Hansard

This stage 3 debate on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill presents the final opportunity to thank the many witnesses and stakeholders whose contributions have helped to shape the bill and to pay tribute to the work that the Justice Committee clerks have undertaken, together with members of the committee and the convener, at the various stages of the bill.

The bill before us this evening has taken over two years to reach its conclusion, having been introduced to the Parliament in the summer of 2013. It sought to implement recommendations from two expert reviews: Sheriff Principal Bowen’s review on sheriff and jury procedure and Lord Carloway’s review on criminal law and practice.

Since then, some of the original provisions relating to automatic early release and corroboration have been removed. It is fair to say that the debate on corroboration dominated the stage 1 proceedings and ultimately resulted in the postponement of the legislative process until the Bonomy review reported many months later. Although that delay was welcome, it undoubtedly came at the expense of effective scrutiny of the bill, given the huge time lapse between stage 1, stage 2 and today’s stage 3 proceedings.

However, among a number of reasonable and sensible provisions in the bill are changes to solemn procedure, the statutory requirement for out-of-court discussion between the prosecution and the defence and the increase in the maximum custodial sentence for handling offensive weapons from four to five years. The bill also allows for greater use of live television links between prisons and the courts and includes provisions to mitigate delays in progressing appeals. Those are practical provisions that have received cross-party support from the outset.

However, at stage 1, the Justice Committee expressed concern about the change in terminology to use the term “arrested” to describe suspects who are taken into custody for questioning but who are not charged, which risks unfairly stigmatising people who may simply be assisting the police with their inquiries. The terms “detained”, “arrested” and “charged” are well understood by the public, who, as the Justice Committee’s convener pointed out at stage 2, know that being detained is different from being arrested, even if they do not fully understand the procedural and legal distinctions between the two.

Furthermore, in its submission to the Justice Committee on the 2016-17 budget, Police Scotland highlighted the cost implications of the bill for the forthcoming year.

I am glad that the cabinet secretary has listened to some of the concerns that have been expressed, but I remain unconvinced about some of the proposals.

I turn to the subsequent additions to the bill at stage 2, in particular the provisions relating to stop and search, which have codified what became a controversial tactic employed by Police Scotland. Together with the associated public consultation, that will help to restore the public’s confidence in Scotland’s policing. It is only right to acknowledge Alison McInnes’s considerable efforts to put those changes on a statutory footing.

Mary Fee’s amendment at stage 2 was withdrawn and lodged again today to make reference to the named person. For the avoidance of doubt, the Conservatives, although we voted for that amendment, remain opposed to the universal application of the named person policy. However, we recognise that, if the named person policy goes ahead, it should be targeted at vulnerable children such as the children of people in custody or in prison. The amendment has the potential to make a significant difference to the unacceptably high number of children of prisoners who go on to offend and I congratulate Mary Fee on lodging it.

However, I rather fear that the bill will be remembered for all the wrong reasons: not just for the debacle over corroboration, but most decidedly for the opportunity that has been missed today to provide legal aid for a complainer in cases of serious sexual assault in Scotland to ensure that they are able to oppose an application for the release of their psychiatric, psychological and medical records. That amendment would have represented a small but hugely significant step for victims in sexual offence cases. The amendment would have addressed many injustices. It would have put victims in Scotland on an equal footing with victims in England and Wales; it would have addressed the age-long issue of medical records being misused to discredit victims; and it would have upheld those courageous individuals’ basic human right to privacy under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The victims of rape and sexual assault bravely subject themselves to what is often a traumatic process and it is a travesty that an opportunity to help them to see justice served has been lost.

The Scottish Conservatives recognise that the bill has not had an easy passage and that it has posed a lot of difficulties for the Scottish Government. We voted against it at stage 1, but the subsequent changes and concessions that have been made since then—notwithstanding my huge disappointment and dismay at the failure of the legal representation and legal aid amendment—mean that my party will support the bill at decision time.