Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3730, in the name of Mr Jim Wallace, that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill is a substantial and significant piece of legislation. It is only right that it should have been subject to rigorous and intense scrutiny by Parliament and, not least, by the Justice 2 Committee. I do not think that either the Parliament or the Justice 2 Committee has disappointed us in their scrutiny of the bill. The committee, in particular, discharged the task of evidence taking, preparing a stage 1 report and scrutinising the bill line by line at stage 2 diligently and effectively—indeed, it even took further evidence at stage 2. I believe that the bill that we are now asking Parliament to agree is much the better for the committee's input.
I put on record my gratitude to the members of the Justice 2 Committee for all their work and to the clerks who kept things running smoothly. I acknowledge the contribution of the other committees that considered the bill. My thanks also go to Richard Simpson and Hugh Henry for their considerable efforts in steering the bill to this stage, and to my officials—there was a huge team of them, because the bill covers a number of different aspects. I know that the bill team has worked exceptionally hard in bringing the bill to this stage and I thank them for the support that they have given me.
It is worth reflecting on how much time has been spent developing the bill. Work did not start with the introduction of the bill in March 2002, some 11 months ago. Before then, we had consulted extensively on some of the major planks of the bill. We consulted on the victim strategy from January 2001, and on Lord MacLean's committee's deliberations and findings during 2001. The child protection measures were consulted on even earlier, in February 2000. It is fair to say that many of the bill's proposals have been in train for almost as long as has our Parliament.
We have always said that the bill is about providing public protection, promoting effective sentencing and keeping Scots criminal law up to date. Those aims, which Parliament supported at stage 1, remain the cornerstones of the bill. Those overarching objectives are underscored by substantial new policy initiatives that will affect positively the people of Scotland.
There will be greater protection from dangerous offenders through the new and innovative high-risk offenders strategy, which includes the new lifelong sentence of an order for lifelong restriction. Victims will now have a stronger voice in the criminal justice system and will be able to get information about the release of their assailants. Those who are involved in the abhorrent practices of child pornography and trafficking in prostitution will be liable for heavy prison sentences.
We are developing the electronic tagging arrangements and enhancing the arrangements for criminal record checks for those who work with children and vulnerable people. Again, we are providing better protection for the communities that we are here to serve and, not least, protection for those who are vulnerable. By introducing the crime of offences aggravated by religious prejudice we are sending a clear message that such small-minded behaviour will not be tolerated in the Scotland of the 21st century.
We have also taken the opportunity to introduce changes to bail that were considered necessary. In a similar vein, we have taken the opportunity to enhance the penalties and enforcement practices for certain wildlife crimes—something that we have just debated with all-party support. The commencement provisions mean that those new, more stringent measures will be available this spring.
In some ways, the bill is different from the bill that the Parliament considered at stage 1. That is because we took account of the views of the Parliament and of the Justice 2 Committee. The committee spent a great deal of time collecting evidence and scrutinising the bill. As a result of that, the bill will have a significant impact on our criminal justice system. It will make Scotland a safer place and will give additional protection to the vulnerable in our community. I commend it to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill be passed.
A long list of members wish to take part in the debate, so I ask everyone to keep tightly to the three-minute time allocation.
At stage 1, I expressed my concern that the bill represented a return to the bad old days of the law reform (miscellaneous provisions) (Scotland) bills. The past two days have proved my point. As we have worked through the amendments, we have jumped between sections that do not seem to relate to one other. The members of the Justice 2 Committee deserve praise for their hard work in following those many jumps in committee.
I am pleased that the passing of the bill will mean the introduction of lifetime supervision of sex offenders, which was a key recommendation of the MacLean report and has been SNP policy since long before that report. George Foulkes might have felt that the MacLean report's recommendations were "uncosted nonsense", but I am pleased that Labour members of the Scottish Parliament seem to disagree with the ex-minister.
Drugs courts are another SNP policy that was at first derided, and then adopted, by the Executive parties. The bill acknowledges the success of the operation of the pilot courts, the first of which opened in Glasgow in November 2001. That was an important step.
The introduction of victim statements to our judicial process means that the court will hear of the impact that a crime has had on the victim. Issues remain to be addressed. I hope that the pilot project will be evaluated and that, if it is not successful, the idea will be dropped or seriously amended.
The most contentious part of the bill was undoubtedly section 43, which deals with the physical chastisement of children. There has been considerable change on that since the bill was introduced. There are still problems to do with the practicality of the provisions, rather than the message that they send. Everyone concentrated on the message, but the practicalities are equally important. Only time will tell who was right.
As I indicated earlier, I continue to have concerns about police custody and security officers.
One of the consequences of such a wide-ranging bill is that it leaves the door wide open to an even more wide-ranging set of amendments. The amendment that Donald Gorrie lodged to introduce the concept of offences aggravated by religious prejudice was a prime example. Although I do not believe that the bill's provisions on that will achieve what the minister, the Executive or Mr Gorrie wants them to achieve, I do not doubt their sincerity, nor do I oppose their worthy intentions.
In conclusion, the bill contains many changes for which my party and I have been pushing for some time—in some cases, since long before members of the Executive parties had been won over. In spite of the fact that the bill has some failings, it has the support of the SNP.
The minister mentioned some aspects of the bill that are highly satisfactory and for which we commend the Executive. Other aspects, such as civilianisation and victim statements, have proved problematic. We acknowledge that ministers have made a genuine and sincere effort to satisfy us. Although their efforts have not been entirely successful, they have been sufficient for us to allow the bill to progress.
We cannot give our full support to the bill not so much because of what it contains, but because of what it excludes. The bill is a classic illustration of a lost opportunity. The bill could have made the streets of Scotland safer, could have provided a more realistic approach to our criminal justice system and could have supported those who are in the front-line battle against crime. Under all those headings, it is a lamentable failure.
Let us be quite blunt. On law and order issues, the Executive, from the First Minister down, is all talk and no action. In spite of constant press releases that promise tough measures and threats to get tough on crime, there has been total inaction, to the extent that public cynicism is at an all-time high. The only worthwhile innovation that the Executive has introduced has been the fast-track youth courts. Time will tell how effective they are, but the concept is a good one.
The much-vaunted fast-track children's hearings will remain a fast track to nowhere until some realism is introduced into the system. Given the restricted disposals that are available and the gross underfunding, it is not surprising that the system is totally inept at dealing with offenders; nor is it surprising that one third of children's panel members resign every year. They are no doubt disappointed that their genuine and worthwhile efforts to make a contribution are frustrated by the Executive's lack of realism.
Drug misuse has become almost endemic in Scottish society. Although that is not the fault of the Executive, the fact that drug misuse is almost as prevalent in prisons is the Executive's fault.
The streets of our cities provide tangible evidence of the Executive's failures. Shops have security guards who stand outside and patrol inside, except when they are chasing shoplifters along the road. The public receive frequent approaches from spaced-out beggars, and gang fights are not infrequent. At the moment, Glasgow city centre is probably being policed by no more than six officers.
The bill does not address the wide dissatisfaction about alternatives to custody. Little work is done during community service, fines are not paid and there is a significant lack of action against those who fail to turn up in court. In spite of members' concern about the number of people who are in prison for non-payment of fines, the Executive fails to deduct money from benefits.
It is extremely ironic that an Executive that is prepared to send parents to jail for shaking their child in a non-harmful manner should bottle out and baulk at the prospect of taking realistic measures to make the streets of Scotland safer and Scotland's citizens more secure in their homes.
I begin by thanking the Justice 2 Committee very much for its hard work. There was not a single issue that the Parliament was concerned about that the committee did not attack fiercely. It examined the bill thoroughly.
I also thank the Executive, because it has been very responsive to all the concerns that we raised. I have a 2in-thick file of all the correspondence and exchanges with the Executive. Anyone who looks through that file will see how responsive the Executive has been.
I disagree with Mr Aitken's view that the bill represents a lost opportunity. The bill contains some key themes that will make the streets of Scotland safer. It is worth amplifying those.
The first theme is what has been done to turn round victims' place in the system. Victim statements have been discussed, but I draw the Parliament's attention to section 15, which gives victims the right to receive information on the release from prison of an offender.
Many of us have dealt with constituents who have always argued for that right. They have not known when someone who attacked them and served time in prison would be released. At present, there is no such right to information. The bill will give victims that right. In many ways, that provision is more important than the provision on victim statements.
Johann Lamont should be commended for drawing the attention of the committee and of the Parliament to anti-social behaviour. The bill will turn round the criminal justice system's attitude to anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is on the spectrum of crime; it is not simply a question of being a bad neighbour. People who do not conduct themselves properly might also be criminals.
As I care deeply about human trafficking, I am pleased that the bill makes it a crime, although I know that the relevant section relates only to enforced prostitution. I note the Executive's intention to take further action on child labour.
Many members are concerned about the operation of the policy on custody officers, which is about freeing up resources. The operation of that policy should be tested in the future to show that there is a good reason for it.
The bill is not simply a bill of miscellaneous provisions; it is a bill that contains many important themes. The citizens of Scotland will recognise that it will make a great contribution to their safety and that it is a good piece of work.
I will call as many members as I can.
I, too, support the bill, although I do not do so unreservedly. I thank my colleagues on the Justice 2 Committee. As I come to the end of my time in the Parliament, I can say that it has been a genuine pleasure to be a member of the committee. The committee worked hard and effectively on the issues.
Although the bill contains many measures that we support, areas of major concern remain. I am still dubious about the principle and the operation of victim statements.
Despite the movement from the Executive, the provisions on the physical punishment of children leave us with questions of definition that we have been unable to resolve. Donald Gorrie's provisions on sectarianism, although worthy in aspiration, were described by the police as unworkable and by the sheriffs as unnecessary, yet the Parliament took it upon itself to introduce them. I also remain slightly confused about the role, function and training that is to be given to police custody and security officers and about the cost implications. There are major concerns about the bill.
The passage of the bill has shown both the strength and the weakness of our legislative process. The committee worked on a cross-party basis and extremely hard. After examining controversial evidence and taking evidence from a wide range of people, we produced a considered and mature report. It was unfortunate that on some issues—most notably on sectarianism at stage 3—much of that evidence was put to one side in a wave of emotion. That is not helpful. All of us in the chamber may feel strongly about the issue, but good legislation is based on evidence, not exclusively on emotion.
The bill has some good measures, which is why the SNP and I will support it. However, looking ahead to the future, I say to members that we need to try to have as robust a legislative process as possible. We should replicate what happened in the Justice 2 Committee not only in our committee meetings but in our plenary sessions as well.
I welcome the opportunity to welcome the passing of this important bill. I, too, congratulate the Justice 2 Committee—in particular the convener—on its hard work and on its rigorous and diligent approach to such an important piece of legislation. That work gives the lie to the idea that we sit here and do as we are told, because it shows that we are actively involved in the process of improving and changing legislation.
The bill is important. We all understand the importance of the people of this country having faith in the criminal justice system. There are serious consequences for us all if that faith is broken down. We all have stories from victims of crime of their experience of the crime and of the courts system, which seems—perversely—to compound the distress that people have experienced. The bill's commitment to improving the rights of victims is significant as it will make a real difference not only to victims' experience of the system but, I hope, to the attitudes of those who are charged with running that system.
As others have highlighted, there is frustration that the bill has been characterised as being about smacking, or sending 16 and 17-year-olds to the children's hearings system or sectarianism. I understand that those who report on our work must sometimes use shorthand but, given that we all abhor spin, it would be good if there were a little more depth to the scrutiny and analysis of substantial pieces of work such as this.
The Parliament has wrestled with significant issues, but I believe that our focus has been on what will work. The concerns about the smacking provisions were not because people want children to be beaten. The concerns about the sectarianism provisions were not because people are in favour of sectarianism. We must recognise when we make legislation that we need the space to be able to ask whether or not something works, instead of being concerned about how our position might be characterised elsewhere.
I congratulate the Executive on its willingness to listen and to change. It has certainly listened to Labour back benchers on the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds. I am pleased that the Executive has listened so hard, especially to those who wanted more action on anti-social behaviour. It is profoundly depressing that, when the Parliament's committees and back benchers do their job, people settle for lazy language about U-turns and humiliating defeats. The bill has been strengthened rather than weakened by the Executive's willingness to listen. The Executive's work has been strengthened rather than weakened by its willingness to respond to the points that were raised.
I congratulate the Executive and all those involved in the nitty-gritty work on the bill. I look forward to the bill making a real difference in people's lives.
It is regrettable that there has been insufficient time to give full attention to many of the issues that were before the committee. To give just one example from this morning's debate, the police use of firearms was not even discussed. That is a grave defect in our system. I note that when the Deputy First Minister was challenged on television last night, he recognised that that issue needs to be addressed. I put down a marker that our procedures will need to be looked at so that such matters are not neglected in the future.
We won a number of important victories in the bill. First, we were happy to see go the ludicrous pilot scheme that would have sent 16 and 17-year-olds to children's hearings. Secondly, there was the issue of bail for convicted murderers. The Deputy First Minister indicated that although he was satisfied with the existing arrangements, he was certainly not prepared to defend having granny murderers roaming the streets. The amendments that were introduced give greater protection for the public and are a victory for common sense. Thirdly, the provisions on smacking that were totally unenforceable were removed, although it is our view that unnecessary provisions remain.
Some of the amendments that we proposed were rejected. For example, our proposal that fines should be taken from benefits could have reduced the number of people going to prison for fine default and increased the proportion of fines collected. Another amendment that was rejected was our proposal that a greater range of disposals should be made available to children's hearings. Thirdly, we wanted more honesty in sentencing. We are not surprised that our medicine was too strong for the Administration, but we are pleased that, as a result of vigorous and successful campaigning, the worst excesses of the bill have not been allowed to stain this future justice act.
The bill began as the Deputy First Minister's flagship bill, but he has had to make so many U-turns during its passage that it can now be described as a bill of the Parliament rather than of the Executive. Although the bill does not go as far as we would like and still has grave imperfections, it represents a considerable improvement on what went before.
As the Deputy First Minister said, the bill is a substantial piece of legislation, which will have a major impact in improving Scotland's criminal justice system.
The bill has grown substantially during the months in which it proceeded through the Justice 2 Committee. Even at stage 2, extra provisions were still being added to the bill even as the committee discussed it. On a number of occasions, the committee found itself in the difficult position of being asked to consider extra provisions, such as section 59A on sectarianism, at very short notice and with little time to take evidence. However, by increasing the number of committee meetings, we made the time to ensure that the provisions were properly probed and scrutinised to the maximum effect.
Although some of the bill is of a technical nature and is aimed simply at tidying up existing legislation, substantial sections will make a major contribution to improving the lot of ordinary Scots. The introduction of better rights for victims, under part 2 of the bill, is a major step forward in trying to ensure that victims are kept better informed and have their voice heard in the criminal justice system. As Duncan Hamilton said, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the victim statements pilot. I hope that a future justice committee will reconsider the matter closely, as there were concerns about whether the process would deliver its objective.
I believe that the right balance has been struck in the provisions on the physical punishment of children. The committee concluded that there was no convincing evidence to justify a blanket ban on smacking under-threes. I fully supported that view. However, the committee supported the rest of section 43, which clarifies the defence of reasonable chastisement. Section 43 sends out a strong signal from the Parliament that blows to the head, shaking a child and hitting a child with an implement will not be tolerated. I believe that that is the right approach to take.
Finally, I warmly welcome the amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which will make the prosecution of wildlife offences much easier. Wildlife crime is a major problem in my constituency. The provisions are a major step forward in tackling the problem and will be widely welcomed by my constituents in Argyll and Bute.
I join others in congratulating the minister and the committee on the way in which they have tackled the issues in the bill.
The Justice 2 Committee's scrutiny of the new order for lifelong restriction and of the risk management agency has been particularly valuable. Those issues are hugely difficult and, as the MacLean committee showed, they are being grappled with by many countries. I believe that the innovative approach that Scotland is adopting today will have a substantial effect not only on the most serious and violent offenders, to whom the order for lifelong restriction will apply, but on sexual offenders at all levels.
I cannot stress too strongly the risk that is posed by current and potential sexual offenders. The recent internet case has shown all too clearly that probably tens of thousands of people are offending at the level of child pornography. The 1,800 people who are currently on the register are likely to grow in number to 10,000 before the numbers stabilise. Alongside the stabilisation of the valuable work at Peterhead prison, the bill makes an important contribution to the treatment of those who have been sentenced to four years or more.
However, we will have to do much more. The next priority must be to integrate the assessment and management of the 600 offenders who receive shorter or even non-custodial sentences and who are not eligible to go to Peterhead prison. The police, prisons, criminal justice, social work and housing functions must be integrated even more closely if we are to be effective in protecting our children and our vulnerable citizens.
We must also tackle adolescents who demonstrate inappropriate sexual behaviour. We must also seek to prevent offending behaviour from moving through the cycle from deviant thinking to fantasy to internet pornography to reality to repeat offending with self-justification. In the near future, we need to introduce the "Stop it Now!" programme, which is promoted in America for those who are in the pre-offending category.
There are many excellent measures in the bill, but time is too short to praise them all. I welcome the modest advance in protecting children from being hit, but I regret the failure to ban the hitting of babies and toddlers under the age of two, which is a measure that had the support of the majority of parents. Too many parents still believe that it is all right to smack babies of under one year.
At least those in the front line who support children day in, day out will be able to give three clear messages to parents: that it is illegal to hit a child on the head; that it is illegal to hit a child with an implement; and that it is illegal to shake a child. That is a substantial advance.
However, Scotland's failure to join the growing number of European countries that have banned the hitting of children altogether is indeed a failure. Too many young men still grow up believing that physical violence is the most appropriate way to deal with disputes. It is wholly unacceptable that 17 per cent of young men continue to believe that hitting women is appropriate. A ban on the hitting of children would begin to eliminate the use of violence as a mechanism in our society. We have much more to do, but the bill is an excellent start and I welcome it.
If Irene McGugan will restrict herself to two minutes, I will be able to give two minutes to Brian Fitzpatrick, who will be the last member to speak.
I will confine my remarks to the physical punishment of children.
The bill is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step. As Richard Simpson suggested, it pales into insignificance in comparison to the actions that are being taken by an increasing number of countries throughout the world to end the hitting of children.
Most members know that I fully support all the organisations that formed a view of the damage caused by the physical punishment of children. I support the aim of those organisations to promote the idea that it is no more acceptable to smack a child than it is for one adult to hit another. That aim is based on the principle and the very strong conviction that children also have human rights.
On a number of occasions in the chamber we have discussed the proposal for a commissioner for children and young people, which is progressing with all-party support. Members should be reminded that the role and remit of the commissioner is underpinned by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is the same convention that states that Governments are required to protect all children who are in the care of their parents from all forms of physical and mental violence. We need to take action to comply with the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The provisions that we are endorsing today do not do that.
The bill is not the end of our work on the subject. I appeal to every member who is returned to the Parliament in May to ensure that work continues as a matter of urgency on a public information campaign to advise people of non-violent alternatives. In other countries, such campaigns have brought about a real change in the attitude towards hitting children.
I seek an assurance from the minister that the physical punishment of children will be revisited soon with a view to adopting legislation to remove the reasonable chastisement defence and to prohibit all corporal punishment in the family. It is very important that we send out a very clear signal that no level of violence towards children is socially acceptable. I hope that a future Scottish Parliament supports that aspiration.
As Johann Lamont mentioned, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill represents the culmination of a lot of hard work by the subject committee and occasional visitors to the committee. The progress that was made on the issues of lifetime supervision orders, fast-track youth procedures, anti-social behaviour, the risk management agency and victim statements give the lie to Bill Aitken's rather weary and predictable comment on the bill. The people who contribute their time to children's panels do not deserve the unfair gloss that Bill Aitken put on their activity. I urge him to reflect on that.
An important security was achieved on the issue of physical chastisement for Scotland's most vulnerable youngsters. Some of the opposition in respect of the shaking of children stands in the face of and disregards the obvious medical evidence. I am glad that members had the courage to stand up to that behaviour.
On the statutory aggravation of an offence by religious prejudice, I rehearsed the contra argument in front of the Justice 2 Committee and I will not repeat it now. As I listened to Donald Gorrie yesterday, my support waned—after two years' work, he seemed to demonstrate less understanding of the issues. I support the movement on that issue for reasons that were not advanced by Donald Gorrie. I do so for reasons that relate to the collection of data and, more important, to the notice of previous convictions. People will no longer be able to pretend that they have not participated previously in their behaviour or say that the offence is a first-time event. That is a real achievement.
Bill Aitken lodged a well-intentioned but badly drafted and defective amendment on the subject of police officers. I was delighted to hear the words from the minister about improving on that position.
Although there is no time for victory laps—nor should there be victory laps—the bill represents real progress and should be welcomed for that reason.
My regrets to the four members whose names remain on my screen, but the clock has beaten us. I call Hugh Henry to wind up the debate.
Like the minister, I thank all those who worked so hard on the bill and the organisations and individuals who provided written submissions and gave oral evidence to the committee. Jim Wallace was accurate in his thanks to the Justice 2 Committee, which worked so hard on scrutinising the bill. Its members raised fundamental and important issues in addition to making a number of suggestions that helped to improve the final outcome.
This debate is the culmination of a process of policy development. As the minister said, it included wide consultation, the publication of two white papers setting out our proposals and debates in the Parliament. We are not talking about hurried or hasty legislation. There has been an interesting and lively debate, which has reflected the diverse nature and importance of the provisions of the bill as well as concerns, doubts and anxieties that are to be recognised.
The debate has also reflected the determination of the Parliament to have an improved system of criminal justice in Scotland. It has shown that, despite some caveats, there is wide agreement on the overall aims of the legislation, which are to deliver better public protection, to promote more effective sentencing and to keep the law up to date. Johann Lamont rightly said that the willingness of people to engage in the process is a testament to the Parliament. In echoing her comments, I believe that the willingness of the Executive to listen and to respond is a strength of the parliamentary process and not a weakness.
I want to address a couple of comments that were made by members of the Conservative party. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton talked about the Conservatives' medicine being too strong. He is not correct, as the problem was that the Conservatives' medicine was wrongly prescribed and incorrectly mixed. The Conservatives made a number of proposals, some of which we accepted and others of which contributed to changes that were made. However, some of their proposals contained errors, including on reserved issues—Lord James Douglas-Hamilton referred to that. There were also some weaknesses in the Conservative proposals. The Conservatives' medicine was wrongly composed and would have been completely ineffective. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comment was inaccurate.
The bill should not be seen as an opportunity lost and we should not look to diminish or demean the bill on the basis of the remarks that Bill Aitken made. It is not an opportunity lost to tighten up the law on child pornography and on the trafficking of people for prostitution. It is not an opportunity lost to extend rights to victims or to crack down on wildlife crime. It is certainly not an opportunity lost to toughen up measures to deal with the anti-social behaviour that is scarring many of our communities in Scotland.
All in all, the bill represents progress for the Scottish Parliament and for the people of Scotland. Many measures in the bill will have a great impact on the wider community. Many good things have come out of the bill, but it is right to say that although it marks our progress, the Parliament and its Administration are not complacent. There is much more to do to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in Scotland, and the bill is the first of a number of measures that we intend to introduce to make Scotland a safer and more secure place.