Hansard

I am not disputing that point; I recognise the point that the member makes.

I understand that many members who opposed the reform of corroboration did not do so out of a lack of concern for such individuals. Indeed, as a Parliament we have shown that we are often united in standing up for the most vulnerable in society and leading the way on key issues. I hope that the work that we undertake in considering the Bonomy recommendations and other reforms will enable a future Parliament to consider and, I hope, find consensus for such an important change in our law.

The third review that led to a number of provisions in the bill was Sheriff Principal Bowen’s review of sheriff and jury procedure. The provisions in the bill that have been developed from his review will make improvements to the effective management of such cases, so I extend my thanks to Sheriff Principal Bowen for his work in that important area.

Finally, there was the most recent review of the use of stop and search. John Scott QC and his advisory group worked tirelessly to produce a thorough and balanced report. I again pass on my gratitude to John Scott and all the members of his group for their hard work, as it has enabled us to include detailed provisions in the bill.

I realise that I have been talking about the past and the extensive work that has brought us to this point, but it is equally important that we look to the future and the real and positive changes that the bill can bring about. The stop and search reforms complement the provisions that were already in part 1 of the bill. Part 1 clarifies powers of arrest by creating a new single power to arrest someone on suspicion of having committed an offence. It replaces a complicated mixture of common-law and statutory powers of arrest. The reforms bring greater clarity to the process of arresting and holding suspects in custody while ensuring that the police have the necessary powers to carry out their role in investigating and detecting crime.

I am always proud to pay tribute to the hard work of our police officers who are committed to protecting our communities and our country on a daily basis. The new legal framework will support them in continuing to do their job as effectively as possible. The bill also enhances the rights of suspects to legal advice. It is only fair that those individuals who are brought into police custody are fully informed about their legal rights, and all suspects will now have a right of access to a lawyer, regardless of whether they are to be interviewed. We will also shortly bring forward regulations to seek to remove legal aid contributions for police station advice.

However, it is clear that some people in police custody require even more protection to ensure that they are fairly and appropriately treated according to their needs. That is why the bill, building on the Carloway recommendations, includes specific provisions for vulnerable adult and child suspects. The bill includes, for example, the vital safeguard that where a person who is aged 16 or over is assessed as vulnerable owing to a mental disorder, they cannot be interviewed without a solicitor being present. The bill will also ensure that appropriate adult support is sought by the police to facilitate effective communication with such individuals. The bill strikes an appropriate balance in introducing additional protections for children while recognising the greater level of self-determination of 16 and 17-year-olds.

I want to recognise Mary Fee’s work on highlighting the important issue of children who are affected by parental imprisonment. Although the Government was unable to support her previous amendment at stage 2, we understood the positive intentions behind the proposed change. Our concerns were more specifically about how workable the exact amendment might be in practice. Since stage 2, we have given the matter serious consideration and I am delighted that we were able to support the revised provisions that Mary Fee brought forward today. I consider the change to be a constructive and positive step.

Part 2 and onwards contain a number of equally important and modernising reforms that should greatly benefit our justice system. I mentioned earlier that reforms in the bill take forward recommendations from Lord Carloway and Sheriff Principal Bowen to enhance efficiency for appeal procedures and sheriff court solemn cases. I consider that those reforms will have a positive effect on our court practices and procedures.

There are many other important reforms in the bill. Members will be aware of specific and devastating cases in which Scots have lost their lives because of knife crimes. Much progress has been made in recent years, with offences of handling offensive weapons down 67 per cent since 2006-07. However, we must continue to do all that we can to discourage individuals from carrying offensive weapons. That includes ensuring that our courts have sufficient powers to deal with individuals who continue to carry such weapons in public, despite being aware of the terrible consequences. I am pleased that Parliament supports our policy, expressed in the bill, to increase the maximum custodial term for carrying such offensive weapons, including knives, from four to five years.

If we are to continue to have a justice system to be proud of, we must ensure that our justice sector partners are not prevented from using the most appropriate technology. The provisions in the bill will assist in that aim, first by opening the door to the greater use of television links in our courts, including for people appearing from police custody, and secondly by giving our courts the power to make rules on the greater use of technology in criminal procedure.

The bill represents a significant step forward in ensuring that our criminal justice system continues to be modern and efficient and strikes the right balance.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill be passed.