was involved some years ago, in which there were three accused. On the first citing at court, two of the accused turned up; on the second citing, one of the accused who had attended the previous hearing, plus the one who was missing the first time, attended; and on the third occasion, the one who had attended on the first occasion failed to turn up. There were three citings and three occasions on which witnesses had to attend court. It was a complete nonsense. The whole process was frustrated all because one of the accused was not present for the hearing. The accused were just working the system.
We understand that 15 per cent of cases in English magistrates courts proceed in the absence of the accused. However, all our evidence showed that that is rare in Scotland. We would be interested to know why there is such a difference. In cases such as the one that I outlined, where the accused is working the system, we need to send out a stronger message.
On part 3, which deals with penalties, I have time only to mention the proposed introduction of fines enforcement officers, which I believe is one of the most important provisions. It will help the Executive to achieve the aim of keeping fine defaulters out of prison, which is particularly good news for Cornton Vale. As the minister has said, it will also keep those who just do not want to pay out of prison.
I turn to the proposal to replace district courts with justice of the peace courts. As a former JP, I am delighted that the Executive is retaining lay justice, but I acknowledge that some changes are definitely needed. In some of our smaller and less busy district courts it is hard for existing JPs to gain good experience. In view of that, I believe that only the JPs who are currently sitting should be offered the new five-year contract. The non-court JPs could train to become court justices if they wanted to. We do not have enough training and we need to do more to address the fact that it is extremely patchy throughout Scotland.
With the increase in non-court disposals, we might also see a reduction in the business before JPs. I believe that properly trained justices could take on much of the more minor work that is carried out in the sheriff court, which means that JPs could have an enhanced role. There is a perception that JP courts would be less important, but I do not believe that that is the case.
The bill contains a number of exciting new proposals that take our judicial system forward and, with the reservations that I have set out, I generally welcome it. However, as Stewart Stevenson said, there is much work to be done at stage 2. I support the general principles of the bill.
The bill proposes reform of the summary justice system, which is the part of the justice system that the vast majority of people who become involved in the system go through. Unlike the Bonomy High Court reforms, which we debated in the Parliament—it does not seem long ago that we did so—the bill does not have the same obvious big bang approach because the reforms need to fit together in a more detailed way.
The focus of the Justice 1 Committee's report was on trying to identify the various aspects of reform and how they will fit together to result in speed and efficiency that will make a difference. If I could choose one theme on behalf of the committee on which we would push the Executive, it would be reform that speeds up the system and results in reductions in delays—the system is called the summary justice system for a reason.
The committee has many concerns, which we elaborated on in our report, about the bill's lack of detail. I welcome the detailed response to those concerns that we received from the Executive. It has taken time to go through the issues, and I appreciate the work that has been done to address our concerns. However, it would not be good enough for the committee to take things on trust. We do not want the bill to be an enabling bill that enables the police or the Crown to take powers without first knowing how they will use them.
Phil Gallie is not in the chamber at the moment, but he asked the minister whether she would give a specific assurance on something that she cannot give an assurance on. None of us should ever get into that business. We want to create the right framework, and the bail provisions—which we considered for a considerable time—will provide the appropriate framework. There is still a presumption in favour of bail, except when a sheriff can use their discretion to refuse it. Crucially, to answer to Phil Gallie's question, proposed new section 23D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which will be inserted by section 1 of the bill, will change that presumption, because in cases involving serious violent and sexual offences and drug trafficking offences, bail will be granted only in exceptional circumstances, and previous convictions for offences that are analogous to those offences must be taken into account. The committee wants to be sure that if those are the main provisions that sheriffs are expected to use, they are clear. When the Crown does not oppose bail and the court can consider it, the committee wants to ensure that the court makes an informed decision. In that context, I want to mention the letter that was received from the Sheriffs Association, which I have passed on to the Executive. I am pleased that the sheriffs have engaged in the process, if belatedly. A response from the Executive to that letter would be helpful.
The committee wants the Executive to discuss further the reasons why people fail to appear for their court trial and to consider the underlying reasons for their not appearing. Doing so might go a long way towards finding out why more people do not comply with bail.
The Executive has said a lot about what the committee said about witnesses, which I welcome. Our message is that more attention must be given to witnesses in the process. Obviously, victims have a central role, but witnesses are so crucial to backing up victims that we must continue to consider how we can make the system better for them.
The committee has expressed concern about how the liberation on undertaking proposals will fit together. We support the police having the powers that they already have, but they could attach conditions. We want to know the type of cases to which the new provisions will apply. We did not receive much of a response when we asked the police about the matter, and we received no response from the Crown. We also want to consider the timescales that are involved.
Although I have read the Executive's response and have seen the table that we were sent that detailed how the liberation on undertaking provisions would work, I have a wee concern because it looks to me as though it will take three months to get a person who has given an undertaking to court. We had understood that the point of the exercise was to allow a person to give an undertaking so that they would be returned speedily to court.
We know that disclosure of evidence is the key—we have heard that many times. In fact, Sheriff McInnes even went as far as to say that a summary of the evidence should be available with the summary complaint. We can see the obvious resource difficulties in such an approach, but the message is clear. We want assurances that the Executive understands that disclosure is already a huge responsibility for the Crown and that the bill will mean that it will have further responsibility for disclosure. We also want assurances that training and resources will be available.
This bill contains a lot of important detail and it is a shame that there is no time to go into it all—for example, the alternatives to prosecution and opting out of, or into, the process. There are differences of opinion on those issues and they require further discussion. If a person receives a notice from the fiscal but does not respond to it, they will be deemed to have accepted it. I think that more discussion is required on that.
The committee is worried that, if a person accepts a fiscal fine, that fact would be presented to a court if, within two years, the person were to break the law or otherwise find themselves up on a summary complaint. We have serious concerns about that fundamental change.
Mike Pringle talked about JP courts, which are fundamental to the bill's effectiveness. It is important that we build on the public's assumptions in relation to district courts. The public must be confident in the system. If we move crime down—I should say "along" rather than "down"—to the district or JP court, the public has to understand that they will get the same type of justice and the same efficiency. Parliament must monitor any increase in the sentencing powers of those courts so that we are sure that we have done the right thing.
In my final seconds I will mention Glasgow. We cannot wait until 2014 for investment in Glasgow sheriff court. However, I welcome the general principles of the bill.
Former solicitors are popping out of the woodwork in vast numbers on this side of the chamber, for which I apologise.
It is trite to say that reform of any criminal justice system requires the treading of a difficult path in order to get the right balance between the accused—and we must remember that people on bail or on remand have not been convicted—and the victim, who is often also the prime witness. There is a balance between justice itself and the protection of the public. It is not an easy path, and that is recognised in the very worthy report by the Justice 1 Committee.
I want to pick up on some particular issues as I try to deal with all the checks and balances. I think that Margaret Mitchell has mentioned the bail provision issues that are covered in paragraph 50 of the committee's report. It is important that parties who get out on bail are given clear details of what that means, when they will have to come back and whether there will be a follow-up. Unfortunately, many people who appear before the courts at this level—like their victims and the witnesses—come from the same areas of social deprivation. They may lead chaotic lives—as the report acknowledges—because of alcohol abuse, drug abuse or just their general lifestyle. I am not excusing breach of bail in any instance, but we have to acknowledge the reality of people's lives.
The liberation on undertaking provisions have been mentioned. I have concerns about those provisions, and I know that the committee does, too. ACPOS's attitude is important, and I feel that senior officers are required to make decisions about this area. To ask a police officer to decide whether someone can be liberated on undertaking will place quite a burden on that police officer. What will happen to a junior police officer if things go wrong? The committee is to be commended for acknowledging that, although liberation on undertaking is a good idea in principle, the police are "in the dark"—I think that those were the exact words—as to how the provisions will work.
I understand that regulations will come into force after the bill has been enacted. Parliament has often picked up on the fact that regulations resulting from an enabling act have not been before the relevant committee when it had to take a position on the general principles of a bill.
I also have concerns about the provisions on proceedings in the absence of the accused. I heard what Mike Pringle said about people using the system, and I have seen that happen. However, I do not think that we should cast away the right to a fair hearing for someone who remains innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That person remains an accused. We have to be terribly careful in our use of language. Sometimes in this chamber, members have spoken about people who are simply the accused as if they have already been tried and convicted.
The kind of people with chaotic lives who might not turn up to a trial diet or an intermediate diet are the very people who might need a solicitor—no wonder the legal profession is concerned about these issues—to give them legal advice and to make representations on their behalf because they are not articulate enough to do that for themselves. There may be something on the summary charge that is brought that the Crown cannot establish, that is inaccurate and that needs to be corrected. Plea bargaining is sometimes seen as a dirty term, but it can be important to clarify exactly what the accused is being charged with. I have huge problems with the issue, which is not exactly resolved in the bill. The issue—in principle and in process—has been raised by JPs and people in the legal profession, including advocates.
There is not much of a difference of opinion between us, although there may be when it comes to the conclusion. I have a similar case to that which was mentioned by Mike Pringle, in which three accused, who I believe had chaotic lifestyles and did not deliberately fail to appear, had their case eventually abandoned by the Crown. What do we do about such situations?
I come with no simple solutions—it is a complex area. However, we should interfere with the principles of justice because of certain cases only with great care. Once we begin to erode the principles of the right to a fair hearing, the right to be represented and the presumption of innocence—that someone is not guilty until proven to be so beyond reasonable doubt—we are creating a frayed edge that will continue to fray and eat into the principles of justice. There will be cases that require to be abandoned, but that may have to be the case in the interests of the greater issue of wider justice.
On alternatives to prosecution, Scottish Women's Aid raised the legitimate concern that those should not apply to serious offences, and the minister has taken that on board. However, there are issues to do with people in deprived areas or who live in poverty, particularly that of the discounting of fines. It was brought to our attention by some of the senior legal profession that a fine to be paid by someone who is on benefits cannot be discounted, which means that we will be offering a discount to people who have the money anyway. The minister must address that issue.
Finally, there is the issue of an investigation into why people breach bail. We are all saying that, anecdotally, that seems to be due to people's chaotic lives. What is behind it? We must ask why people cannot pay their fines, so that we do justice not just to the well-off but to people who are poor.
As has been said by others, the bill is about public confidence in aspects of our summary justice system. At best, that confidence is wobbly. The Parliament has a duty to ensure that it balances the rights of the accused with the rights of communities and—as all of us hear in our surgeries—the rights of the victim. The press have probably got something to do with the situation, due to the way in which issues are reported.
Mike Pringle talked about people working the system. I am not involved in the court system, but I am told that people can drag cases out, which adds to the delays. People come to our surgeries complaining about justice not being seen to be done. They do not want delays; they want the fairness of a hearing. They do not want guilt to be presumed; they just want to have the case dealt with. If they are witnesses, they can often be quite terrified. It is vital that there is clear understanding throughout society of how the legislation will work, particularly in the light of the fact that bail offences rose from 701 in 1997 to 7,086 in 2004. That is why others have called for absolute clarity and consistency. It cannot be repeated too often that there must be real clarity in any legislation that is put before the chamber.
Like others, I dislike enabling legislation, which leaves ministers and their officials to tidy things up after the event, with no real parliamentary scrutiny. On behalf of the Justice 1 Committee, I repeat the comment that I made last week about there being a need for time to consider ministerial responses to committee reports. I am sure that there are issues in the minister's response that the members of the committee will want to consider as a committee and not just as individual members.
We cannot cover everything in the debate; there are many areas that require clarity, and every member will pick up different points. Others have made the point that, in exceptional circumstances, bail may not be given. That should be clearly stated in the bill. The minister said that the Executive will introduce an amendment, which shows that it has accepted the fact that the bill is already not clear enough. It is important that we have that clarity so that those who look at the Parliament will see us doing our jobs properly.
As members have said, we must ensure that we get across the message about public safety. We must also dispel any possible perception that fixed-penalty offers and disposals are simply a way of achieving targets to cut court workload or delays. Several issues have been raised about that and I am sure that others will be mentioned. For example, one issue is that the acceptance of a fixed-penalty offer will not be perceived as a conviction. That is not a just situation. I hope that when the deputy minister winds up the debate, he will discuss some of the issues that have been raised on that. Procurators fiscal will adopt a quasi-judicial role, which raises questions about how that role is to be managed. The Conservatives have concerns about existing law and compatibility with the ECHR, which must be adhered to.
On the rights of the accused, I welcome the fact that judges will have to detail the reasons behind bail decisions, because, as others have said, that will provide us with case law that will lead to transparency. For the bail system to work, it is vital that those who are subject to bail orders have an absolutely clear explanation in their language of what is expected of them. Members of their families may well need to have that explained to them, too. As members have mentioned, it will be hard to ensure that that happens with people who have drug or alcohol addictions or mental health problems. All those matters must be catered for in the system, but we have no clarity about how that will be done. There must also be clear understanding of the rules on the opt-out and compensation offers.
I am pleased to hear about enforcement officers, but we need more details on how they will work. I am also pleased that the bill takes into account the importance of witness protection. However, as members have said, that must be spelt out clearly, because there is growing evidence of people's unwillingness to give evidence as a result of a fear for their personal safety. I seek comments on that from the minister.
I am concerned that we should have a fair trial system. I believe passionately that accused people have a right to legal support, defence, counsel or whatever is required to ensure that they at least come to terms with the offence with which they are charged. People have a right to a fair defence. In my opinion, several pilot schemes will need to be set up to test measures in the bill, prior to their phased roll-out. We must have clarity about how and when those trials will be reviewed.
On JP courts, I would like more clarity from the Executive on the selection and training of JPs and the support that will be provided for them. We cannot just reinvent a system overnight. Adequate support is needed, which requires resources and skilled people to do the training. We must ensure that we have suitable premises in appropriate places. We must also consider flexibility in the workload, so that JPs can move between sheriffdoms rather than have to stick in one place.
The McInnes report stated that the changes had to be fair, effective and efficient. It is for the Parliament to judge whether the Executive has got the balance correct.
I am pleased to express my support for the principles of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, because it is time that we brought summary justice back to its roots and made it quicker and more effective. Although I support the principles of the bill, I will highlight some proposals that I feel need to be developed further.
Under changes to proceedings, the bill intends to extend the practice of undertakings. The Justice 1 Committee supports that approach, but has raised concerns about its practical introduction, particularly given that ACPOS seemed less than enthusiastic about it. However, I have an advantage over at least some of my Justice 1 Committee colleagues, in that I have visited the pilot project in West Lothian, which covers my constituency of Linlithgow, to see undertakings in practice. I am not sure whether my colleague Stewart Stevenson has visited the Grampian pilot.
I learned that the scheme did not just happen. The people who are involved spent three to four months examining the reasons why cases take many months before they get to court. Now, through undertakings, accused people are given various pieces of information, including a form telling them the time, place and date of court appearance. They are told to bring proof of earnings or benefits and their driving licence when they come to court. They are given a list of the charges, and the date and time of the court hearing are set in the knowledge of the factors that might affect the hearing, such as holidays, hospital appointments and so on. That might seem logical, but it did not happen in the past.
The accused are also asked about their solicitor, to whom the undertakings form can be faxed, and there is provision for the accused to meet their solicitor on the morning of their court appearance. Finally, on the day of the undertakings court, a roll call is taken and a warrant issued for anyone who is not present. The police then go to the person's home address and, if possible, bring them to court.
All those measures have resulted in cases coming to the undertakings court in three to four weeks, which is how summary justice should work. I have no doubt that the system requires the police, procurator fiscal and court administration to work closely. The people whom I spoke to were clear that an understanding of one another's needs was essential to progress a case, and I saw that happening.
There are challenges. The establishment of a case progression unit is crucial to driving the process. The scheme that I saw is a pilot, so there needs to be a clear plan to mainstream undertakings. Undertakings are not an alternative to custody; they are intended to speed up the process.
Another concern that I have relates to the suggested changes to fiscal fines. In answer to my question in the chamber last week, the First Minister reassured me that the provisions on opting out rather than opting in are compatible with the ECHR. However, I still have some concerns that raising the limit of fiscal fines to £500 will increase the range of offences to be covered by the disposal. I would therefore like some more detail about what offences the Scottish Executive expects fiscal fines to cover. I recognise that, in its response to the committee's report, it says that every effort will be made to ensure that people understand the opt-out, including lengthening the period for recall. I welcome such assurances.
The integration of district courts into the Scottish Court Service and renaming them JP courts are positive moves. There are people who question the need for JP courts and think that they should be abandoned. I hope that what I see as a positive move can be built on and that the introduction of measures such as the extension of fiscal fines will not result in the death of JP courts by the back door due to a lack of business. I hope that the minister can reassure not just me but the numerous people throughout Scotland who give up their time to serve as JPs that they are safe for the foreseeable future—I appreciate that ministers cannot give time-unlimited commitments.
The introduction of a more prescribed training programme—both introductory and through on-going appraisals—is a positive move that will help people to have confidence in the JP courts. Again, I appreciate the Executive's response to the committee's concern that some JPs who have not had consistent recent experience on the bench could be included in the new list of eligible JPs. I look forward to seeing how the Executive will deal with that concern at stage 2.
As I have said, I support the intentions behind the bill. I believe that it will modernise and improve the summary justice system. It will ensure that people can have more confidence in the summary justice system and, as others have said today, that they will see that community and public safety is being given the priority that it deserves. I hope that members will follow the Justice 1 Committee's example by supporting the general principles of the bill while recognising that there is more to be done at stage 2.
I do not think that any member has so far used the two obvious clichés, so I will take pleasure in using them now. This is a question of justice being seen to be done as well as justice being done, and the fact is that justice delayed is justice not delivered.
Speaking as a complete amateur on the subject, I believe that we are trying to address the public perception that justice is often not done. Sometimes they get bad information, but there is a widespread perception that justice is not done properly or quickly enough. The bill is welcome, because it aims to tackle those points of justice being seen to be done and being done more quickly.
Some points have been drawn to my attention and must have been drawn to other members' attention, too. One issue that particularly annoys people is plea bargaining, when procurators fiscal make a deal with people who, if they say something, can get away with a minor penalty. When serious road traffic accidents have occurred, for example, people feel strongly about the fact that a crime may be downgraded to secure a quick run-through of a case. Often, the accused does not even have to appear in court. I understand why people make such arrangements if they are heavily pressed to get through business in their court, but the situation must be examined carefully. The inspector of prosecution as proposed in the bill is a good idea. I hope that the inspector will examine carefully whether such bargaining is used improperly.
Many people think that their wicked neighbours get away without paying their fines. One paper that accompanies the bill states that 80 per cent of fines are paid in due course, but that still means that one in five fines is not paid and that the courts are still pursuing them. Ensuring that fines are paid is important, and the bill contains proposals on that.
Moving away from fines to other forms of penalty is a good idea. I welcome the bill's work orders. I understand that under them people will, in effect, do community service for between 10 and 50 hours rather than pay money. Work orders look as if they are to be used mostly with accused people who do not have much money, but it would be salutary for some highly paid insurance official who twisted something, for example, to be seen weeding in Princes Street gardens or wherever—that would be justice being seen to be done. That might be a slightly unchristian attitude—I often display that—but more clearly seeing people paying their debt to society would be welcome. The accompanying documents say that the Executive will consult communities on the work that should be done and that it will try measures before rolling them out.
Those initiatives will be welcome and will help to restore people's confidence in the justice system. The way in which events are reported means that people read only about hiccups, for example when somebody who is on bail commits an offence. People read all about the justice system's downside but not about its ordinary routine successes when it works quite well. We must work hard at improving the public perception of the justice system.
The bill has many good points and I look forward to it being improved by my colleagues who are dealing with it, so that we will think that it is even better at stage 3. I welcome the bill as a step in the right direction.
After Donald Gorrie's speech, members will hear the second speech in a row from a self-confessed amateur. I am a member of a small group in the Parliament that does not have a representative on every committee, so I often find myself coming completely fresh to a bill at the stage 1 debate. I have no doubt that every committee aims to make its reports useful to members who are in my position, to allow them to get to grips with a bill straight away. The stage 1 report on the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill achieves that objective better than most, so I thank the Justice 1 Committee's members and clerks for their work.
One issue that the report deals with early in relation to bail provisions is the question of why legislation should be introduced if no substantial changes are to be made. Although I accept the value of the flexibility that exists at the moment, I agree with the Executive's objective of making the law more widely understood. Writing it down seems like a good first step. However, unusually, I find myself siding with the Executive's original position on the issue of public interest versus public safety. Both terms are of value and seem on the surface to say what they mean, but in fact both are subject to wide interpretation. We must, of course, aim to protect public safety, but it would be a mistake for us to follow a line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that we can protect public safety only by refusing bail. Where other ways of protecting public safety exist, it is in the public interest to grant bail, and it should be considered.
I look forward to seeing the detail of the Executive's proposed stage 2 amendment, which it stated in its response to the committee's report it intends to lodge
"to include a direct reference to ‘public safety' in those provisions in a manner that does not prejudice the overall framework".
I worry that that will introduce more complexity into the legislation, which might undermine the objective of increasing widespread public understanding of the law.
I agree with the Executive on the issue of previous convictions for serious offences. A previous conviction may well be an indication of a risk of reoffending, but not in all cases. For example, if someone was convicted of an offence a number of years previously or the offence was committed in different circumstances, taking the Executive's route would seem to undermine the discretion of the court. Granting bail only in exceptional circumstances is too much. However, I agree that there is a need for greater explanation of the reasons for and implications of bail decisions. The decision to provide that is to be welcomed.
I turn to increased sentences for bail offences. The increases are significant, and if the Executive wants to make the case for them it must do so on the basis that it genuinely believes that they will make bail offences less common. If they do not, they will lead only to an increased prison population. If we can reduce the number of bail offences, that is all well and good, but if we attempt to do so by increasing sentences and that attempt fails, we may be stuck with the policy. It would be very difficult politically to reverse that policy change if it failed on those grounds. The committee is right to examine the wider reasons for people's failure to attend court hearings and to mention issues such as addiction and homelessness. I am glad that the Executive addresses those issues in such detail in its response to the committee's report. However, the criminal justice system as a whole still fails to give offenders who face such problems the best chance of getting their lives together and stopping reoffending. If we want a system that serves the whole of society, the objective must be to change that.
I turn to part 2. The committee expressed significant concerns in a number of areas. Not least, it mentioned the difficulty that it experienced in giving a view when the context of provisions was not known because the Executive had not shared its non-legislative plans ahead of the committee's consideration of the bill. The Executive is right to say that the quicker the criminal justice system deals with cases, the more effective the intervention may be. However, here in Parliament the reverse is often true. We should take the time that is necessary for careful and fully informed consideration.
I am pleased that in her opening speech the minister endorsed the principle of lay justice as part of the system. No doubt there will be on-going debates about precisely what role it should play. On that issue and the issue of alternatives to prosecution, I hope that the Executive's emphasis will be on relevant work in communities that is designed to change behaviour, not merely to send a signal or to have a stream of offenders take part in meaningless activity.
Taken together, meaningful, restorative, practical and reparative work by offenders and the use of lay justice, including scope for examining the possibility of peer justice for young offenders, could offer the prospect of much more radical reform. However, what we have is the bill that is before us, and the Greens will vote for it this evening, albeit with reservations, some of which have been expressed by Christine Grahame.
I am pleased to speak in this debate on the bill. I will start by reiterating what many speakers have said, even if only implicitly.
The extent of the reform of the justice system that the Executive proposes is truly remarkable. It is to be congratulated on its proposals, which are in addition to the recent changes to the High Court system, which have already significantly improved the workings of that system.
Now we are considering reforms to the lower courts, where the vast majority of Scotland's criminal cases are heard, therefore it is important that we get the measures right. The key goal is to reduce reoffending while improving the court system, so that it continues to ensure that there is fairness, certainty and efficiency.
The bill is wide ranging so, like others, I will concentrate on only a few issues today, some of which might seem minor, but it is important that we get the detail correct.
Greater transparency in court procedures will be a welcome consequence of the statutory framework for the consideration of bail, which I believe is generally welcomed. Welcome, too, are the proposed changes to cut down on non-appearance at court and the moves to ensure that individuals accept that bail should be regarded extremely seriously.
It is essential that we know for certain that each and every person who attends court understands what is going on and what is expected of them. That goes for witnesses as well as the accused. Should the victim, for example, be consulted on bail issues? Should accused people who are awaiting trial be treated differently from people who have already been sentenced and are awaiting sentencing?
In the Executive response to the stage 1 report, we were told that consideration of the treatment of witnesses and how to improve it continues. However, I underline on-going concerns expressed by organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid and the importance of being clear about the difference between obstructive and genuinely reluctant witnesses who need the support of the system. There needs to be a guarantee that powers to issue warrants for the arrest of witnesses will be used sparingly and as a last measure. Scottish Women's Aid has a list of questions on liberation on undertaking, which I urge the minister to examine carefully. However, I acknowledge the detailed responses to some of the points that have already been set out.
A few people might deliberately try to flout the law even after being charged but, as other members have commented, the criminal justice system deals with many individuals who have mental health problems, chaotic lifestyles or learning disabilities. For example, statistics on prisoners with literacy problems are well rehearsed, and we need to take them into consideration when we aim to improve the efficiency of the courts. Such people are expected to deal with the intricacies of our court system. It is up to us to ensure that that is a realistic possibility for them. Although I acknowledge how difficult it is, it is essential that it is made the court's responsibility to explain the implications of being granted bail. Contrary to the objections from the Sheriffs Association that we received recently, that could cut down on wasted court time.
Extending bail orders to include the next court dates will make an appreciable difference, as many members have agreed. Perhaps it is time to get into modern habits of e-mailing and even texting reminders about court appearances. That can be done speedily by computers nowadays, and it might be much more effective.
I hope that the whole package of changes that is being introduced will work, but it will need to be monitored, as it will be difficult to work out which changes to the system have made a significant difference. There will also be a need to grasp the opportunity to reduce the risk of people reoffending while they are on bail by making full use of projects to address underlying causes, such as properly funded and managed bail supervision. Such schemes have been successful and should be made available throughout Scotland. Providing support alongside legislative measures is essential. The committee will need to have a good overview of the proposed changes, to enable proper consideration of them.
There is, of course, continuing concern about the extension of fixed-penalty schemes and the proposed opt-out system, which some members have examined and which it is hoped we will be able to address at stage 2. They need to be considered carefully. Tayside police, for example, is enthusiastic about using fixed penalties and would like their use to be extended to more offences. Nevertheless, due regard must be given to balancing rights and responsibilities. We must ensure that individuals are not, for example, deemed to have accepted a fixed-penalty notice when they were, in fact, unaware of the notice. It is also essential that we ensure that the balance of justice is not tipped in favour of those who are able to pay and against those who are less well off.
I have talked only about some of the minor adjustments that are included in the bill. In the main, the bill is timely and welcome and will add to the efficiency and fairness of the Scottish justice system. I support the general principles of the bill.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on reform of the summary justice system in Scotland, although time restricts me to just a couple of points.
The bill aims to reform the summary justice system and make it more efficient. As the stage 1 report says throughout, the bill attempts to do that without compromising the important right of the accused to a fair trial. As the minister and deputy minister know, I have raised on previous occasions my concerns about that balance and how it is to be achieved. At lunch time, I read the Official Report of the debate that we had on the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill in 2004. I felt then that the fundamental right of the accused to a fair trial was being compromised, under the guise of either improving the rights of victims of crime or the need to achieve greater efficiency in the criminal justice system. That is a theme to which I return this afternoon.
I accept—as I am sure do all members who are taking part in the debate—that we must balance the right of the accused to a fair trial with the public interest and public safety, as well as the smooth and efficient running of the criminal justice system. However, as the committee has set out repeatedly, that is easy to say, but the balance is much more difficult to achieve in practice.
Time restricts me—I feel like a tail-end batsman in the debate. I will concentrate on just two aspects of the bill. The first is the balance that the bill strikes on the question of bail reforms; the second is the proposal for trials in the absence of the accused.
The bill provides Parliament with a fresh opportunity to reassess the law on bail and to take a more holistic approach, considering the interests of justice, the needs of the community at large and the circumstances that the accused faces. I read the evidence that was presented to the Justice 1 Committee, which clearly shows that the current bail system is not operating effectively when measured against its effect on crime reduction and its application as part of sentencing policy as a whole.
The bill aims to make the decisions on who gets bail and the terms of that bail much more transparent. I am sure that that is welcomed by us all. In particular, I welcome the proposal that judges should provide us with reasons for their decisions to grant or deny bail. That should help to ensure greater transparency and clarity in their decision-making process. I accept that no two cases are the same and that there may be good reasons why one is treated differently from the next, but the public should have a right to be told why a different approach has been taken in each instance. I also agree that, as other members have rightly pointed out, the accused should understand what is expected of them when a bail order is granted, and what will happen if they fail to abide by its terms.
However, I am sure that other members have spotted the paradox. The law on breaches of bail conditions is to be toughened up at a time when the Executive is desperately trying to reduce the prison population and the pressure on our prisons. I am generous enough to acknowledge the Executive's efforts to deal with that, but certain political decisions can be undermined by other political decisions. Increasing the maximum sentences for breaching bail orders from three to 12 months in summary cases and from two to five years in solemn cases will inevitably lead to more people being jailed when more than 7,000 people in Scotland are already incarcerated every day.
Does the member agree that if people can afford to pay their fines, they should not take up spaces in our prisons at taxpayers' expense?
When I heard the minister make the same remark earlier, I could not help but be struck by the parallel with debates at the time of the poll tax, when it was argued that the only people who were not paying it were those who could afford to. The argument is a complete red herring. I share the concern of the minister—and, no doubt, of the deputy minister—that we have to do a great deal more to reduce the number of men and women who are sent to jail because of their inability to pay fines. I am sure that the three of us—and, indeed, the whole chamber—can agree that it is crass stupidity to spend perhaps £15,000 or £16,000 on incarcerating someone who has not paid a £250 fine. The minister partly mentioned that issue, and I will in due course welcome her initiatives to tackle such nonsense.
I welcome the committee's recommendation that a more radical approach be taken by investing resources in addressing the root causes—including homelessness, drug addiction and alcohol abuse—of why people fail to turn up to hearings.
Finally, I want to address the issue of trials held in the absence of the accused. We are all agreed that no part of a trial shall take place outwith the presence of the accused. Indeed, as the Law Society of Scotland has made clear, that is a centrepiece of Scots law. However, the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2004 sold the pass on that principle—it has now been breached and the bill proposes to take us further down that route. The principle in the 2004 act was that trials would be held in the absence of the accused only if they had failed to appear after evidence had been led that substantially implicated them and if the trial judge was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to do so.
The bill suggests that this course might also be taken with summary cases because they are less serious; because the volume of cases to which the accused does not turn up is greater at summary level; and because, in such cases, the consequences of the accused being found guilty are much less severe. The stage 1 report comment that the decision to proceed to trial in the defendant's absence should be a
"last resort … used very rarely"
and only after all other avenues have been exhausted, and attempts to secure their attendance have failed, illustrates the nervousness around this issue. As witnesses to the committee pointed out, the measure will give rise to practical problems, particularly with regard to identification and how instructions are given to defence agents as cases develop. I fear that the Executive's next step will be to introduce trials in the absence of the defendant in solemn cases. I fail to see how juries will be able to draw a better conclusion about a defendant if he or she is not present.
The Scottish Socialist Party will agree to the bill's general principles at 5 pm this evening. However, I respectfully suggest that we tread carefully here, and I hope that greater protections will be introduced at stage 2.
I am happy to support the bill, which contains many sensible proposals for changes to the law. It relates primarily to the summary justice system, but the preamble also states that it covers solemn proceedings. The two constituency matters that I would like to raise touch more obviously on solemn proceedings.
At a weekend surgery, I met a young lady who was raped some years ago and whose attacker was convicted and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. He then lodged an appeal and the young lady was told that the appeal would be heard more than a year later. Unfortunately, the appeal was in fact heard much earlier and she was not informed that the appeal hearing was taking place, so she did not know that her attacker's appeal was being heard. The sentence was reduced on appeal to six years, so the man will be out in two years.
The Crown Office has apologised for the omission, and that has been accepted. However, the point that arises from the case of that young lady, whom I am obviously not going to name, is about the effect on rape victims. I understand from speaking to people who work for Scottish Women's Aid and other organisations, and from conversations about the case with the Solicitor General for Scotland, that once a trial is over the adrenalin that has sustained a victim through to seeing her assailant be brought to justice is lost, and there can then be problems such as depression and other serious consequences. In some cases, female victims may even attempt to take their own lives.
The correspondence that I have had with the Solicitor General about that case informs me that the current law states that the appeal court cannot, after conviction and sentence, hear from the victim or review the sentence in the light of information that is provided by the victim. The consequences to the victim of rape do not, however, stop on the date of the sentence, so surely it should be open to the appeal court to consider hearing from the victim—according to the normal rules of evidence—how she has been affected after the sentence. Surely the criminal should be responsible for all the consequences of a crime, especially serious crime, and surely that responsibility should not be elided at a fixed, arbitrary date when sentence is passed. I hope that if it is within the ambit of the bill, as I believe it is, an appropriate amendment can be lodged at stage 2. I am writing to the Minister for Justice and to the Solicitor General for Scotland about the matter, asking them to consider the arguments in advance. I hope that we can, in a non-partisan way, reform the law to protect people such as the young lady I saw last Saturday.
The second case that I want to mention relates to a man called David Penman. Mr Penman was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for savage sexual attacks on two females, one of whom was disabled. The other was a 19-year-old student. I will not go into the details of the attacks—suffice it to say that they were vicious, vile and savage. He was sentenced to 10 years but, under the automatic early release scheme he was released after having served just over six years. That was something about which the prison officers who were responsible for looking after that individual were extremely concerned; I understand that they expressed their concerns behind the scenes. I have raised the case with the Minister for Justice.
I very much hope that we can agree across all the parties in Parliament that there are some individuals, perhaps only 20 or 30 people in Scotland—I certainly hope that it is only a small number—who should not be let out of prison early. That man was let out under the conditions of a sexual offenders protection order.
Will Mr Ewing accept my assurance that issues such as those that he has raised today are within the ambit of the bill that we propose to introduce to end the current position in relation to early release? I have made it clear that we want to consider assessing the level of risk that offenders pose before a decision is taken on their early release. That issue is not for this bill, but Parliament will consider it before the end of the session.
I am pleased to accept that statement from the minister and I look forward to receiving the detail of the proposals.
I want to make a couple more points about the fellow to whom I referred. He was released on the basis that he would be supervised for 24 hours a day. He has been let out of prison, but must be accompanied at all times because of the risk that he is adjudged to pose. The cost of that over six months has been £85,000. I understand from Stewart Stevenson—who I am sure is an authority on the matter—that the cost of keeping somebody in prison is £36,500 a year. Therefore, the comparative cost to the public of looking after this man under supervision is five times more than the cost of looking after a prisoner. That is absurd.
The man was also given the best council house in Nairn, ahead of many young families, and was put there without the elderly people in the area being told that a convicted rapist was being placed in their midst. Frankly, that is wrong. There is a small number of people in jail in Scotland who should not be let out. Based on the extensive information that I have received, my view is that the man in question is one of them.
Last Saturday, I met the mother of the disabled woman who was subjected to the sex attack and I am pleased to say that the victim has found the strength to go back to studying and do a course. I am sure that we would all congratulate her for having the strength to come back from that vicious and vile attack. I welcome the minister's undertaking to ensure that we can deal with such obscenities.
We come now to the winding-up speeches. I call Jeremy Purvis to close for the Liberal Democrats.
The importance of the bill was highlighted by Margaret Mitchell when she quoted from the policy memorandum that 130,000 cases per year are summary cases, which represents 96 per cent of all the criminal prosecutions in Scotland. The bill, together with the proposed reforms on bail, will be a further step in the wide-ranging programme of reform of the criminal justice system in Scotland.
On summary courts, the minister began with Sheriff Principal McInnes's analysis of where the current system is not working as we need it to work. I met JPs in my constituency after the publication of the committee's report and I believe that the measures in the bill, which will strengthen local summary and lay justice and not end it, not only reflect JP's views but will address the needs of communities.
Donald Gorrie helped us in the debate with the cliché that justice must be seen to be done. If it takes a considerable time to bring a prosecution to court, and there is the possibility of abuses of the existing system, communities cannot be blamed for feeling that justice is not being done. It is a positive step that the Executive has reconfirmed through the bill its commitment to lay justice and to modernising the approach to it.
The old system of appointments will be replaced with a far more transparent approach, clearer terms of office and, crucially, a better training system, which will make lay justice better.
We will have greater consistency in different levels of justice in Scotland—for example, in adult justice and in youth justice, which has the children's panel hearings. There will be a more consistent thread in lay justice for children and for adults, a more professional approach and better training, all of which is positive.
I think members enjoyed Stewart Stevenson's introduction of Locke into the debate. Time might have stood still for the chamber's clocks, if not for us, during his speech, but he has the distinction of being the only SNP member to speak in the debate who is not a lawyer.
On bail, members around the chamber reflected the views that were expressed in the Justice 1 Committee's balanced report. The committee's view is that it is important that the accused may be given written notice of their bail and its conditions. That is done in Linlithgow, as Mike Pringle said, but it is not done in all courts. If that practice were followed everywhere, it would complement the bill's provision that people who are bailed should be told in ordinary language about the conditions that apply. Mary Mulligan helpfully outlined to Parliament the benefits of the pilot in Linlithgow in her constituency.
Mike Pringle and others highlighted the measures that are designed to tackle people who work the system. The committee's measured report expertly identified that the system for bail and sentencing in summary courts must not only be able to resist abuse through deliberate non-attendance by the accused or by their opting to go to jail rather than pay their fines, but must also be fair.
Pauline McNeill highlighted the committee's concern that, in some respects, the bill will be an enabling bill and that we must take on trust the way in which the police and prosecutors will operate some elements of the system.
Another important section of the committee's report deals with cases in which no reply is made to a fiscal compensation order. In such circumstances, the order is deemed to have been accepted. Along with Mary Mulligan and Marlyn Glen—who outlined her concerns not only in today's debate but to the First Minister last week—I am worried about the implications of that for people with learning difficulties or physical disabilities and people whose first language is not English. I am glad that the minister has said that those issues will be examined in detail; I know that the committee will continue to scrutinise the Executive's proposals.
There was only one area of Christine Grahame's speech with which I was uncomfortable. I defend the right of the accused to a fair hearing in our courts and I believe that there should be no diminution of that right, but I disagree that for the greater good it is sometimes necessary to accept that some trials will be abandoned. We may have to accept that some people who are guilty are not convicted because the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but I do not accept that we should allow trials to be abandoned as a result of a deliberately cynical act or for bureaucratic reasons. After all, we are supporting the bill because we want a system that is better for communities and fair for the accused and one that will ensure that people who are convicted are given effective sentences and that witnesses receive added protection.
Pauline McNeill ably set out Parliament's ambitions for the part of the criminal justice system that deals with 96 per cent of all cases. We must reduce delays and increase speed and efficiency. It is obvious that at stage 2 there is much work to be done by the committee and the Executive on several delicate areas of concern, and I am confident that the committee will continue to adopt a measured approach to such matters. I am happy that the Liberal Democrats will support the bill's general principles at decision time.
In politics, you win some and you lose some, so I might be forgiven for taking the opportunity to wallow in some self-congratulation. The Conservatives have been going on about bail for years and, at last, the minister is doing something about it. It can be argued that she is not doing as much as we would like her to do, although I take some comfort from what she said about the consideration of public safety provision.
I have also been banging on about fines for years and, at last, Cathy Jamieson is doing something about it—not as much as she should, as I will demonstrate shortly, but at least there is progress. We certainly agree with the retention of the lay justice system.
I must have shown unusual prescience on 20 February 2003, when I argued that sentencing powers on summary conviction should be increased. When Hugh Henry told me that the matter should be dealt with by the McInnes committee, my response was that before Parliament was very much older, it would be debating the matter again and he would be agreeing that we should increase sentencing powers, so why did we not do it four years ago?
Although I usually demur from centralisation, in the context of the Scottish Court Service, it is a good idea.
I turn to what is wrong with the bill. The minister is certainly taking action on fines, but she is making the system unnecessarily complicated. Donald Gorrie was simultaneously right and wrong when he said that 80 per cent of fines are paid, because 80 per cent of the quantum is paid. The courts impose some extremely large fines, usually in relation to convictions under health and safety at work, road traffic or industrial legislation. We saw that in the Transco case, in which a fine of millions of pounds was imposed. That fine would be paid, but many of the fines that are imposed day in, day out in sheriff, summary and district courts are not paid.
I turn to what is happening in Glasgow; an issue that was the subject of a series of parliamentary questions I put to ministers a few weeks ago. Surprisingly, I have not yet got the answers. Let us say that a fine of £150 is not paid. After some time, the accused is sent to a supervised attendance centre. Does he go? Does he heck. The order is deemed to be breached, the accused does not turn up in court and a warrant is issued for his arrest. Eventually, the accused is brought to court from custody. The stipendiary magistrate will say to Mr So-and-so, "Are you going to pay the fine?" The accused will say, "Naw," to which the magistrate will respond, "Fine remitted." That is what is happening in Glasgow. Fines are not being paid, but they should be paid.
The minister can have as many fines enforcement officers as she likes and she can set up all sorts of convoluted systems, but until such time as she is prepared to bite the bullet and deduct the fine in instalments from wages or benefits, she will get nowhere.
Does Mr Aitken accept that the proposal is for enforcement powers that will include the power to make a request to the court for a deduction to be made from benefits, to arrest earnings and bank accounts, to make a seizure order in respect of a vehicle and to send the case back to court for further consideration? We are doing that.
I fully accept that those provisions are in the bill, but I am asking the Executive to cut out the middle man and instead to deal direct. That will save on bureaucracy, ensure that the fine is paid quickly and, if it is not paid, it will further ensure that the case goes back before a means court and a realistic custodial alternative is available. Under that system, the only way someone could avoid paying a fine would be by fraudulent means. The minister will have to think the matter through; the provision will not work.
The retention of lay justice is a good idea, but I wonder what the fully-trained lay justices will do. They will have no work, given that the fiscal fine system is now up to £500. Some years ago, the High Court said quite reasonably that it was not possible to impose a fine that an accused person could not realistically be expected to pay in 12 months. Even I, in high dudgeon and on my high horse, would never have imposed a large fine on somebody who was unemployed. If I was sitting in the district court nowadays, the maximum instalment that I would set would be £6 or £7 a week. The maximum fine that would therefore be imposed in such cases—which account for 95 per cent or 96 per cent of all cases—would be something like a couple of hundred pounds, so no cases would go to the JP courts. Of course, the fiscal fine system has a role to play in the justice system in dealing with minor matters. However, at the end of the day, fiscals are prosecutors; they are not judges. The bill should provide for a much clearer separation of powers than is proposed at present.
Glasgow, I have to confess, has more than its fair share of problems. However, not one mention has been made in the debate of the stipendiary magistrates who deal with the bulk of summary criminal cases in Glasgow. We have a provision whereby they can be retained, but we do not know whether the summary sentencing powers of 12 months will apply to them or whether the existing restriction of six months will continue to apply.
We also have the quite iniquitous proposal to apply a five-year term of office. Judges should be appointed ad vitam aut culpam. Frankly, unless we do that, we are interfering with the justice system. What sensible solicitors or advocates will leave their practice for five years if they think that, at the end of that time, they may be unemployed? We will not get quality people to do the job. [Interruption.]
I cannot hear you, Mr Pringle.
Let us not have sedentary interventions. If members wish to accept an intervention, the format is that they should invite the member to make an intervention. That is done for the benefit of the public in the gallery, the Official Report and, for that matter, me.
I heard the member say from a sedentary position, "They don't get paid." Unless I am mistaken, stipendiary magistrates in Glasgow are paid about £55,000 a year. Yet again, Mr Pringle reveals his ignorance of the justice system, which is extremely worrying. It is hardly surprising that Liberal Democrat policy is so confused, when one of their justice spokespersons opines in such a way.
There is a lot in the bill to attract our support, but a great deal of work will have to be done to sort out an awful lot of things at stage 2.
I am unhappy with the provision for trial in the absence of the accused. What happens when the evidence depends on identification? As I have said before, I am all for locking people up—I just require first that they are guilty.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, as is understandable given the breadth of provisions in the bill and the number of different matters that it deals with. That has been demonstrated by the variety in members' speeches.
It is important to remember just what we are debating. After all, stage 1 is about the general principles of the bill. There might be matters on which we have slight disagreements, but they can be addressed with amendments. We need to examine the bill in the round. We are dealing with the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, which seeks not to turn Scottish justice on its head but to fine-tune and improve it. I do not believe that we are undermining any of the fundamental principles or tenets of Scots law, which remain sacrosanct. We often knock the legal system, but the general principles of the law of Scotland have served us well, and continue to do so.
In the 21st century, our society, economy and judiciary have all changed and we must address those changes. That is why, as Stewart Stevenson said, we will be constructively critical. Our view is that the bill is to be supported. It would be to the detriment of the legal system and Scottish society if we were to make the bill a political football. We should seek to work out the details; the bill's provisions will be important not just for one term of Government, but for the next 10 or 15 years—or probably the next 20 to 25 years—so we should try to get them right.
The minister and other members have mentioned issues concerning bail. Phil Gallie's mention of the ECHR was spurious, because all that the ECHR did was give people the right to make applications for bail; its adoption did not mean that bail would always be granted. Even in the past, when bail was precluded for offences such as murder, there were instances when people who had been charged with murder got bail. I was a lawyer in private practice and I remember appearing for people who had been charged with murder, some of whom had got bail. We are addressing serious concerns among the public that bail is being granted far too easily to people who have committed serious offences. The necessary changes that are provided for in the bill, as well as those that the Minister for Justice said will be contained in amendments, are to be welcomed.
The minister is quite correct about fines. The public are fed up with a fine being imposed only for the individual to cock a snook at society. Bill Aitken's points on that have some justification. If people cannot afford a certain monetary penalty, we must ensure that they do not have that monetary penalty imposed upon them. However, even if people are on benefits or are poor, there are methods by which they can pay at a very low rate. If a fine is imposed upon someone in those circumstances, I would say that they have breached the rules that our society expects, that their behaviour has been unacceptable and that it is simply unacceptable for them to think that they can get away without paying their fine. We therefore fully support the steps that are being taken in that respect. That is not simply to satisfy the public, but because it is frankly barking mad that resources, in terms of police and court time, are taken up in that way.
We have only one caveat. Our view is that the sheriff officer system works well—Tommy Sheridan is not in the chamber, but I know that he takes a different view of that profession. I can understand the concerns that the Minister for Justice might have about costs, but my view is that the matter must be capable of negotiation. Sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms already have a system up and running. We would not always expect them to operate according to the same table of fees that they use for other charges.
Sheriff officers have served Scottish justice well and, whatever Mr Sheridan's view of them is, when they have sought to get children back from a father who has taken them without the mother's consent, or when they have served interdicts because somebody has been knocking nine bells out of the wife, they have done a good job and should not be vilified. The Executive's position in that regard is to be supported, although I ask ministers to reconsider how we might avoid reinventing the wheel by creating a new institution when one already exists and works—we can take it from there.
We fully support the powers for fiscal fines, fiscal compensation orders and work orders. One member—I think that it was Bill Aitken, although I am not sure whether I am misquoting him—expressed concern about the Procurator Fiscal Service. We must remember that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is not simply a prosecution service. That is why it deals with fatal accident inquiries and a variety of other matters. There is certainly a problem in the United States, where the way in which the district attorney operates makes him judge and jury; that can be an abuse of rights. There are circumstances in which that could happen in Scotland, unless we ensure that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service acts not simply as a prosecutor, but in the public interest. Obviously, there are clear paradoxes, to which Mr Fox alluded, in terms of whether it would act as judge and jury. However, we should accept the Procurator Fiscal Service as it is and maintain its ethos that it is there not simply to prosecute, but to act in the public interest.
My experience of procurators fiscal is that if they are aware that an officer has lied, they immediately move that there be no further proceedings and seek to take steps. If they believe that something untoward has happened, they do not simply take the adversarial approach that they must win at all costs, but acknowledge that they have a duty to the court and the Scottish public. We will have to monitor the situation. My only political point would be that, if we are going to go down this route, the Solicitor General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate should not really be political figures. The Lord Advocate, as Scotland's senior law officer, should not be in the Cabinet, but should be entirely distinct and should represent the legal system.
The issue of intermediate diets has to be dealt with. To some extent, that is not a matter for the Executive. The Parliament is seeking to create the framework for better proceedings and a simplified system. Intermediate diets and the other proposed court changes will not work unless they are implemented properly in practice. The theory and the legislative process that we are laying down are correct, but sheriffs have an obligation to start making intermediate diets and other such things work.
The same point applies in relation to agreeing uncontroversial evidence. There must come a time when a sheriff takes a hands-on approach. They cannot simply ask whether the parties are ready and then proceed to trial, but should ask why parties want to call certain witnesses. Valuable police time is being taken up by officers being cited to appear at court because the defence agent might or might not want to challenge their evidence. The challenge is likely to be, "I put it to you, officer, that what you said is not true." The officer then replies, "No, sir. It is correct." He then sits down and is asked no further questions. The sheriff must be able to work that out by taking a much more hands-on approach at the intermediate diet.
In the bill, as in previous legislation, we are giving sheriffs the power to be a bit more directive. We pay them substantially. We will retain their independence; every member, of whatever political colour, recognises that that is important. Sheriffs must be more hands-on and must start trying to drive cases forward. Earlier this week, Lord Cullen made valid points on that, with which I agree.
There has to be a quid pro quo. If sheriffs want their independence to be preserved, which we accept, they have to start delivering under the new procedure that we are introducing. The new criminal procedure will be there for them; we hope that they will implement it.
Our desire, which I am sure is shared throughout the Parliament, is to create a justice system that is clearly understood. That is why we are putting the law on bail in statute and making it clear that public safety is a key consideration, which is in the public interest. We want judges to explain to all those who are granted bail the conditions that are placed on them and the effect of breaching them. We believe that we need to place some responsibility on the accused.
We want tough penalties for those who breach bail conditions to be understood. We want the public to have confidence that action will be taken against those who do not respect the position of trust that bail creates.
We want a system that is flexible, which is why we are proposing changes that will allow the summary system to live up to its name, as Pauline McNeill said. We want it to speed up court processes, help reduce reoffending and help create capacity in the system. We also want a system that is innovative and which will provide the right interventions at the right time at the right level, which are robustly enforced. That is why we believe that alternatives to prosecution are appropriate in some cases. However, we want enforcement—that is a key issue for us.
We want options that involve less process. As I have said, we want the right process at the right time. The bill will mean smarter justice, which will deliver results that—I hope—will lead to a cut in offending and a more efficient system.
We want a community-focused system that responds to the needs and interests of local communities and involves people from those communities. We believe that lay justice is important; indeed, I want to put on the record our commitment to the lay justice system. We are not attempting to let lay justice wither on the vine; the bill clearly shows that we are committed to the development of lay justice. We also want a community-focused system in which people are prepared to stand up for their justice system and to work together to tackle the scourge of low-level offending, which takes place in communities throughout Scotland.
Members have raised many issues in the debate, some of which will be attended to at stage 2. Stewart Stevenson talked about the presumption of innocence and fiscal fines. It is important to understand what will happen if the accused does not receive or is unable to respond to an offer, for whatever good reason. He or she can apply to the court to have an offer withdrawn at any time—not just within 28 days. To avoid any doubt about the matter and ensure that there is complete clarity, we will lodge an appropriate amendment at stage 2.
I welcome what the minister has said. We should think about the very long term. Perhaps somebody will make an application to Disclosure Scotland 10 years from now and discover that something is sitting on their record. In the light of what the minister has said, he might consider whether there should be a time at which something should expire and simply vanish from the system altogether.
That is obviously a slightly separate matter, on which we will have to reflect. No doubt we will have further discussions about it at stage 2.
Mike Pringle talked about only justices who are currently sitting being offered another contract. Complex issues are involved in that matter. The Justice 1 Committee made the point that he made in its report. We are taking legal advice on whether a proposal along those lines would be ECHR compliant, and we will carefully consider the matter and go back to the committee with proposals at stage 2 if that is necessary.
Pauline McNeill mentioned the letter from the Sheriffs Association. I thank her for giving us a copy of that letter; we will carefully consider the issues that it raises. She also mentioned issues relating to undertakings. We have established the outline of a process for recording and sharing information on conditions and ensuring that the information is deleted when conditions have been superseded by bail conditions that a court has imposed.
Pauline McNeill was right to mention concerns about resources. I assure members that resource issues will be fully taken into account when we roll things out.
Christine Grahame mentioned alternatives to prosecution and discounts. We have reflected on what the stage 1 report said and will make proposals to remove provisions from the bill.
David Davidson spoke about the procurator fiscal adopting a quasi-judicial role. It must be emphasised that we are not necessarily talking about a determination, but about an offer that can be rejected. A person can choose to take the matter to court. I am convinced that we are talking about a useful addition to the system that will give an accused the option of having their case heard in court.
Mr Davidson mentioned witness protection. We have paid considerable attention to that issue in previous legislation, and we have considered resources and training. We take the issue seriously. However, as members have said in the debate, two matters have to be addressed. A witness can be genuinely scared and vulnerable, and can need to be protected; we will move heaven and earth to support such witnesses. However, there are also witnesses who are determined to obstruct justice for whatever reason, and it is right that we reflect on what needs to be done to protect the interests of justice from the arbitrary actions of such witnesses.
Mary Mulligan spoke about undertakings and mentioned her visit to Linlithgow. Some of the details that she gave were very useful. It is important to acknowledge that the greater use of undertakings does not necessarily increase the number of cases. However, it should speed up the process by which cases come to court. We accept that undertakings can be only part of the answer to making cases speedier, but they would make a useful contribution if they were properly managed.
Donald Gorrie spoke about the visibility of work orders and I welcome his support on the issue. I agree that it is important for a community not only to have reparation but to see people making amends by whatever means. I look forward to such measures being implemented.
Patrick Harvie mentioned public interest and public safety. We have sought to clarify our position. The fundamental test is public interest, which goes much wider than public safety. The committee made the point that there might be a lack of understanding and that people might feel that public safety was not being addressed. In this bill, we are ensuring that public safety is encompassed by the broader definition of public interest. Considering the public interest gives us a much wider opportunity to ensure that the public are protected.
Mr Harvie's suggestion of peer justice for young offenders could cut two ways. There could well be cases in which some young people went much further than the courts would go. Mr Harvie's idea might seem superficially attractive, but I would hesitate before introducing some arbitrary justice that might not be pertinent to the level of offence.
Marlyn Glen is right to say that people who attend court need to understand what is going on. We will look closely at comments made by Scottish Women's Aid. Marlyn Glen also made a useful suggestion that could be looked into much more deeply than it has been—the use of e-mail and text messaging to remind people to turn up at court. A number of organisations and systems could use such suggestions to cut down on waste. We will reflect carefully on the idea.
Colin Fox mentioned the debate in 2004 and his concerns about rights being compromised. I have to say that there is no evidence of that happening. The system is working well.
Mr Fox also talked about the "crass stupidity" of allowing those who cannot afford to pay fines to go to jail. I agree with that—but I hope that Colin Fox would also agree that it is crass stupidity to allow those who can afford to pay fines to go to jail. The Minister for Justice is saying clearly today that those who can pay, will pay.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No—the minister is into his final 30 seconds.
Lucky for him!
I am sorry that I cannot take the intervention—perhaps there has been another policy shift in the SSP, I do not know.
A number of useful contributions have been made in today's debate; the Parliament is genuinely together in wanting to ensure that we have a justice system that is fit for purpose. I look forward to the bill being passed and having an impact similar to the changes that the Parliament has made to the High Court system. I look forward to a vigorous and detailed debate at stage 2 and I welcome the breadth of support for the principles of the bill.