Meeting of the Parliament 30 October 2024
I wish to speak against the motion to pass the coronavirus extension regulations, but let me be clear exactly why. I find myself in the perhaps unusual position of actually understanding where the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs was coming from with regard to the continuation of many of these measures when she was responding to questions at committee. However, we cannot ignore that the legislation was brought forward in response to the pandemic, most of the direct impact of which ceased around three years ago. There can be no analysis whereby good practice is to simply extend legislation brought in during an emergency in a vacuum of scrutiny. That is why I have concerns about the fiscal fines regime aspect of this SSI.
A fiscal fine is a direct measure that prosecutors may offer to an accused as an alternative to prosecution in court. The legislation that the Government seeks to extend today increases the maximum amount that can be issued through a fiscal fine to £500. However, data shows that around two fifths of accused who rejected a fiscal fine faced no further action. In short, not only do criminals—for that is what they are if they are in this situation—avoid a court process and, indeed, any sanction, but, of course, victims are left in the dark as a result.
The problem is compounded not only by the SSI bringing more criminals within scope but, three years on, the Government’s still not having bothered to collate reliable up-to-date data showing the outcome of this so-called temporary change to our law. It is instructive that the Scottish Government itself appears to recognise the need for much greater scrutiny of this change in that it seeks to make it permanent in a forthcoming bill.
Perhaps by then it will have presented robust comprehensive data on the increase and thus adduced evidence as to why the measure is required and whether the stated outcomes at the time have been achieved and will continue. In the absence of such evidence, it is deeply inappropriate to extend legislation on the nod. For that reason, I ask Parliament to vote against the motion.