Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5337, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill be passed. I call Cathy Jamieson to speak to and move the motion.
It is Johann Lamont.
I beg your pardon. That is not what it says in my script.
There you are. See what happens when we rip up the script.
The Executive has much to be proud of in the reforms to Scotland's justice system that it has delivered. Many of the proposals that were outlined in our criminal justice plan, which was published in 2004, are already making a positive difference to the lives of ordinary people up and down the country day in, day out. We have record numbers of police officers—an increase of nearly 1,500 since 1999—on our streets; more crimes are being solved than ever; serious violent crime is on the decrease; and serious criminals are being hit hard through the seizure and disposal of assets that are then put to use to further improve our communities.
We have reformed the operation of Scotland's High Court, leading to fewer adjournments and sparing thousands of witnesses the stress of unnecessary trips to court. Our antisocial behaviour legislation is making a real difference in tackling the scourge of antisocial behaviour and is helping people and communities to fight back and reclaim their local areas for the benefit of the law-abiding majority.
We have tackled the justice agenda from all angles, addressing the causes of crime, the effects of crime and, just as important, the systems that are needed to deal with crime and make Scotland safer. The Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill is an important part of that process and reflects the importance of not only the aspiration to reform, but the practical detail and procedure that must be developed to fulfil that aspiration.
Reform of the summary justice system is critical. The vast majority of offenders first come into contact with the criminal justice system at the summary level, so a quick and effective response to offending can stop a life of crime in its tracks. The summary process can and must play its part in reducing offending and reoffending, and the bill will allow it to do just that. It will ensure that public safety and the interests of the law-abiding majority are put first. It will improve the speed and efficiency of the system and ensure that it plays its part in reducing reoffending.
I thank the Justice 1 Committee for its detailed scrutiny throughout the bill's parliamentary progress. That scrutiny has led to a number of positive changes. I give the committee my personal thanks for tolerating me when I took on the final stage 2 meeting at short notice. I thank Hugh Henry, who preceded me as Deputy Minister for Justice and oversaw the process so effectively that there was little for me to worry about when I came into post. I also thank the bill team, which was able to ensure that I was briefed appropriately to pursue the last stages of the bill's progress.
The consensus that has emerged at stage 3 does not mean that we are dealing with issues that do not matter, but is a reflection of the fact that the committee team, the ministerial team and the bill team worked hard together to address the issues. That work has paid a dividend in our having a largely consensual stage 3 debate, and I acknowledge the hard work of all the people who were involved in the process.
The bill sets out the law on bail clearly and makes it easier for the public to understand. In response to a committee recommendation, we lodged a stage 2 amendment to make it absolutely clear that consideration of public safety is always part of the bail decision. If an accused is charged with a serious violent, sexual or drugs offence and has a previous record for such offending, the court should grant bail only in exceptional circumstances.
Penalties for breach of bail are increased. An accused who is given bail will be in no doubt that they are in a position of trust. If they abuse that trust, action will be taken. Judges will be required to make their decisions clear and to explain the consequences of breaching bail, thereby improving clarity and underlining the responsibilities on the accused. Nothing in the bill will change the fact that courts make individual bail decisions. It is right that the courts make those decisions, but it is also right that the Parliament sets the parameters within which the decisions are reached. That is what we are doing through the bill. Through the provisions of the bill, we seek to ensure that there will be increased respect for bail and increased public confidence in the justice system, and that people living in communities throughout Scotland can have safer daily lives.
The bill reforms a number of procedures in the summary system that are sometimes seen as slow and bureaucratic and which have caused concern to victims, witnesses and the communities that have been subject to offending. We have listened to those concerns and we have responded. The bill makes detailed changes to criminal procedures, which, taken together, will lead to greater efficiency, less inconvenience for victims and witnesses and swifter punishment of those who offend, which underlines the fact that low-level crime will be dealt with effectively by the system.
The bill reforms the structures of the summary system. It makes sense for the Scottish Court Service to run district courts, because it is a specialist court provider whose main task is to run the courts effectively. The bill also increases the disposals that are available for tackling offending quickly and effectively. It increases the availability of alternatives to prosecution and allows the right disposal to be used at the right time.
Through the introduction of fines enforcement officers, fines will be robustly enforced against those who can pay but choose not to, ensuring that the fine is a credible and effective disposal and that the judicial system is no longer an unwilling partner in an individual's desire to seek headlines, as a result of which they end up in court instead of paying a fine that they can afford. Fines enforcement officers will have smart enforcement powers to use against those who have the means to pay but choose not to do so. The ability to deduct fines directly from salaries and from moneys that are held in bank accounts, coupled with the fact that the officer will be a dedicated case manager for the enforcement of fines, will ensure that fine defaulters are not able to frustrate the aims of justice by wilfully not paying their fines and ending up in jail.
There are, of course, those who want to pay their fines but who have genuine difficulty in making payment. Those individuals will be offered advice and assistance to ensure that they pay their fine in a way that they can manage. The combination of hard-edged enforcement and access to advice will ensure that imprisonment for fine default is a genuine last resort.
The bill will revitalise Scotland's long-standing practice of lay justice. Lay justices play a crucial part in giving communities a direct link with their justice system. However, it must be more than just a tradition. Reforms to the recruitment, appointment, training and appraisal of justices of the peace will ensure that they play a leading role in the reformed system.
A programme of practical work is already under way to ensure that the reforms will be effectively implemented. The reforms will help us realise our 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 am very much aware that I have come into the process at a late stage and that the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, has been there throughout a very long process, which started long before the introduction of the bill. It is a privilege for me to have become engaged in the process at a late stage in the scrutiny of significant legislation. I thank all those who did all the hard preceding work.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I, too, am tempted to rip up my script and to see what happens. Today's stage 3 has, in fact, been finely scripted. The fact that we had only 65 amendments at stage 3 for a substantial bill suggests that the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill might be a model from which we can learn and which, I hope, we can replicate. Stage 3 proceedings for some other bills have involved hundreds of amendments—indeed, it has been known for there to be more than 1,000 amendments to a bill. That indicates not only a degree of consensus on this bill but, more critically, a degree of engagement by all parties.
I was slightly surprised—I might have missed this—that the minister did not thank John McInnes, who was the moving spirit behind much of what is happening. Perhaps we will hear that later. I think that John McInnes was misled by accountants as far as JPs were concerned, but we have rescued that matter and we have reinvented the JP court for another generation. I think that there is widespread welcome for that across the chamber.
The key thing that we seek to do in the bill is to move people out of courts, by ensuring that they can be dealt with directly by the fiscal, and, of course, out of prison, through the use of fines enforcement officers and other measures. Broadly, there is support across the chamber for that. Accordingly, at decision time—which might be somewhat earlier than scheduled—we will support the bill.
Let us examine the tests that we should apply later to determine whether the bill has been successful. The bill promises tighter conditions and increased penalties for breach of bail. Given that the public have certainly been concerned—perhaps on an ill-informed basis—about the way in which the bail system works, it would be widely welcomed if the bill could deliver improvements in that area.
With regard to undertakings, we are not wholly convinced that the bill will deliver as much as people have suggested. However, we will give the proposal a fair wind by supporting it and seeing what happens.
If there is a reduction in the number of people who fail to appear in court because people know that trials in absence will be part of the way in which they might be dealt with, we will know that there has been success in that regard. I continue to have an instinctive discomfort about trial in absence, but I recognise that, practically, we have to engage with it.
There is further extension of the use of electronics to sustain, support and improve the efficiency of the system in a variety of ways. I am not sure that everyone in the criminal justice system understands some of the limitations of using e-mail to engage with the public, which arise from the fact that we cannot directly control the public's end of the e-mail system. However, within the criminal justice system, e-mail is valuable because the internal system can be controlled in a stable way and we can always be sure of exactly what is going on.
The fiscal's role will become more important. That will be quite a challenge for fiscals. There will be an increased use of fiscal fines and fiscal compensation orders. I have spoken about some of my reservations in that area and have had a degree of reassurance from ministers in that regard. I shall be watching carefully to see how the system works in practice.
I retain substantial discomfort about the issue of deemed acceptance. We will know whether it is a problem and whether I am right to have some discomfort about the issue in several years' time rather than a few months' time.
I welcome the fact that MSPs, among others, will no longer be able to play the system and cost the prison service huge amounts of money by choosing, for the sake of gesture politics, to go to prison instead of paying their fines.
I welcome the fact that we have engaged with and sought to reform the summary justice system. It is the core of our court system. I wish the reforms success, but we will watch certain aspects of them sceptically. I congratulate all who have been involved in the reforms.
I thank the Justice 1 Committee clerks for their help and support during the various stages of the bill, which was introduced in February 2006.
The introduction to the committee's stage 1 report quotes the Executive as saying:
"Taken together these measures represent the most radical reform programme of the Scottish criminal justice system for a generation."
The proposals are certainly radical, particularly with regard to trial in absence and the opt-out requirement in relation to the offer of a fiscal fine, which will, otherwise, be automatically deemed to have been accepted. However, I caution the Executive to remember that being radical is not necessarily a virtue in itself. I remain concerned about the provisions for trial in absence, which have been passed with the best of intentions but which will, I fear, affect disproportionately some of the most vulnerable people in our society; I refer to those with chaotic lifestyles that are due, more often than not, to their dependence on drugs or alcohol.
On a more positive note, I welcome the provisions relating to bail and remand, which will tighten bail provisions and make the reasons for granting or refusing bail much more transparent. I hope that they will also negate the unintended consequences resulting from the incorporation of the European convention on human rights directly into Scots law and lead to a much stricter regime for granting bail that puts public safety firmly first. I acknowledge and commend the excellent work that was done on that by the committee chaired by Sheriff Principal McInnes and the Sentencing Commission.
More generally, although many of the procedural provisions are to be welcomed in principle, the devil, as always, is in the detail. It would have been preferable for the Lord Advocate's guidance to be published in advance of the passing of the bill to allow proper scrutiny of proposals, for example in relation to liberation on undertaking. I request that the minister takes that point on board in an effort to ensure that, whenever possible, such guidance is available much earlier in the legislative process.
The provisions contained in part 3 relating to fines enforcement officers will be interesting to monitor in order to establish whether they result in an increase in the numbers of wilful fine defaulters being dealt with appropriately in the recovery of fines.
Part 4 addresses the lay justice system and district courts. It contains good provisions, which will strengthen those courts' effectiveness. However, I regret that the minister has again rejected the opportunity to increase the range of disposals that are available to JPs by not including drug treatment and testing orders and community service orders. I do not pretend to be other than disappointed. That important issue has again been kicked into the long grass, with yet more vague promises of review and evaluation, perhaps when appropriate, leading to the disposals—which JPs themselves have requested—being made available.
I acknowledge and commend Sheriff Principal McInnes and his committee for its excellent work in producing the McInnes report, which has helped in no small measure to shape this important bill. Despite the reservations that we have expressed about certain aspects of the bill, taken as a whole it has much to commend it, which is why the Scottish Conservatives will support it.
I rise to support the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill.
The bill addresses and changes a number of important areas. Since I was elected in 2003, the Scottish Executive has embarked on a comprehensive programme of improvement of the criminal justice system, the aim being to improve the High Court and, in the case of the bill, sheriff courts and district courts, which are now to be called justice of the peace courts. The bill addresses a number of important issues, such as bail, speeding up some criminal proceedings, increases in sentencing powers and alternatives to prosecution.
The two main areas of the bill that I will address are the reform of the collection of fines and the replacement of district courts by justice of the peace courts. However, I will first address an issue that gave the Justice 1 Committee some cause for concern: trial in the absence of the accused. I understand the concern expressed by many on the issue, but from my own experiences I believe that we need to give much more help to witnesses and victims. When the deputy minister came to the committee at stage 2—I think that it was Johann Lamont, although it might have been Hugh Henry—she told us that in 2002-03 4,000 cases had to be delayed and some abandoned because the accused failed to turn up at their trial. The message to those accused, and most importantly to their solicitors, is that we will no longer accept deliberate delays in trials.
On fine defaulters, it was estimated in 2003-04 that of the £15.2 million of fines that was imposed in the sheriff court, 80 per cent was collected, which left £3 million unpaid. At the same time, in the district court the amount of fines imposed was £14.07 million, which is approximately the same. It is difficult to assess collection rates in the district court, but we can assume that it is approximately the same, thus leaving £3 million uncollected.
The McInnes committee stated:
"The enforcement system as it is at present, while successful in collecting and accounting for payments which are made, fails to secure prompt payment of sums which those fined are unwilling to pay and does not cope well with those who genuinely cannot pay."
I hope that the introduction of fines enforcement officers will keep many more defaulters out of prison, which is surely an aim shared by us all. Their introduction will free up much police time through reducing the number of means inquiry warrants and will free up much court time, as only after all efforts by fines enforcement officers have failed will we see offenders back in court.
On JP courts, I am glad that the Executive did not take up the suggestion made by McInnes to abolish district courts. I had concerns during stages 1 and 2 about some aspects of the bill relating to JP courts. For example, the question of all existing JPs doing court duty horrified not only me but most clerks throughout Scotland. I am pleased that the issues were sorted out at stage 2.
Although I welcome the fact that JP courts will now come under the responsibility of the Scottish Court Service, it is still of some concern that it will take a considerable time to implement the change throughout Scotland.
I always thought as a JP in Edinburgh that our training was adequate but that it was a bit haphazard throughout Scotland, so I was keen to see a commitment to improve training. I am therefore pleased that the Deputy Minister for Justice gave that commitment at stage 2.
Considerable concern was expressed that in the long term there was a desire to see JP courts disappear and that they would end up dealing only with theft and not much else. Again, I am pleased that at stage 2 the deputy minister gave us reassurance.
I am sure that, as the bill stands, justice dispensed by JPs will be considerably enhanced. I repeat that I am pleased that the Executive has retained what is in my view an essential part of the justice system.
The bill is very much to be welcomed, and I will support it at decision time.
I thank the clerks to the committee, committee members, both deputy ministers—Johann Lamont and Hugh Henry—who listened to the committee, and the bill team, which spent a lot of time with us.
I emphasise to members that although we may have set a trend today by concluding the debate on the amendments early, they should not get used to it. Members should not make the mistake of thinking that there was not a lot of hard work in ensuring that there is a consensus. That work was cross-party and also involved the police and the Crown Office. We wanted to understand the bill's provisions. The point was not to change everything but to understand what was in the bill.
I will draw attention to a few issues, as it is important to clarify the meaning of some provisions in the bill. In reforming summary justice, it was not as easy to put our finger on the big idea as it might have been in reforming the High Court system. The collection of reforms has the potential to speed up and improve the system, make it more efficient and force all those involved in the criminal justice system to think about their role.
The bail provisions in section 1, which apply to solemn and summary proceedings, are important. The committee pointed out that we were looking for clarity. Section 1 is not an exhaustive summary of all the reasons for sheriffs to refuse bail, but it is a good summary of them.
Other provisions in the bill deal with how to remove the churn in the system. Alternatives to prosecution can take more people out of the system. Giving fiscals the powers that we debated earlier in relation to the increase in fiscal fines will take more people out of the system—perhaps first-time offenders or those involved in minor offences. That will be important in helping to achieve the progress that we need to make on alternatives to prosecution.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes. Otherwise, I would have taken an intervention.
I welcome the fact that, having thought about the issue, the Executive agreed that fiscal fines should not result in a criminal record but should be treated as important information that the court can use for up to two years following the acceptance of the fiscal fine.
Undertakings are a central part of the bill. In our private discussions with the police, the Crown Office and ministers, it became clear that the phrase "liberation on undertaking" was not an accurate description of what we are trying to achieve in the bill. The undertaking process is the part of the system that will speed up some of the more important cases—for example, those that involve children as witnesses or that involve sexual offences—and bring the offenders to court much more quickly. It is, therefore, important that we give the police the power to add standard and special bail conditions because of the shortness of the process. It is also important to draw attention to why we are giving the police those powers. Normally, the court would determine bail conditions and a lawyer would be present, but because of the shortness of the process for getting cases to court, it is acceptable to give the police those powers. Because of the wide powers that we are giving to the Crown Office and the police, it is important that the Parliament continues to take an interest in how the guidelines are applied. A lot of work on that is in progress.
In my final 30 seconds, I will say something about the JP courts, which can play a crucial role in the system. The committee was careful to say that the public must have confidence in the district court system if their sentencing powers are to be increased. I have received assurances—I would be grateful to receive them again—that there will be no attempt to increase the sentencing powers of the district courts until the Executive is satisfied that that confidence exists. I support the points that Mary Mulligan made in the debate this morning. When all the measures are under way, there should be more scope for district courts to take a few more sentencing powers. That relates to the debate that we had yesterday about tackling prostitution, and especially to the issue that I raised about district courts being given powers to apply drug treatment and testing orders so that we can deal with the problem with a bit more thought.
Once again, the deputy minister has set a relatively constructive tone for the debate—that is twice in one week. I hope that she is feeling well. I have no doubt that there will be time for more robust exchanges over the coming months.
My contributions to justice debates are perhaps not always entirely constructive from the Executive's point of view. I am often critical. Some might accuse me of overegging the pudding from time to time. However, in today's debate about trial in the absence of the accused, the Conservatives took the biscuit—if I may mix my food metaphors—in accusing the bill of overturning the fundamental principle of the right to a fair trial. That is pushing it a bit. I am the first to agree that accused people—who are innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty—have clear rights that cannot be shirked. Nevertheless, the approach in the bill, which focuses on what is in the interests of justice, seems proportionate. Some of the examples that the Conservatives cited were clearly not in the interests of justice, and I do not think that we should be terribly concerned about them.
In that area as in others, I am broadly content with the bill and I will vote for it. However, I still have concerns about breach of bail, which I expressed at stage 1. Breach of bail is a serious matter, and we can all sign up to the aspiration to cut the number of bail offences. Nonetheless, if, over the coming years, the number of bail offences remains the same and we simply lock up more of the offenders, will that achieve what we want? I argue that it will not.
Prisoner numbers are continuing to rise and we are told that the pressure for extra prison capacity will outstrip even the Executive's predictions. In considering other legislation, other parliamentary committees are being told by people who work on the front line in the Prison Service that the system is more overburdened and overstretched than ever before. We are also possibly heading towards a situation in which we imprison a higher proportion of our population than any other European country. It should, therefore, be clearer than ever that simply locking people up for longer does not make society feel safer or make society safer in reality. I worry that, a few years down the line, in reconsidering the issue, we will find that bail offences have continued and that we have simply added to the overstretching of the prison system, making the situation worse.
I have little to add to my general welcome for the bill and my one expression of concern over an issue that will perhaps be for the next Parliament to consider in the coming years. There is enough reason to support the bill, and the Greens will vote for it this afternoon.
I add my thanks to the Justice 1 Committee clerks, who were, as ever, effective and efficient in supporting us. I also thank the many witnesses to whom the committee spoke over the course of the bill's progress. Their input to our proceedings, particularly given the fairly technical nature of the bill, has allowed today's debate to be less adversarial than is sometimes the case with our debates, even at stage 3.
The bill fulfils the partnership agreement commitment to take forward the review of summary justice. Summary justice should not be delayed and time consuming. The bill's reforms will make it quicker and more effective. The bill will extend the powers of prosecutors by giving them more options for dealing with offences. It will refocus the role of district courts, which will be renamed justice of the peace courts. It will also give sheriffs more powers to deal with a wider range of summary cases by increasing their sentencing powers and the levels of fines that they can impose.
I will concentrate my comments on three issues. First, on justice of the peace courts, as I said this morning, I welcome the decision that district courts will continue under a new name. I also welcome the move to bring the courts, which are currently administered by the local authorities, under the auspices of the Scottish Court Service. Although questions have been raised about the training and support that is provided to JPs and whether such provision is consistent throughout Scotland, the fact that the bill requires all JPs to receive regular training has been welcomed by the JPs themselves. JPs recognise that the new requirements will give others in the justice system and the wider community more confidence in the role that JPs play. As a result, JP courts might in future be able to extend their role in the judicial system. I hope that the minister will continue to keep under review the option for JP courts to be given—as we discussed this morning—powers over DTTOs and community service orders.
Although the unified court administration that will result from the bill will provide many benefits, I have written to the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, about one issue concerning the future of the clerks to the district courts. Briefly, they are currently employed by the local authorities and, under the new system, they will become employees of the Scottish Court Service. There is some uncertainty as to their position and career prospects within the SCS. Given that the clerks have been key to the success of the district courts, their future position must be resolved. I know that the minister will address that.
Secondly, on undertakings, during the stage 1 debate I recounted my experience of visiting the pilot project in West Lothian. I said that I could see the benefits of extending the use of undertakings, and I still support that. In Livingston, the co-location of the police team and a member of the Procurator Fiscal Service has helped to deliver a streamlined service. One of the bill's aims is, as I mentioned, to speed up the system, and the increased use of undertakings will contribute to that improvement.
Thirdly, on proceedings in the absence of the accused, it is important that we were able to debate the issue. The Executive has struck the right balance between, as Patrick Harvie said, ensuring that people are innocent until proven guilty and preventing people from abusing the system by not attending court and taking part in the process. Witnesses have a right to see justice being delivered. Victims also expect the accused to appear in court. If people abuse the system by not appearing, it is important that a trial still proceeds. The Executive has got the balance right.
I welcome the new measures, which will lead to a more effective and efficient summary justice system. I am sure that the system will be seen to be so when the bill's measures are implemented.
Time permits me to raise only two issues in this debate.
First, I accept the bill's policy objectives of reforming the summary justice system. As we have discussed two or three times in the chamber, the system needs to be made more efficient and speedier. I have read and accepted the McInnes committee report, which we all agree offered many important and valuable suggestions on how we should respond to the lengthening time that it has been taking for cases to come to court and on how court processes could be completed efficiently. At all stages of the bill, it was widely accepted that, in many ways, justice delayed is justice denied. That applies as much to defendants who are keen to clear their name as to victims and witnesses.
In my remarks, I want understandably to concentrate on the provision for trials in the absence of defendants—a feature of the bill on which many members have commented. That provision is the main source of controversy. I share the great unease that exists throughout Scotland and the Parliament about the provision. I hope and am sure that the minister appreciates and understands fully the Parliament's feelings on the matter. Members have rightly said that a balance needs to be struck.
Like many members, I am instinctively wary of the provision. It appears from the debate that I am more concerned about it than others are, because I am not wholly convinced that delays in 4,000 cases are explained fully by people's wilful refusal to turn up. That is nothing like an adequate explanation for so many delayed cases. As other members have highlighted today, the accused may fail to show up for a plethora of reasons. I am sure that the minister accepts that that, rather than the image of an irredeemably persistent and wilfully conspiring felon who is out to outwit the system, is the reality with which we are dealing. This morning, Pauline McNeill was right to highlight the many reasons why people do not turn up, which are varied and do not easily fall into the category of wilful non-appearance.
I am not convinced by the view that Stewart Stevenson and others expressed this morning that it is the accused who decides not to show up and, therefore, that a trial should be conducted in his absence. From previous evidence, we know that solicitors have advised clients not to show up on certain occasions in order to avoid certain judges. We heard today that it is okay for a trial to take place in the absence of the accused if that happens as a consequence of the accused's decision not to attend, but what if failure to attend is not the result of a decision by the accused? Unfortunately, as we all know, a standing feature of Scotland's sheriff court system is the chaotic lifestyle of many who are accused. What if that causes them not to turn up because they either do not know that their case is due or, more likely, they fail to understand the consequences of their absence? In other words, in reality, the decision of the judge, not the decision of the accused, will determine whether a case proceeds in their absence.
We are told that the provision will not be used widely, which I welcome. I also welcome the minister's assurance that it is a power of last resort, and that judges will have to be satisfied that all other avenues for bringing the accused to trial have been exhausted and that it is in the best interests of justice to proceed. However, if 4,000 cases are delayed, but the power to proceed with trials in the absence of the accused will not be used frequently, are we not looking in the wrong place to achieve meaningful efficiencies in the system?
The right to a fair trial has rightly been enshrined in Scots law, but it is being eroded. As I have said previously—I make no apologies for doing so again—new Labour has repeatedly eroded that right, which is enshrined in law in Britain. We need look no further than the case of those who are held in Belmarsh prison in London, who are denied even the right to a charge, far less the right to a trial. I am worried that the provision for cases to proceed in the absence of the accused may lead to more miscarriages of justice. That is no less an issue simply because penalties at summary level are less than those at High Court level.
I have outlined my major concerns about the bill, but, unusually, on this occasion I want to give the Executive the benefit of the doubt. The Scottish Socialist Party will support the bill, but we put on record our unease about the provision for trial in the absence of the accused.
This is a good bill, but, as members have said, it has not had an easy passage through the Parliament. The bill has raised delicate, sensitive and complex issues, but the fact that stage 3 has been relatively straightforward is an indication of Parliament's effectiveness and of the Executive's willingness to listen to representations from the Justice 1 Committee. That does the Parliament credit.
The bill puts into primary legislation the grounds on which bail may be refused. For more than 20 years, legal practice has set clear precedents on the operation of bail, but we will now have a clear statute in which the public can see the grounds on which bail will be given or refused. The specific grounds that are relevant to any decision will now be clear—they include the associations and community ties of the accused—and the court will be able to make a more rounded decision. That is a positive step, and I hope that our communities will regard it as such.
The provision that requires judges to make clear the reasons for their decisions is also important. It is part of the Executive's work to open up the justice system, to make it more transparent and ultimately to make it better for the public.
Section 33 is a welcome development. It will give sheriffs in summary courts wider sentencing powers by extending maximum custodial sentences to 12 months. Similarly, JPs who sit in JP courts will have the power to give sentences of up to six months. That might mean longer custodial sentences, but I hope that there is no doubt in the chamber about my views on the effectiveness of sentences of less than six months. Of course, some of the increases will be offset by the provisions that extend the scope of alternatives to prosecution.
Alternatives to prosecution have raised ethical issues since they were introduced more than 10 years ago. I sought to make a point about them to Pauline McNeill. She made an excellent speech, but she said that alternatives to prosecution might be most effectively used in relation to first-time offenders. We must be careful that we do not allow people to decide that they want an alternative to prosecution rather than facing the justice process and, in some cases, clearing their name. The District Courts Association expressed concern about that in its evidence to the Justice 1 Committee, as did Scottish Women's Aid, given the potential in the long term for alternatives to prosecution to be widened, although, I do not think that that will happen. The Justice 1 Committee deserves credit for the careful consideration that it gave to those difficult areas.
We in Scotland benefit greatly from lay justice. The fact that the minister rejected some of the core elements of the McInnes report is positive. The Parliament has not only retained lay justice but strengthened it and widened its scope. Mike Pringle raised the issue of training. If the minister has time, I would ask her to comment on the idea that training and support for lay justices in summary procedures should be similar to the training and support that is given to panel members in other areas of lay justice. Greater consistency in support and training would help both youth justice and adult justice.
The bill will provide a better system with speedier processes. It will free up time in our summary courts and it will retain and strengthen lay justice. That is exactly what justice in Scotland should be about.
We welcome the bill. Obviously, we have some scepticism about some aspects of it, but we appreciate the progress that has been made. As others have said, we made faster progress today than we have made in other cases. That is as it should be, because there is unanimity about much of the bill, which does not contain radical, ideological proposals for the Scottish legal system. Sheriff Principal McInnes and the Executive had considered how the existing procedures could be improved, so the bill was a matter not of tangentially proposing something new but of examining the system and asking how we can update it for the 21st century. Our circumstances have changed, not just because of electronic media but because people's lifestyles have developed. It is therefore correct for us to move forward.
As has been mentioned, the primary focus of the bill is our summary justice system. I do not share Colin Fox's fears. As far as we are concerned, summary justice has to be speedy and efficient. It must balance a variety of factors. Pre-eminent among those are the interests of justice and the rules and regulations that must be followed, but we must also consider costs, time and effectiveness.
Summary justice is most certainly not arbitrary justice. The bill accelerates into the 21st century rules that have served us well but which need to be tweaked, reviewed and amended.
Bail is clearly a factor. The bail system is essential; we cannot do without it. We cannot remand everyone—people have to be put on their own recognisance to a degree—nor can we go back to the days of monetary bail. We have to improve the system because, rightly or wrongly, it was becoming discredited, and we have to ensure that it works better.
Clearly, we had to improve sentencing. A balance had to be struck between summary justice and fiscal fines, which are an important aspect of the administrative system for dealing with minor offences. We do not want to go in the same direction as some areas in the United States have done, in which the district attorney becomes judge and jury and pressure can be put on the accused. We need to keep a balance and, at the moment, that balance is right. The bill will be effective in empowering our procurators fiscal to do more to make our communities safer.
Some difficulty was clearly caused by JP courts, which were not recommended by Sheriff Principal McInnes. When I was a practising agent many years ago, like most in the legal profession I was sceptical, if not condemnatory, of district courts. My position has changed, and it is correct that we should keep district or JP courts. Not everything legal should be dealt with by those who have a professional degree. We have to recognise that we must open out this area to our communities. To an extent, district courts have been affected by the same problem that afflicts community councils. They can be criticised, maligned and told how bad they are, but if we did not have them, we would have to invent them. That is why it was correct to ensure that we would maintain those courts and make them work better.
District courts are sometimes abused as being made up of people who wear twinsets and pearls and who do not reflect the community. My understanding is that, in many instances, that is not the case. People I speak to and take advice from say that district courts are often representative of their communities.
The same problems arise with the children's panel system, which also has difficulties. We have to decide how to make that system work better.
We have also to address the fines enforcement officers mentioned by my colleague Stewart Stevenson. The system was becoming a joke—it was rather shameful that it was being abused by members of the Parliament as well as by others. Thankfully, the system will be changed. Unless there is some good reason why someone who has broken the law and been dealt with by the district or sheriff court cannot pay their fine, it is incumbent on them to meet the penalty that was imposed. They should not simply seek to opt out by manipulating the system so that they can avoid the consequences of their actions. That is why we are happy to support the bill.
As others have mentioned, we have had a good meeting today. Although it might be difficult for some members—even those in our own party who have known Johann Lamont and me for many years—to believe that we could be at the forefront or cutting edge of consensus politics, today we have had an opportunity to see the workings of the Parliament and Executive at their best in reaching a consensus.
I thank the members of and clerks to the Justice 1 Committee for their work. The timetable for this complex and technical bill, which deals with difficult issues, was challenging. I also add my thanks to the bill team for its superb work. This morning, we heard many compliments on the quality of the information that was given to the committee during proceedings on the bill. Ministers were, of course, involved in that process, but many of those compliments are due to the bill team, which had to do the hard work and which liaised very well with the committee.
I also thank Hugh Henry, who led a considerable amount of work on the bill, and Johann Lamont, who came in at a difficult and critical stage to manage the bill in its final stages. Both did that work superbly.
As the bill has progressed, we have seen evidence of the maturing relationship between the Executive and parliamentary committees in the way in which they work. The process was two-way: the Executive did not simply decide on a course of action that it was going to pursue at all costs but actively engaged with the committee. That has been true of the development of the bill from its very inception. The final stages of the bill were only part of the process—it has been many years in the making.
Back in 2001, my predecessor, Jim Wallace, commissioned the original work from John McInnes and his committee—a superb piece of work that gave us a range of options to develop. The fact that the Executive and the Parliament did not choose to take forward all the options exactly as Sheriff Principal McInnes and his committee recommended does not in any way suggest that that work was not valuable—quite the contrary; as I said, it gave us a number of options.
The bill deals with some pretty difficult issues. Although many of the amendments considered today and during earlier work on the bill have been technical, the bill tackles some fundamental principles in relation to the role of lay justice, a unified court system and the tricky issue of bail and fines, building on the work of the Sentencing Commission. Underpinning all that we have done, in the context of our wider criminal justice reforms, was the desire to have a faster, smarter justice system and to make legislative changes that would ensure that communities and victims of crime got the benefit of those changes so that we could see justice delivered for them.
That is where I am at odds with some of the comments that have been made. I do not want to spoil the consensus, because I understand that members largely support the bill, but I have to take issue with the Conservatives and with Colin Fox of the Scottish Socialist Party in relation to the provisions on trial in absence. I do not think that we are out of touch with the mood of the Scottish people on that point. The bill contains the justice test—what is in the best interests of justice is very firmly in the bill. Patrick Harvie made a sensible contribution on that point, and I hope that the Tories will now reflect on what they have said and will recognise that the victims of crime absolutely do not want to see justice frustrated by people who deliberately choose not to turn up in order to frustrate proceedings.
We also wanted the bill to be flexible and to speed up the processes.
The minister is being a bit disingenuous in her comment that the Tories would give support to those who deliberately avoided coming into court. It seemed to me that Margaret Mitchell made a very good point that had to be debated and on which the Government had to be challenged. It was a fundamental issue of justice, and I believe that we should take credit for that rather than accept chastisement.
I would never suggest that I could be involved in chastising Mr Gallie, and I hope that the chamber will accept that. There is a slight difference in tone between what he has said this afternoon and the comments that Margaret Mitchell made during this morning's debate. It is absolutely right and proper that we put victims of crime at the centre of our criminal justice reforms, and that is what we have tried to do today.
As a result of the bill, there will be innovative work so that the right interventions are made at the right time. I know that some people have expressed concerns about alternatives to prosecution, but we have also heard concerns about the number of people who go into the prison system through the revolving door and who end up living a life of crime. If we can use an alternative to prosecution at an early stage to allow someone the opportunity to make their first offence their last offence, to admit what they have done, to change their behaviour and to repay the community that they have damaged, surely that must be a good thing. I hope that all members will support that measure this afternoon.
The bill was intended to be community focused, and that is why it is right to pay attention, as we have this afternoon, to the importance of lay justice in the system. Pauline McNeill, Mary Mulligan and, to their credit, the Tories raised questions about the possibility of the lay justice system and JP courts being able to take on more in future. That is worthy of consideration, which is why we have the opportunity under the bill to use further powers in future.
However, I caution against simply taking bits from the sheriff court system and adding them to the JP courts. One of the fundamental points about the lay justice system is that people who are rooted in their local communities should be part of that system. We aim to reform the system through the bill so that, I hope, more people will come forward to serve as lay justices. I can give a commitment to the members who asked about the training and support that such people will get. Members will have the opportunity to be involved in shaping the system for the future. In the Parliament, we might want to be a bit more innovative in future, rather than simply have the lay justice system mirror what goes on in the sheriff courts. I hope that members will take that comment in the spirit in which it is intended.
I give my sincere thanks to everyone in the Parliament who has been involved in shaping the bill, which is a good one. It is complex and technical, but it will deliver for real people and real communities, which surely is what the Parliament is supposed to be about. I will have great pleasure this afternoon in supporting the bill and I hope that all members will join me in that.