Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 19 June 2013
19 Jun 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I am grateful for the opportunity to open the stage 1 debate on the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and I thank the Justice Committee and the Health and Sport Committee for their efforts in scrutinising the justice and health elements of the bill at stage 1 and for preparing their comprehensive stage 1 reports. I also record my thanks to the groups and individuals who provided evidence to the committees during stage 1, as well as those who have engaged directly with us during the bill’s development and the parliamentary process to date.
The bill’s clear aim is to put the needs of victims and witnesses at the centre of the criminal justice system. It includes proposals that ensure that justice agencies set out clear standards of service for victims and witnesses; that give victims and witnesses a right to access information about their case; that improve the identification of vulnerable witnesses and the support available to them; that introduce a victim surcharge and restitution orders to make offenders contribute to the cost of providing vital support to the victims of crime; and that make various other improvements to the justice system.
The bill also contains proposals to establish a national confidential forum that will give adults who were placed in care as children the opportunity to recount their experiences in a confidential and non-judgmental setting to an independent panel. Those proposals sit separately from the justice-related proposals, and I will turn to that part of the bill in due course.
The bill’s proposals have not been developed in isolation. In addition to the formal consultation exercise, we have in developing the bill engaged extensively with victim support groups and individual victims. Only this morning, I visited Victim Support Scotland’s national support centre in Hamilton and heard from volunteers and indeed victims about their experiences of interacting with the justice system and the improvements that would have made the process a little easier for them.
It is important to note that the bill cannot be seen in isolation. It is integral to our wider making justice work programme, which brings together a wide range of reforms to the structure and processes of the courts, access to justice and tribunals and administrative justice. That programme has been and is being developed with partners across the justice system, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Court Service, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Police Service of Scotland, and represents the most significant set of reforms to our courts for more than a century. One of the programme’s central objectives is to improve the experience of victims and witnesses, and the bill is a key component of that.
I warmly welcome the support of both the Justice Committee and the Health and Sport Committee for the general principles of the bill and their recommendation to the Parliament that they be approved. We recognise that the need for witnesses and victims to be cared for and their care to be improved is a matter that is shared across the political divide.
I turn, first, to the Justice Committee’s report. It is clear that although the committee is generally supportive, concerns have been raised in certain areas and requests have been made for further clarification. I will address a few of those issues briefly now and will be interested to hear members’ views during the debate.
The use of the word “victim” in the bill has raised concerns that the presumption of innocence of the accused may be compromised; it was pointed out that the term “complainer” is used in other legislation. The report recommended that the term “victim” be defined in the bill. I have made it clear from the start that ensuring that the rights of the accused are not compromised is absolutely critical, and I welcome the committee’s scrutiny of the bill from that important perspective. However, I do not believe that the bill poses any risks to the presumption of innocence. While there is no overarching definition of the term “victim”, the bill provides clarity where necessary in the context of individual sections—for example, by making it clear that the individuals referred to may be victims or alleged victims.
I look forward to members’ comments today and, although I am not persuaded that an overarching definition is required, I am happy to consider whether any further clarity may be necessary. If members have such views, I will be happy to meet them for discussion.
Another area of concern that was raised by the committee is the proposed right to object to special measures for vulnerable witnesses. The intention behind those provisions was not to complicate proceedings or to undermine the support that is available to vulnerable witnesses, but rather to ensure compatibility with the European convention on human rights, as we are required to do, and to give the court the flexibility and discretion to consider any legitimate concerns that are raised by any party to the proceedings.
While we do not expect objections to be lodged or granted very often, there is clearly a possibility that there may be legitimate concerns about the particular special measure to be used. Therefore, we consider that there should be a way of raising objections with the court. I certainly understand the concerns around how the proposals may operate in practice.
The bill’s clear aim is to put the needs of victims and witnesses at the centre of the criminal justice system. It includes proposals that ensure that justice agencies set out clear standards of service for victims and witnesses; that give victims and witnesses a right to access information about their case; that improve the identification of vulnerable witnesses and the support available to them; that introduce a victim surcharge and restitution orders to make offenders contribute to the cost of providing vital support to the victims of crime; and that make various other improvements to the justice system.
The bill also contains proposals to establish a national confidential forum that will give adults who were placed in care as children the opportunity to recount their experiences in a confidential and non-judgmental setting to an independent panel. Those proposals sit separately from the justice-related proposals, and I will turn to that part of the bill in due course.
The bill’s proposals have not been developed in isolation. In addition to the formal consultation exercise, we have in developing the bill engaged extensively with victim support groups and individual victims. Only this morning, I visited Victim Support Scotland’s national support centre in Hamilton and heard from volunteers and indeed victims about their experiences of interacting with the justice system and the improvements that would have made the process a little easier for them.
It is important to note that the bill cannot be seen in isolation. It is integral to our wider making justice work programme, which brings together a wide range of reforms to the structure and processes of the courts, access to justice and tribunals and administrative justice. That programme has been and is being developed with partners across the justice system, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Court Service, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Police Service of Scotland, and represents the most significant set of reforms to our courts for more than a century. One of the programme’s central objectives is to improve the experience of victims and witnesses, and the bill is a key component of that.
I warmly welcome the support of both the Justice Committee and the Health and Sport Committee for the general principles of the bill and their recommendation to the Parliament that they be approved. We recognise that the need for witnesses and victims to be cared for and their care to be improved is a matter that is shared across the political divide.
I turn, first, to the Justice Committee’s report. It is clear that although the committee is generally supportive, concerns have been raised in certain areas and requests have been made for further clarification. I will address a few of those issues briefly now and will be interested to hear members’ views during the debate.
The use of the word “victim” in the bill has raised concerns that the presumption of innocence of the accused may be compromised; it was pointed out that the term “complainer” is used in other legislation. The report recommended that the term “victim” be defined in the bill. I have made it clear from the start that ensuring that the rights of the accused are not compromised is absolutely critical, and I welcome the committee’s scrutiny of the bill from that important perspective. However, I do not believe that the bill poses any risks to the presumption of innocence. While there is no overarching definition of the term “victim”, the bill provides clarity where necessary in the context of individual sections—for example, by making it clear that the individuals referred to may be victims or alleged victims.
I look forward to members’ comments today and, although I am not persuaded that an overarching definition is required, I am happy to consider whether any further clarity may be necessary. If members have such views, I will be happy to meet them for discussion.
Another area of concern that was raised by the committee is the proposed right to object to special measures for vulnerable witnesses. The intention behind those provisions was not to complicate proceedings or to undermine the support that is available to vulnerable witnesses, but rather to ensure compatibility with the European convention on human rights, as we are required to do, and to give the court the flexibility and discretion to consider any legitimate concerns that are raised by any party to the proceedings.
While we do not expect objections to be lodged or granted very often, there is clearly a possibility that there may be legitimate concerns about the particular special measure to be used. Therefore, we consider that there should be a way of raising objections with the court. I certainly understand the concerns around how the proposals may operate in practice.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06987, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on stage 1 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.I call Mr ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
I am grateful for the opportunity to open the stage 1 debate on the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and I thank the Justice Committee and the Health an...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
Is the cabinet secretary saying that the existing law is not compatible with the ECHR? What does he have to say to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Y...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
We would not have laws in this country that were not compatible with the ECHR, because of the nature of how this Parliament is established. I can assure Mr C...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns of organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid that the challenge to the use of special measures may increase ci...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I do not believe so. I met Scottish Women’s Aid just recently and I believe that, overall, the bill will provide what such agencies clearly desire. However, ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
Cabinet secretary, could you come to a conclusion?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
People should not be denied the opportunity of acknowledgement—they should not be denied that benefit.
Jenny Marra
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
I am sorry; I have been asked to wind up.I welcome the wide support to date for both the justice and health elements of the bill. We are happy to discuss and...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Christine Grahame, who will speak on behalf of the Justice Committee. Ms Grahame, you have nine minutes.15:25
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
As the Presiding Officer says, I speak in this debate on behalf of the Justice Committee, which was the lead committee considering the bill. However, I want ...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I hope that you are not going to challenge me—it is your report.
Jenny Marra
Lab
I am not going to challenge you, convener. The evidence that we heard from the victims of crime compellingly showed that people do not want to tell their sto...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I remind members to speak through the chair.
Christine Grahame
SNP
The report states:“witnesses asked for continuity in the support provided across the system.”That is the important part. However, I think that we all agreed ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
I call Duncan McNeil to speak on behalf of the Health and Sport Committee.15:34
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
Lab
I, too, express my thanks and appreciation for all those who allowed us to do our job in support of the Justice Committee in considering the bill, with a par...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
Mr McNeil, you must conclude.
Duncan McNeil
Lab
Whether we call it a person-centred approach or the right thing to do, or say that it is not before time, action is necessary. We support the bill at stage 1...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Labour is happy to support the Government’s motion and the general principles of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Bill.Earlier this year, at the Scottish...
Christine Grahame
SNP
I simply want Jenny Marra to confirm her position, because she signed up to the words:“On balance, the Committee does not believe that a compelling case has ...
Jenny Marra
Lab
Committee reports are always agreed by the committee, but Scottish Labour thinks that there is a compelling case for case companions.Just as the Government i...
John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Ind
Given the member’s strength of feeling on case companions, did she think about whether it would have been appropriate to have a minority entry put in the Jus...
Jenny Marra
Lab
As I said in response to the convener, committee reports are always agreed by the committee, and I think that we made our point in committee that we think th...
Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP)
SNP
Will the member give way?
Jenny Marra
Lab
No.As I said, one area of concern that we have is about the bill’s monitoring and reporting procedures. Our concerns were raised during the committee’s evide...
Christine Grahame
SNP
Will the member give way?
Jenny Marra
Lab
No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
The member is not giving way. Interruption. Can we have order, please?