Plenary, 18 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, January 18, 2001

Official Report 747KB pdf

---

Scottish Strategy for Victims

We come now to today's main motion, S1M-1556, in the name of Jim Wallace, on the Scottish strategy for victims, together with two amendments to the motion. I am anxious to begin the debate, so would members who are not staying please leave quietly.

I am pleased to be here today to explain why we have developed the Scottish strategy for victims, and what it means for victims of crime. We have all seen—some of us may well have experienced—the distress and loss of security that can accompany being a victim of crime, in addition to the immediate injury, loss or damage that is caused by the crime.

Experience of the criminal justice system can add to the anxiety that many victims experience. Some victims feel that the system has not recognised, let alone met, their particular needs. The criminal justice system exists to bring offenders to justice, so that the guilty are punished and our communities are protected. However, let us never forget that we need the co-operation and help of victims to bring criminals to justice. We also owe it to victims to acknowledge what they have experienced and so develop a criminal justice system that treats them with the respect that is their due. In short, we want a place for victims at the heart of the system.

What would that mean in practice? There is increasing recognition of the needs of victims and their legitimate expectations of the criminal justice system. The introduction of this first strategy is not taking place from a standing start. The main criminal justice agencies all have developments that support and help victims. For example, the court service continues its rolling programme of improving court facilities. That means direct and relevant assistance for victims and witnesses. We have made funding available to provide a volunteer witness service across Scotland and the Lord Advocate has secured funding for victim liaison office pilot schemes. Police forces continue to develop services for special groups, such as next of kin and domestic abuse victims. Those are just a few examples—I could give many more.

We have come a long way, but I would be the first to admit that there is still some way to go. That is why we have developed the strategy jointly. The strategy sets out the road ahead. It sets out agreed principles and objectives, together with co-ordination and monitoring arrangements.

There are three key principles in the strategy; support for victims, information for victims and victims' participation in the criminal justice system. Agencies that deal with victims must be alert to victims' needs and they must stand ready to ensure that victims have access to the right kind of support when they need it. The strategy is about promoting awareness of the needs of victims among criminal justice agencies, other agencies with which they come into contact and among the wider public. The Executive will develop, with other agencies, good practice guidelines for work with victims and will encourage joint training.

The Executive already funds Victim Support Scotland to provide a nationwide service that is available to all victims of crime. We want to increase awareness of those services. Many victims who need support, including victims of repeated incidents of domestic abuse and victims of racist crime, may not report the crime that they have suffered. That is why we will provide additional funding of £260,000 next year to Victim Support Scotland, specifically for a publicity and awareness strategy. I am pleased to announce that overall funding for Victim Support Scotland is set to increase from up to £2.3 million this year to £2.7 million next year.

I turn now to the second principle, which is information. We know that many victims find the operation of the criminal justice process confusing and hard to understand, but it is all too easy for those of us who are familiar with the court system to forget that. Giving victims information about the process and what happens in it can be empowering for the victims—it reduces the feelings of helplessness that people may experience and puts them back in control. The justice department action plan, which sets out what we plan to do in response to the strategy, includes a commitment to produce a new information leaflet and to online information on criminal justice procedures. Other agencies provide information on, for example, being a witness and for victims of specific crimes. Within the framework of the strategy, we will ensure that the information is accessible—that it is provided in the languages and formats that people need. Absence of information is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims. We can and should put that right.

The third principle is about encouraging greater victim participation in the criminal justice system. One may think that victims want as little as possible to do with the system—indeed, that they have been dragged into it unwillingly. That will be some people's choice. However, for others, who may feel that criminal justice processes emphasise the role and place of the offender, but appear to give little thought or recognition to the experience of the victim, the chance to have one's voice heard is very important.

Will the minister take into consideration the experience of some of my constituents who, when they were involved in a murder trial, found that the two accused persons were separately represented by counsel, that the Crown was concerned only with securing a conviction and that no one represented the interests of the victim or their family? Has any consideration been given to legal representation for victims in serious crime trials, such as murder trials?

I have to say that the proposals that we are making and that I am about to discuss relate to victim statements. We will consult all the relative agencies and pilot a scheme. However, we did not have it in mind that such a scheme would involve formal legal representation.

I hear what Mr McAllion says—it is the role of the Crown to try to secure convictions, but it is the victim's case. Along the way, insufficient information has been given to victims. I have talked generally about information about the criminal justice system, but we need also to improve the kind of information that victims get, particularly when a case goes from the police to the procurator fiscal. Indeed, that should also happen later in the system when, for example, we should have better arrangements for making information available when a convicted person is going to be released from prison. Too often in the past, sensitivity to the needs of victims has been overlooked.

We have restated on many occasions the Executive's commitment to the victims of crime. We need to ensure that they have a place in the criminal justice system and that they are not seen merely as an adjunct to it. I want to give proper recognition to the role of victims through the development of a scheme that will give victims the chance to say how the crime that they have experienced has affected them, and for their statement to be made available to all those who are responsible for making decisions about the case. My officials will work with all who are involved to develop procedures for a pilot scheme, which will be evaluated.

The statement scheme will give victims a voice and it will allow them to be satisfied that relevant information is available to decision makers. That can include, for example, victims' concerns about personal safety, and descriptions of the extent of loss and the long-term impact of the crime on the victim or on his or her family. This is not about giving victims responsibility for decisions—that is and will remain the role of the procurator fiscal, the judiciary and the Parole Board for Scotland—but this initiative is a real contribution towards giving victims a proper role in the criminal justice process. I look forward to its development.

The minister might be aware that some of my constituents have found themselves to be the victims of a new and, sadly, evolving form of crime—namely, intimidation and harassment by so-called animal rights extremists. That is an alarming development, which involves co-ordinated action around the country using information technology. Will the Scottish Executive co-operate fully with the initiative that the Home Secretary announced yesterday to tackle this new type of crime?

I am aware of that matter through representations that Mr Home Robertson has made. I want to examine in detail the Home Secretary's proposals, but I am sure that for the victims in such circumstances, like other victims, it is important that there is proper liaison with the police. I know that Lothian and Borders police are concerned about the issues that are raised by Mr Home Robertson.

Finally, on issues of accountability and monitoring, each agency will remain autonomous under the strategy. Of course, each agency is best placed to consider its own response to the strategy and how to improve its own services, but there is a need for co-ordination and I intend to enhance the role of the multi-agency victims steering group in order to carry out that function. In future, I shall chair the group on a regular basis. It will produce an annual report—which will be published—showing progress in the previous year and targets for the coming year. That underlines the fact that this strategy, and in particular the action plan, are not intended to be static documents. The strategy and plan must develop and be updated. We will monitor keenly not only the Scottish Executive justice department's action plan, but other agencies' action plans, to try to ensure that we deliver a meaningful and worth-while service to victims.

The strategy is a major step forward in recognising the role of victims in the criminal justice system. It is about translating policies into action on a partnership basis. As I said, the victims of crime find themselves unwillingly brought into the justice system. Our intention is that they must find that that system meets their needs. We have not done that well enough in the past, so we intend to improve greatly in future the facilities and services that the criminal justice service provides for victims.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principles of the Scottish Strategy for Victims; commends the development of the strategy which gives proper recognition for victims of crime and their needs; welcomes its emphasis on partnership working between criminal justice agencies to achieve the Executive's objectives of better support and information for victims, and welcomes the commitment to action and real improvements set out in the Justice Department's Action Plan.

Let me make it clear at the outset that the Scottish National Party supports the broad thrust of the document and the action plan that accompanies it. It is important that the Parliament puts on record its recognition of the neglect that victims have suffered within the Scottish criminal justice system over many years, decades and, perhaps, even centuries, although—luckily for us—our recollection does not go back quite that far. However, the publication of the document should not only be about self-congratulation; it is equally important that we lay down a marker for the future.

The action plan should be only a starting point for further improvement and there is no doubt that we need to improve. We must, for example, improve the flow of information that is made available to victims and we must make that information available in a way that is readily understood. For those of us who have worked within the system in the past—that includes the minister and me—there is a tendency to forget that what seems self-evident to us is not necessarily so self-evident to those who are not familiar with the system. Any such provision of information must mean the taking into account of any cultural and linguistic differences that might exist—a lesson that I am sure has been learned from the Chhokar case.

The publication of the document has given the minister the opportunity to reannounce a list of projects of which members are, perhaps, already aware. However, it has to be said that the plan is a little light on the detail about financial support. Real financial support will be essential for the many and varied voluntary organisations on which the delivery of the action plan depends.

For a number of years, I have been concerned at the inconsistency of provision throughout the country. There is inconsistency of approach and inconsistency in funding. Rape crisis centres and women's refuges in particular have faced a constant struggle to survive, as local authorities—which are themselves strapped for cash—have slashed budgets for outside bodies. That is a difficult matter for us to control and to take cognisance of, but it results in a patchwork of provision throughout Scotland, which can be to the great detriment of victims in many parts of the country. If organisations are to be expected to play an important part in the delivery of a national strategy—such as that which is anticipated by the action plan—we must examine closely the possibility of national core funding to enable them to do so consistently. That will allow them to avoid the vagaries of local decision making and it will ensure that we bring about an end to the problem of postcode provision.

The SNP is happy to see the victims steering group being given the higher status for which Victim Support Scotland has been campaigning. However, the action plan is unclear about the precise nature of that higher status. A number of questions arise. How often will the victims steering group meet? What influence or involvement will victims organisations have on the group and what powers will the group have—other than by way of an annual report—to hold agencies to account? I hope that the minister will address those questions in his closing remarks.

The victims steering group is an extremely important vehicle for enabling victims organisations to have input into the development of the process that is being started here, but it is essential that that vehicle is allowed to grow. It must be said that Victim Support Scotland is not the only victims organisation in the country. I was concerned to learn, for example, that when it was contacted on Monday, Scottish Women's Aid knew nothing about the action plan. Most media attention for the action plan is directed at the proposal to pilot the use of victims' statements about the effect that crimes have had on them. I suspect that that will—understandably—be the continued focus of media attention.

There are merits in victim impact statements, although I would have liked more information about how they work in other countries. However, I would like to sound a note of caution. For a start, it is unclear from the action plan—it might be cleared up by the minister in his closing remarks—whether it is intended that those statements will be taken prior to conviction or prior to sentencing. If that is to happen prior to conviction, how early in the process will it happen? Perhaps the minister will clarify that at the end of the debate.

There are different views on victim impact statements, even among victim organisations. I remember—from evidence that was heard in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee—that, while Victim Support Scotland was in favour of a pilot scheme, Rape Crisis had concerns, especially if such statements would be taken very early in the process.

It should be noted that what was envisaged by Victim Support Scotland was a system whereby the statement would not be made by the victim, but by

"a properly trained police officer"

who would

"not simply repeat what the victim says in court."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 22 May 2000; c 1294.]

That is a quote from evidence that was given at that time. I would like to hear more about that.

My main concern, which is a reflection of the concerns that were expressed by the Scottish Rape Crisis Network, is that the way in which the victim has apparently been affected by the experience could end up influencing conviction or sentencing in the wrong way. One person might, understandably, be very emotional and still visibly shaken by their ordeal a considerable number of months after it happened, while another might appear to be quite unaffected, and be dealing with the emotional impact very differently.

Sandy Brindley of the Rape Crisis Network highlighted clearly the difficulty in evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on 30 May, when she warned of the danger of introducing what she called "a hierarchy of suffering"—something that is already an issue with Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards. I know that there is concern that that sort of difference in response also has an effect in the early stages of cases—especially rape cases—when police officers are forming their opinions on the merits of a complaint.

That is not merely an academic point. Members may recall the terrible rape and armed robbery case in 1987 that became known as the Ealing vicarage case. The judge's comment was that, as the trauma that was suffered by the rape victim was "not so great", he would be lenient with the convicted rapist. The judge apologised in 1993, but I am not sure that that apology helped matters. What he meant to say—apparently—was that the victim's trauma was "not so great" because she had the support of a good family. That highlights the danger of allowing the apparent emotional impact of crime to influence too strongly the sentencing and prosecution procedure. People do not respond, express their emotions or present themselves in the same way, although the impact of a crime might be just as great.

None of that is to say that victims' impact statements should not be introduced, but they must be piloted carefully, with those concerns borne in mind. We cannot allow a new inconsistency to creep into our sentencing, which is already being criticised from sheriffdom to sheriffdom because of inconsistencies. Will there be a mechanism for ensuring that that cannot happen? If so, what will it be? I hope that the minister will address those points in his summing up and confirm that the action plan is not the end of the story, but the beginning.

I move amendment S1M-1556.1, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:

"recognises the long-standing neglect of victims within the Scottish criminal justice system which the strategy seeks to address, in particular the need for better support and involvement of victims throughout the criminal justice process, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to give higher status to the Victim Steering Group and ensure that sufficient resources are in place for the successful implementation of the Strategy."

As the party that introduced it, the Conservatives support the provision of victim and witness support. We welcome many aspects of the report—there is little in it to disagree with, apart from one thing. The report talks only about review. John Swinney said today that we get review after review from the Scottish Executive. Once again, on this issue, that is what we have in front of us. As we state in our amendment, we are not against the principles that the report sets out, but we feel that we need more action and fewer words.

During the Scottish elections, we set out several actions that the Conservatives intended to take, should we be able to influence the Government directly. We said that it would be our intention to restore the funding of Victim Support Scotland, the cuts to which the Scottish Executive inherited from the Labour Government that was elected in 1997. A freeze was applied, which meant a reduction in real-terms funding to Victim Support Scotland. I welcome the minister's comment that that funding will increase. The volunteers of Victim Support Scotland do a tremendous job and it is good that their efforts are being recognised.

Is Phil Gallie aware of the written answer to a question by Kenny Gibson MSP? That answer set out the real-terms figures for aid to Victim Support Scotland. In 1997-98, that figure was £1,511,000. It dipped in the following year, but the 1999-2000 figure was higher than the 1997-98 figure. In the current year, the figure is again higher than the 1997-98 figure. Does he accept—

All right—Euan Robson makes the point that funding fell back. We are now beginning to regain some ground. Indeed, I have acknowledged that the minister intends to increase the funding and that that increase is welcome.

The Conservatives expressed specific intentions on other issues. On the criminal justice system, we said that we needed to have greater regard for victims' needs and circumstances. We placed specific emphasis on victims of crimes of violence and sexual assault and sought to introduce quickly new technical facilities for use in courts, such as video links and personal support. I recognise that personal support is now increasing with the help of the police and other groups including, again, Victim Support Scotland, but there is a failure to move forward with the use of high-tech facilities to ease victims' way through the courts.

The Conservatives suggested that a victim's impact report should be considered prior to sentencing. I appreciate Roseanna Cunningham's concerns about such reports, but judges and sheriffs exist to make judgments on the information that is provided to them. Witnesses and all who are involved in court cases can provide information in different ways. We feel that the Executive should now move to permit victims to provide impact reports. We do not want further review—we want action now.

We also want an assurance that victims will be told why proceedings are taken or dropped. There seems still to be great reluctance on the part of the Crown Office and the prosecution service to implement that measure, which I believe is essential. In respect of a number of crimes—such as dangerous driving—that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee examined, there is a perception that charges are downgraded when cases go to court. In cases where death has occurred, a charge of dangerous driving might be reduced to a charge of careless driving, with no explanation being given to the victims' families or, in cases where injury has resulted, to the victims themselves. We would have liked such points to be built into the report and we would have liked action to be promised now, rather than in the future. Roseanna Cunningham seems intent on ensuring that meetings take place and that consultation is guaranteed. Meetings are one thing; action is another. I underline again the fact that the Tories seek action in this area.

I have looked through the three provisions. I see that they are fine words, but they are short on actions. I would like to see the victims involved when criminals are considered for parole. All too often, parole boards are heard without any consideration being given to the consequences that an individual's actions have had on the victim, or for the effect that their early release from prison could have on the victim.

I welcome the fact that there is an intention to inform victims when people are released from prison, but I note that the report suggests that that should apply only in cases where the sentence is greater than four years. Why? Many serious offenders have been in prison for fewer than four years. It is just as important that their victims are aware that they are going to appear back on the streets. We should perhaps concentrate also on keeping the police informed, because all too often they seem not to know what has happened in court and are not informed when people who have been a constant threat to society—which the police aim to protect—are brought back into the community.

As I said, I recommend that members support the Conservative amendment. We welcome the overall principles of the strategy, but we do not believe that the pace of change is sufficient for us to support the minister's motion.

I move amendment S1M-1556.2, to leave out from "gives" to end and insert:

"represents a step forward in what has been a lethargic approach by the Scottish Executive."

I acknowledge not only the work of the Executive but the role of victims themselves. They are often characterised, in a debate on victims, as helpless and hopeless or driven by unreasoned revenge and bitterness. Some of the coverage in the past week has suggested that.

That has not been my experience of those whom I have met—whether they are my constituents or in women's organisations or other organisations that support victims. I have been impressed by their strength and their ability to translate their experience into suggestions for change. It is because victims have spoken out about their experiences and have organised to ensure that their voices are heard that we have seen a range of policy developments to address the issues of vulnerable witnesses and women who face violence, and now a strategy for supporting victims. Those have ensured that the issue has been driven up the agenda. I acknowledge the willingness of the Executive to take it on board.

We cannot overemphasise the importance of such a strategy for victims. The standing of the judicial system is damaged when those who come into contact with the legal process, through no fault of their own, end up having no faith in it. There are knock-on consequences, as they might be reluctant to come forward in the future as witnesses or to report other crimes.

Victims must have a place within the process. As one constituent said to me, they must believe that someone is seeking justice on their behalf. That is a challenge to those who prosecute cases in court if our system is to enjoy the confidence of all in our communities.

In the short time that I have to speak, I will highlight some of the important points that have been made to me by one of my constituents, whose brother was tragically murdered and whose other family members were assaulted in a vicious attack. I will focus on some of the key issues that our strategy must address.

Victims and the families of murder victims must receive information about what is happening at every stage. The authorities must show sensitivity and awareness of the fact that sometimes victims and their families and the accused and their families live in the same community. That is especially important in regard to bail decisions and information about release from prison.

Victims must be thought about in relation to the trial. Are the family of the victim to sit with the family of the accused where they may feel harassed, or that they cannot attend, and are thus marginalised even more? What facilities are there for victims within the court system? My constituent described going to court and seeing the accused and their family having the free run of the court and the area outside, while their family were given one small room. What message do we give victims if they are the ones who must be excluded and hidden? What is the balance of rights in the system?

We must recognise the importance of consistent support through the victim support scheme: one person with a good relationship with the family has a crucial role to play.

Will the minister examine some of the anomalies in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? It seems that in this case—when a victim had been assaulted, the person had been found guilty and subsequently appealed—payment could not be made. If the police had been unsuccessful in finding the perpetrator of the crime, the victim would have been given their money.

My constituent made the crucial point to me that although the individuals they met were helpful and kind, the system itself seemed further to victimise her and her family—a family that had already suffered too much.

I refer finally to impact statements. We must see impact statements in the context of understanding the desire of victims to be heard and to have the scale of the effect on them recognised. My constituent described to me the experience of sitting through the trial with all the difficulties of adjournment, bail decisions, the verdict and the sentence. She waited to hear the judge acknowledge and affirm that her brother was an innocent victim; she waited in vain as the judge gave the sentence and nothing more.

We can all think of times when the judge has made a strong statement, but I had not grasped how important it is for families to hear such a statement. It emphasises the importance of proper training for judges and consistency in sentencing and statements by judges. It also illustrates the potential importance of statements by victims, because those allow victims' voices to be heard and enable victims and their families to assert their innocence, the innocence of family members and the significant and devastating effect of the crime on those who suffered it. If impact statements allow that space for victims, we should acknowledge it as an aspect of common humanity that our judicial system must allow.

I welcome the fact that the initiative under discussion today emphasises compassion and respect, and welcome the commitment to a continuing and developing dialogue with victims and victims organisations by the Executive and others. I look forward to seeing how this important strategy for every level of our legal system affects the lives of those who are already victims of crime and those who will, unfortunately, become victims in the future.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. This time last year, I secured a members' business debate on the protection of victims in rape cases. Although I appreciate that this debate centres on all victims of crime, the document has a strong leaning towards victims of domestic abuse, which is the area on which I want to focus.

I welcome the high profile that the Executive has given to domestic abuse; it should be applauded on all its work on the matter, particularly in the past six months. However, I call on it to go further and suggest two Canadian initiatives with a proven track record that would make a significant difference to successful protection of victims' rights within the criminal justice system. The first initiative is the fast-tracking of domestic abuse cases through the criminal justice system and the second, related initiative is the development of specialised domestic violence courts.

Domestic violence cases can take many months to proceed through the fiscal system, which can be a huge burden to the victim. The accused and the accuser could be sharing a house; children could be involved; and it is likely that they will share friends, acquaintances or a neighbourhood. The time delay adds to the already significant pressure on women not to press on with prosecution when charges are first brought.

Steps should be taken to speed up the judicial process so that women are encouraged to access the criminal justice system. Furthermore, there should be measures to ensure that more offenders in domestic abuse cases are brought to justice and that the emotional scars of the victim and any children involved are not increased by the nature of the judicial system.

That aim could be achieved through a specialised domestic violence court system. Although there are several highly effective domestic court systems in Canada, time limits mean that I can mention only the system in Ontario. The Ontario domestic violence courts aim to provide better support for victims and to prosecute domestic violence cases more effectively through early intervention in domestic abuse situations. The system includes an early intervention component that allows offenders to undergo a treatment programme as a condition of bail, which will then be taken into account when they return to court.

The Ontario domestic violence courts have been highly successful; as of February 2000, 69 per cent of the cases resulted in guilty dispositions, 63 per cent of which occurred before the trial, with 22 per cent of the cases withdrawn. The courts also claim to make additional evidence available so that cases can continue even in the face of recantation by the victims. Seventy-six per cent of cases were processed through that facility, 29 per cent with statements from independent witnesses and 24 per cent with evidence of prior convictions.

Domestic violence courts work on a similar principle to specialised drugs courts. Both systems promote treatment programmes alongside the criminal justice system and both recognise the need for lifelong change for offenders as well as emphasising the seriousness of the crime.

The Executive, to its credit, has positively started the journey. I call on the Executive to go the distance by adopting the Canadian initiatives.

I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate. It is a pity that the press gallery is not as full this afternoon as it was earlier today. If more journalists were here now, they could report the real business of the Parliament, which is about delivering for the people out there in a way that will make a difference to their lives.

As someone who has worked for many years with victims of crime, and particularly with children who have been victims of abuse, I am delighted that we have made significant steps. Phil Gallie is not in the chamber at the moment, but I hope that he will reconsider the wording of his amendment. He accuses the Executive of taking "a lethargic approach", but I do not think that that is a fair assessment of the progress that has been made. There are always other things that we want to do and we always want to take further steps forward. Given the constructive comments that he made in his speech, I hope that Phil will consider withdrawing his amendment and supporting the Executive's motion.

I like the idea that there will be an emphasis on information for victims, support for victims and the participation of victims. However, there are a couple of areas of difficulty, which I hope the minister can assure me will continue to be addressed. I understand from local victim support organisations in my constituency that there continues to be a problem with getting information out to victims of crime, partly because of an interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998. I hope that guidance will be given so that it is not just the responsibility of Victim Support Scotland to seek out victims and so that all agencies involved in the process can have adequate training and support to allow them to give victims information and encourage them to use it.

The support and participation of victims is important. The action plan contains a critical statement:

"In Scotland, our legal tradition, based on an adversarial system of justice, puts the Crown in the place of the victim in criminal cases."

In a case in my constituency, a young man who was the victim of a violent crime felt that nothing could have been further from the truth. Although the facts of the matter were put across in the court case, he felt that under no circumstances could anyone representing the Crown ever be able to put across how he felt about the situation. He also felt that he had no opportunity to challenge some of the comments that were made by the defence, casting aspersions on his character, during the court case.

I recognise some of the points that Roseanna Cunningham made about how victim impact statements will be used. Nevertheless, it is vital that victims feel that their voice is heard and their words and feelings are taken into account. Victims do not want to influence sentencing and they do not intend to override the proper procedures, but they want their pain and suffering to be recognised and acknowledged. Johann Lamont eloquently described how people can feel when that does not happen.

I pay tribute to all the organisations and agencies that have worked for many years to highlight the plight of victims, including Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland. In developing any strategy, we must recognise that supporting victims is everyone's responsibility. We cannot leave it solely to voluntary organisations to do that work. I am therefore glad that the Executive has produced a workable strategy. I am glad that the victim support programme will be rolled out into the sheriff courts. There have been some successful pilot schemes, one of them in my constituency, and I know from people who have used that service that it has been absolutely vital in providing them with support.

Information must be given to victims. I well recall working with young women who had suffered sexual abuse and hearing of their real fears that one day they would walk down the street and bump into their abuser, who had been released from prison without anybody letting the victim know. I am glad that that issue will be addressed in the strategy.

As has already been said, we generally welcome much of what is contained in the Executive's proposals. Our submission would be that the proposals do not go far enough. They fall down under a number of headings, including the main heading of the Executive's general strategy on law and order, with which I will deal later, and the specific heading of information.

It is important that victims be apprised of what is happening at every stage. That should happen not only just after the accused person has been charged but throughout the process. It is of vital importance that, after sentencing or the penultimate court appearance, the victim is informed as to whether the accused person is at liberty as a result of parole or release or is at liberty but subject to a current warrant for their arrest, which might be the case if an accused person does not turn up on an occasion on which sentence has been deferred pending the production of background reports—that must be examined.

The most significant problem is delays. The delay in serving indictments in cases in which the accused person is not in custody is a matter for concern because most applications for bail are successful, including those in cases of homicide. That has to be examined closely. The Crown Office is not adopting the correct policy and prioritising cases in which there are vulnerable victims. It has to be remembered that in many parts of Scotland, witnesses are normally victims and victims are normally witnesses. It must be unsettling for people to have to live cheek by jowl with those who have been charged with assaulting them to their severe injury and permanent disfigurement. There are many examples of that happening and the situation must be examined. Such a case should be processed at the earliest opportunity.

I accept what Bill Aitken says, but does he accept that this country probably has one of the fastest justice systems in the world? One will find few countries that deal with serious crime anything like as quickly as we do.

My experience of the legal system outwith the UK is limited, but I submit that it is unacceptable that it should take about eight to nine months to serve an indictment in a case of attempted murder or assault to severe injury. I am sure that Gordon Jackson could give a number of examples of where that has occurred.

I would like to say that one of the ways in which we could ease the problem would be to cut the number of victims. I know that, in suggesting that, I am seeking the ideal world and that the matter is more complicated than the simplistic solutions would suggest. I suggest, however, that some of the messages that are being sent out by the Executive are not likely to cut the number of victims and are not likely significantly to cut crime—indeed, in some respects, they will contribute towards an increase in crime in the years ahead. The closure of prisons and the increased use of diversion from prosecution in summary cases send out a message that the Executive, the Government and society are more tolerant of crime than they should be.

It is clear, if one examines the career of any criminal, that what starts off as a young lad's indulging in things that he should not indulge in graduates quickly to the higher courts. I have had people appear before me in the district court who, five years later, have been facing a High Court murder indictment. The lesson that is to be learned is that if one is firm when dealing with the initial aspects of criminal behaviour, one hopes that the graduation process will not occur.

I would like to narrate a case that happened in my constituency, which encapsulates all that is wrong with the system. Before I begin, I should point out that the Executive intervened positively. Two elderly sisters living together had their door forced open by two young lads. They did not steal a lot but, in the course of a brief struggle, one of the ladies had her arm broken.

The case lay and lay, and only after my involvement and the positive intervention of the Lord Advocate was the case moved forward. I am told that the lady is now seriously ill in hospital, and that it seems unlikely that she will have her day in court. All the time that the case was outstanding, not one aspect of the information and support that we would seek to enforce was evident. That encapsulates the whole difficulty. The Executive's proposals should, in theory, reduce instances of such cases, but we are not yet going far enough. I commend Mr Gallie's amendment to the Parliament.

I can understand the political reasons behind the Scottish National Party amendment's hair splitting, but that should not detract from the fine, thoughtful contribution made by Roseanna Cunningham. I hope that the Executive considers carefully some of the points made in her speech.

In their amendment, the Conservatives yet again, and unsurprisingly, show that they are out of touch with just about everybody, including members of the many victim support groups who commented this week on the Executive's strategy.

It is taken as read that more needs to be done to help the victims of crime, and we recognise their suffering and the trauma. Roseanna Cunningham touched on some important issues, including the need for us to be extremely careful, when trying to help and protect victims, not to cause further injustice. We have had some high-profile cases—many of which have been in England, although some have been in Scotland—in which innocent people have been wrongly convicted. In some of the best-known cases, such as the Birmingham six and the Guildford four, if we had taken statements from the victims at the time, it would have compounded further some of the injustice had it not been handled properly.

We should realise that, in many such cases, the people who are sent to jail are also victims. I am about to write to the Minister for Justice about a case from my constituency. A constituent of mine was falsely accused of abusing a member of his family. His children were taken from him, he and his wife were locked up and the case was eventually dropped because there was no evidence whatever. That constituent felt that he was a victim because there were no apologies from the social work department or from the police. All he got, all the way through, was aggression. It nearly destroyed that man's marriage and caused a rift in his family, which will never be healed. We must consider what happens to such victims.

Having said all that, it is fundamentally true that not enough has been done over the years to help victims. Aside from the three principles that Jim Wallace mentioned, the justice system must protect the innocent. It must also help the victims and punish the guilty. I am glad that the Executive's strategy is part of the broader strategy that it is developing, in which issues of justice and crime are being given far more prominence and significance than has been the case for many years. We need to recognise the feelings of powerlessness and helplessness that victims face, and the fact that their confidence is totally destroyed by the trauma that they have experienced.

That means helping victims to articulate their experience, so that those in the court system and the justice system are aware of exactly what happened to them. However, we cannot leave it at that. There are many practical things that victims have to be helped with. We must help them to put their lives back together again and to deal with members of their family, as they sometimes cannot articulate the problems that they are facing. We need to help them deal with insurance companies and glaziers, for example, in cases where doors and windows have to be replaced. We must help victims who are going through the very bureaucratic system when they are asked to give evidence.

I am glad that the Executive is proceeding as it is, but I urge the Minister for Justice, in taking this positive step forward, to recognise that there are sometimes other difficulties and to be careful that we do not create further injustices and problems.

The debate is welcome, as is the publication of the Executive documents, which will make a considerable difference. After the evidence given to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, no one could be in any doubt that the legal system has not recognised the role of victims. The Minister for Justice's words that

"we want a place for victims at the heart of the system."

are correct and most welcome.

The three pillars of the Scottish strategy identify the key areas; the first two are practical support and information. There is so much to be done at a practical level. In my previous professional career, I visited a number of sheriff courts around Scotland; if I had done so 100 years ago, I would have seen the same facilities. In some places, it is a matter not just of recognising cultural and language difficulties but of the sheer impossibility of hearing the proceedings. Not long ago, I dealt with a constituency case when we had to ask for a sound system so that those participating could hear the proceedings. As has been said, sometimes witnesses, victims and alleged perpetrators are all in one room. In one particular sheriff court I remember—north of the Forth—everyone was in one corridor together.

Simple things could be done, and the strategy marks them out. It will mean that in due course, as victims have more confidence in the process and as some of those simple things, as well as the more complicated things, are addressed, there will be more reporting of crime. It is important to ensure that victims have confidence in the system and are prepared to use it.

Written statements to parole boards by victims are perhaps the area that has caused the greatest concern since the publication of the documents. It is right to allow that participation, but there is a line that must not be crossed. I have heard some victims of horrendous crimes asking for a role in sentencing; that would not be appropriate. As Roseanna Cunningham eloquently said, there are inconsistencies in sentencing, but it is equally the case that verbal presentations to the court could add further inconsistencies and would be counter-productive.

Much can be done by changing the atmosphere in courts. Hugh Henry mentioned victims' difficulties with such simple things as double-glazing disputes and other consumer matters that appear at first sight to be something for civil law. Not so—there are many occasions when such disputes are first the subject of criminal proceedings.

I recall a carbon monoxide poisoning case when there were breaches of statutory regulations. Provisions in sections 249 to 253 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 allow sheriffs in those circumstances to award compensation during the course of criminal proceedings. That is a particularly valuable statute but it is not much used, because when the conviction and the £200, £300 or £400 fine have been imposed, the victim must then seek civil redress and repeat the whole process. If sheriffs made more use of some of the tools that are at their disposal in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, they could make a considerable difference for the victims of such crimes.

I have no hesitation in welcoming the strategy, which will be a developing programme in the years to come. It is a good start to which I am pleased to add my support.

Victims undergo several traumas. They suffer the crime itself, which could be violence against the person or a break-in at their house. Sometimes, having a break-in is enough to cause victims an awful lot of nervous debility. That affects elderly people particularly, because they feel that the one place that they thought was secure and a sanctuary has been invaded by some strange outside forces. When that happens, they will never feel secure for the remaining few years of their lives. That can happen to younger people too, never mind older people.

Another type of victim, who is becoming more common, is the sufferer of violent assault, which may happen in the street and be caused by unknown people, one unknown individual or someone who is known to the victim. I have always felt that some of the giant housing schemes where crime is fairly rampant are the places where victims suffer the most.

When I was leader of the council in Glasgow 20-odd years ago, I recall being taken into the Blackhill area. That was during the daytime, but the place was still pretty fearsome. We spoke to some people there, and I thought that the vast bulk were decent, ordinary people with the same ambitions as the rest of us, yet they had a fear of some gangs and some elements. That was another group of victims. It included people such as parents who were worried about their children, especially as they grew that bit older and became teenagers, because then they too were in danger of becoming victims.

I also remember talking to the then chief constable in the area about victims and getting convictions in the courts. He said that convictions often depended on witnesses, but that in some cases witnesses would not come forward because they thought that they would not receive adequate protection. I asked about resettling witnesses; he said that there was not enough money to resettle all the witnesses who would require it.

The issue is complex. I am not making some barbaric Tory utterance; underlying the issue is a feeling that the perpetrators are not always dealt with sufficiently severely. We have some lawyers in here and even a Queen's counsel or two, but the vast bulk of the population have never set foot in a court. We should not forget that. If those people must set foot in court, particularly as victims, the experience can be terrifying, because they are not used to the forum. Most have never spoken in front of a large number of people and, in particular, will not have suffered cross-examination, which quite often happens. That is an additional strain. I recall one individual who had to take a course of medication for nerves because of the experience.

I have appeared only once in a higher court as a witness—in the Court of Session, on behalf of Pat Lally. I was no victim. I do not know whether any victims were involved. Kenny Gibson was present too. We felt that much could have been done to improve the court procedure.

We probably all agree that victims undergo a vast number of strains and problems. We must try to take cognisance of that, because when the trial is over—irrespective of its outcome—the experience can live with victims for a long time, and in some cases for ever.

We will proceed to the winding-up speeches. We are almost back on schedule.

The strategy document and the action plan clearly make the case that the Parliament cares about victims.

Phil Gallie has been somewhat unfair. I subscribe to what my colleagues have said about his description of the Executive as being lethargic in its approach. If he examined the strategy document, he would see that it sets out over 14 bullet points the initiatives that it has taken to deliver for victims. However, a great deal of work requires to be done to ensure that the full package is brought together. It is clearly unfair to accuse the Scottish Executive of lethargy when one examines those points—quite apart from the package itself. In his closing speech, Phil Gallie should be more specific about the areas in which he believes there has been a lethargic approach.

We must consider training court staff to be able to deal with victims. In my experience of dealing with constituents who have been through the system, it is clear that they believe that there is nothing in place to ensure that officials are trained to deal with a difficult period for victims. In his closing speech, perhaps the minister could deal with the proposal of setting up a certificated training programme to ensure that those who work in the criminal justice system are qualified to deal with those issues.

There has recently been a great debate on whether victims should have the opportunity to provide evidence. I refer members to the case of my constituent, Elizabeth McGrath. Sadly, her partner, Michael McManus, was murdered on his way to Baird Street police office, where he worked as a caretaker. Michael was portrayed in the media as a workplace bully, which greatly concerned Elizabeth, as he was a hardworking individual. Many words have been spoken by police officers and by the people who worked with Michael about how hardworking he was. If Elizabeth had been given an opportunity to give evidence that had not been raised by the prosecution during the court trial, she would have been able to ensure that Michael was portrayed as that hardworking individual going about his daily business.

That example makes the case for giving victims the opportunity to give evidence during court proceedings. We must consider in further detail how to make progress on that proposal.

I advise Paul Martin that I will not be winding up the debate for the Conservatives. However, it is only fair that I give several examples in response to his comments.

We looked for action—not a review—on the matter that Paul Martin just raised. We wanted implementation now, and covered that issue in our manifesto. We could act on sentencing and automatic remission now without waiting, and we believe that those issues are missing from the strategy, which is why we believe that the Government is being lethargic.

If Phil Gallie read the document, he would see that it makes clear the Scottish Executive's wish to take action on those issues. We cannot be accused of being lethargic for not going straight into the process without ensuring that the system that we introduce will be effective for victims—although we could be accused of being methodical. The system never worked for victims in the past. Roseanna Cunningham made the relevant point that that has been the case for centuries.

Victims are not provided with sufficient information during court trials. I am pushed for time, but I will mention the information that is provided to victims.

Briefly.

It is of particular concern to victims that they do not have access to court transcripts unless, as happened in a case about which I have been told, they pay £792 per day of evidence. The minister should ensure that victims have access to court transcripts, perhaps through the website that is being set up.

I hate to disappoint, but we will maintain our position on the lethargy of the Executive on this matter. I know that some people might find that hard to believe, as Phil Gallie has made very positive comments about the strategy, but I think that we should be running instead of walking.

I welcome many of the details in the strategy, such as the increase in funding for Victim Support Scotland, which is long overdue and for which that organisation and everyone else involved in the system will be grateful.

I was very interested in Roseanna Cunningham's speech. It was heartwarming to hear the comparison between those who are willing to give victim impact statements and those who might not be. Sandy Brindley was excellent when she highlighted the differences in people's reactions. We cannot all have the same reaction to the same assault. Everyone is an individual and should be treated as such. The majority of victims will be in court only once in their lives and will have that opportunity only once. Roseanna Cunningham was right to point out that those people go to court with no legal rights.

Many members will know of cases in which victims have been referred to not by name but just as "the victim". They have to live through a very insensitive procedure. In considering the impact on victims and how services can be improved, I think that even naming them and acknowledging their existence has to be a step forward.

I agree with Roseanna Cunningham's cautionary comment on what is likely to happen. She has experience of court, as does the minister, and I, like several other members, have been in court in a minor capacity, but there are some members who have never seen what goes on in a court.

I have emphasised that we will not withdraw Phil Gallie's amendment, but we give reserved applause for what the minister has said. As Phil Gallie said, we have supported Victim Support Scotland since its inception and will not desert it now.

I was touched by Johann Lamont's comments about conditions for victims. From my experience of the court in which I worked, I know that it is difficult to provide facilities for victims and for those who are about to be tried. We put far too much emphasis on the people who are in court to defend themselves and not enough on those who have already been offended by the system and the alleged criminal.

Johann Lamont also rightly highlighted consistency of sentencing. She spoke about the sense of closure that was felt by the lady to whom she referred. That is valuable for many victims, who often do not feel that their difficulties have been recognised. Closure is a horrible American expression, but it is appropriate. If victims feel that their views have been taken into account at the end of a case, they feel a sense of closure and have an opportunity to stop and get on with the rest of their lives. There is no reason why every crime should have an impact that goes far beyond its seriousness. Closure is important.

We always rely on Gil Paterson to keep us up to date with what is happening elsewhere. I am sure that we will all value the opportunity to consider the Ontario experience.

Cathy Jamieson commented on the emptiness of the press gallery. Look at it—the same thing happens in every debate on a subject that is seen as a women's issue. This is not a women's issue: men are victims as well.

I am too constrained for time to comment on Bill Aitken's speech and I am sorry if Hugh Henry thinks that we are out of touch. Mr Ewing commented on the practicalities. All those things can be taken into account.

Consensus is breaking out, which is a nice way to end the week. I think that everyone here agrees that victims being given their proper place in the criminal justice system is long overdue. I would like to associate myself with Johann Lamont's words on the progress that has been made through pure victim pressure and through the organisations that represent victims. For far too long, we have been treating victims—and I use that word in all its senses, to include the families that are affected—in a casual manner that did no credit to the justice system.

There has been a long history of non-communication. I say to Bill Aitken that the first time that I, as a civil lawyer, walked into a criminal court, I did not have a clue what was going on—not a sausage. Everybody was whispering at the desk. Anyone who came in, either as a witness or as an observer, had even less chance than I did of understanding what was happening. At least I was allowed to go to the desk. Then there were the negotiations and the whispers between the procurator fiscal, the sheriff and the clerk. Nobody told the witnesses who had turned up, or who had been sent home if there was an adjournment, anything.

All those problems could be remedied simply, by practical measures. I hope that the strategy paper addresses that. I note, Mr Wallace, that the word victim refers also to families of those who have been killed as a result of a criminal offence or a road accident. That is important.

I would like to emphasise a couple of points that were made by Roseanna Cunningham on communication. Communication should take account of cultural and linguistic difficulties. I suggest that it should also take account of the different levels of understanding—for whatever reasons; for example, stress—among our fellow men and women. One must be patient with people when explaining things to them. One must not drift into legalese, which is so easy for those of us in the profession. We talk about pleas in mitigation, but what does that mean to people who are involved in cases?

The minister spoke about financial support. I want to emphasise the importance of central core funding. Many organisations, such as the Scottish Rape Crisis Network and the refuges for victims of domestic violence that Gil Paterson referred to, have to grub around for several sources of funding—and they have to do so annually. Most of us—although perhaps I am wrong to speak for others in the chamber—know that that is the case. I have raised the issue of funding for refuges in my area with Jackie Baillie, the Minister for Social Justice. It would help if those refuges had secure funding, so that they could plan for the coming years.

Roseanna Cunningham also referred to the victims steering group. It will be important to find out what its standing will be in consultations, Mr Wallace, and how inclusive it will be.

Victim impact statements are very important in this discussion. Like others, I have great reservations about them. I listened carefully to what Cathy Jamieson said. She feels that people just want to be heard and do not want to influence the sentencing, but that could be an indirect result of going down the route of such statements. They would be given in public, the press would get hold of them and there would perhaps—I say, perhaps—be impacts on the justice system that we would not want.

It is very important that victims are involved, but I go back to evidence that we heard at the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. I asked a question, honestly seeking information, and expected the Scottish Rape Crisis Network to echo what Victim Support Scotland had said to us on victim impact statements. Victim Support Scotland was generally in favour of them, but Sandy Brindley took me aback when she said that such statements would be of limited value and that rape crisis centres did not see them as a priority. She also said that there would be a hierarchy of impacts and that different people react in different ways. I was taken aback.

We have to address the issue, and not put it away for ever. In many cases, the victim is the key witness when a case goes to trial. I accept that there are difficulties if a case does not go to trial.

It would be churlish not to give a warm welcome to the initiative, but I would like the minister to address the issues that I have raised and tell us whether there is a time scale for assessing the impact of the strategy. How will it be monitored so that the justice system and the Parliament can assess whether it is progressing and evolving?

I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. It has been useful and, as Christine Grahame said, consensus is breaking out. Where there have been differences, they have for the most part been raised to tease out the details or to make some interesting suggestions—as Gil Paterson did.

We all attach importance to the place of victims in our criminal justice system. We all agree that, for too long, that importance has not been recognised in practice. As Christine Grahame said, often—although not always—the victim is the key witness. Therefore, we depend on the co-operation of victims to bring people to justice. It is only right and proper that we put victims at the heart of the system.

It is not simply a matter of resources, although I was pleased to announced additional funding today. It is not even simply a question of having services in place. It is about treating the victims of crime with the respect and dignity that is their due and recognising the role that they can play. We have not always succeeded in that. Where we have not succeeded, we must learn the lessons and strive to do better. The strategy brings with it better monitoring and greater transparency, all of which should make the learning process more effective.

Roseanna Cunningham mentioned resources, domestic abuse and her feeling that there is some inconsistency. Her points were echoed by Christine Grahame. It is only fair to recognise the resources that have been put in: £2 million for the Lord Advocate's victim liaison office; up to £1 million annually for the fully rolled out witness service; £25 million contributed by Scotland to the criminal injuries compensation scheme; the £18 million that has been put into the domestic abuse strategy. The domestic abuse strategy was debated in the Parliament quite recently, following the report from the Scottish partnership on domestic abuse. That is national funding.

Will the minister accept that the real difficulty arises in the local authority funding decision-making process? We have heard plenty of examples of parts of the country where rape crisis centres and Women's Aid refuges have come under severe threat—even threat of closure—because of local decisions. That needs to be addressed as much as the national funding.

I know that Roseanna Cunningham does not begrudge the national funding. I should also make it clear that £3 million of new money has been provided to local authorities to work with their local partners to improve provision in their areas. Now that the Executive has managed to put local authority funding on a three-year basis, local authorities should find forward planning, which has not always been possible in the past, a little easier.

Roseanna Cunningham asked about the victims steering group, its status and the frequency of its meetings. The justice department is establishing a dedicated unit to support the victims steering group. The group currently meets three times a year and that will be reviewed as necessary. It is my intention to chair the group. Currently, Victim Support Scotland represents the interests of other voluntary groups, but we want to consider how wider views can be fed in. Although the victims steering group does not have executive powers, its agencies are autonomous. Earlier, I said that the group will have the important role of monitoring the development of the action plan. It is not a static action plan. We want to ensure that it develops and that the agencies that sign up to the strategy are delivering.

There has been considerable discussion about victim impact statements. Hugh Henry made the fair point that in trying to achieve justice, we should not create other injustices. I think that it was Johann Lamont who made the point that the important thing is the victim having the opportunity to be heard. We want to consider this matter carefully. A pilot scheme is being implemented, which is why we cannot rush into this issue. As Phil Gallie said, and as this debate has shown, many sensibilities are involved and we will have to proceed carefully. There must be a clear understanding and clear expectations.

To answer Roseanna Cunningham's question on the point at which the statement would be made, it could be made at a number of points. A statement could be made at an early stage, but I would be the first to recognise that the impact on a victim can change over time, and therefore by the time the case comes to court, there could—

Will the minister give way?

No, I want to answer as many questions as possible.

There should be an opportunity for the victim to update their statement. I was asked whether the statement would be available to the Parole Board. Currently, statements are available to the Parole Board. I suspect that many victims do not realise that. However, a statement may not reach the Parole Board until many years after the crime, and the victim may be able to give a lot of other relevant information at that stage. We want to ensure that the information is available at that time as well.

Phil Gallie asked why there should be a four-year limit. In fact, if he reads the action plan, he will see that we want to

"Work to extend the current system",

which provides

"information on the release of prisoners serving sentences of 4 years or more".

We want to extend that, taking into account the fact that some people serve sentences of less than four years, and the fact that, perhaps in the immediate aftermath of a trial, someone may say that they do not want to know any more about the matter, but when time has passed they may want to know when someone is being released. We want to improve mechanisms so that victims can get that information if they want it. It is important to emphasise that there may be cases when victims do not want to have further information, which has to be respected.

Bill Aitken said that statements could be given right through the process, up to the Parole Board. Cathy Jamieson asked about the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 on referrals to Victim Support Scotland. We are aware of the problem. We know that there is a view that the opt-out procedure may contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. It is our intention to work with Victim Support Scotland to make sure that information is available and that victims have access to help if they need it. Indeed, we are working closely with the Home Office on that point.

I reassure Euan Robson that the Scottish Court Service is trying to provide separate facilities for Crown and defence witnesses. Next year, £11 million will be available for court capital building and maintenance costs. I reassure Paul Martin that an increasing number of front-line staff in the criminal justice agencies are being trained in victim awareness.

In conclusion, after 18 years in government, it does not behove the Conservatives to describe us as lethargic when, within 18 months, we have produced this action plan. I hope that I have reassured the SNP that considerable resources are being provided. It is not just a question of resources, but they are available. The victims steering group has an important status in our view. I ask the SNP to withdraw its amendment. We all recognise the important role of victims in the criminal justice system and are jointly determined to ensure that victims get a better deal from it. We are intent on doing that with the strategy and the action plan, and I commend the motion, and the strategy and action plan, to the chamber.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether this is a point of order as defined in standing orders, but the temperature in the chamber this afternoon has been dropping as the hours go by, to the point that it has become uncomfortable. I am well aware that that might be partly a function of the lack of bodies for the debate this afternoon, but could you check the situation, because it has been appalling?

I undertake to look into that.