Plenary, 06 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, December 6, 2007

Official Report 701KB pdf

---

Summary Justice Reform

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-983, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on summary justice reform.

We welcome this debate. Summary justice reform is vital and has been debated before.

I start with an anecdote, which comes not from my position as Cabinet Secretary for Justice or from having been a defence agent for approximately 20 years, but from witnessing an assault almost exactly a year ago today. I am still waiting to give evidence in the trial for that assault, which was nasty but is not a matter for a sheriff and jury; I understand that it is being dealt with as a summary matter. I was first cited in May, but the trial was cancelled. I was cited again in October, but again the trial was cancelled. I have been cited a third time for next week, and I hope that the trial will proceed. However, it is approximately a year since the incident, there has been no closure for the victim and there has been considerable inconvenience for me and numerous other witnesses, not all of whom reside in Scotland and who include members of the public as well as serving officers. That is why summary justice reform must proceed and why, back in January, Parliament passed unanimously the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, as members will recall.

I pay tribute to Sheriff Principal McInnes and his committee for their work, to the previous Administration and to the former Justice 1 Committee for creating the platform for the changes that the Government is seeking to make. In January, as now, everyone was in no doubt that we needed to get our summary justice system working better, smarter and in the way in which its name suggests it should work. It should be a truly summary justice system—a system that is quicker, more efficient and more effective.

We are building on the legislative platform that we inherited from our predecessors and we are happy to give credit where credit is due. We supported the programme in opposition because it was correct, and we are delivering it in government because it is right.

More than 90 per cent of all criminal court cases call in our summary courts, which are the first contact with courts for most offenders. By reforming the system so that that critical first contact is effective in dealing with offending behaviour, we can improve on Scotland's poor reoffending rates, which remain a major problem not just for Scotland's justice system but for the nation as a whole.

The provisions in the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 will improve procedures; result in a redistribution of cases to an appropriate level in the system through changes to sheriff sentencing levels and the increased use of direct measures; free up court time through more administrative enforcement of fines, which Mr Aitken is quite correct to go on about; and revitalise the practice of lay justice through improved training and appraisal. Lay justice is often maligned—I see similarities between it and community councils. At the end of the day, they are necessary if we are to have local democracy, accountability, a better judicial system and public involvement at appropriate levels. However, we must ensure that they work better and smarter, if not harder. In addition, we must allow the Scottish Court Service to use its expertise to run all of Scotland's criminal courts.

The CPR act is only one part of the story. We recently published a summary justice reform system model, which details how criminal justice partners will work together to help to make our summary justice system live up to its name and make Scotland safer and stronger. No one can disagree with the aims of the system model, which are to have a summary justice system that is

"Fair to the accused, victims and witnesses … Effective in deterring, punishing and helping to rehabilitate offenders … Efficient in the use of time and resources … Quick and simple in delivery".

The system model builds on legislative changes to address a wider need for change. In case any of us need reminding of that need for change, I will mention some of the indicators that were provided in the McInnes report, to supplement the anecdotal evidence that I gave on a summary case in our capital city. The report said that a system that fails to dispose of more than half of cases within six months of the offence cannot truly be considered summary, and that no evidence was led in around 90 per cent of cases that were set for trial. The system is not in crisis, but it is capable of being much better.

Summary justice must preserve fundamental aspects and core tenets, such as the presumption of innocence, but it must also reflect the speed and ease that are appropriate to the lesser nature of the offending with which it deals. The system model will help to bring about

"Greater use of direct measures (non-court options)",

thereby removing—appropriately, we believe—cases from the courts. It will help cases to come to court more quickly and will allow early, effective preparation of court cases. It will be possible for cases to be dealt with at the earliest possible stage in proceedings.

Culture change is critical. Everyone who is involved in the system has a part to play. The police will provide high-quality information in their reporting of cases. The Crown will have more options for appropriate action and will use high-quality information to communicate with the defence to discuss cases ahead of hearings. Since October this year, the Crown has provided a disclosable summary of evidence to enable the defence to assess effectively the weight of evidence against their client.

Other changes are also vital. We recently launched a consultation on changes to summary criminal legal assistance, which are designed to complement the system model. The proposed changes have generated considerable debate. Let me be clear on one of the main objectives of summary justice reform: we want cases to be resolved sooner, not after several hearings, and we do not want preparation to be done for trials that do not go ahead, because there is too much delay and inefficiency in the system. From my days as a defence agent, I recall that far too many trials were scheduled that did not go ahead after the plea changed to guilty at the last minute. As Sheriff Principal McInnes said when he gave evidence on the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill to the Justice 1 Committee in May 2006, too much effort goes into preparing for trials that do not go ahead because a guilty plea is entered, often on the day of the trial itself. As well as causing huge inconvenience to individuals, that has a cost to the public purse.

We must address the inconvenience to witnesses who turn up at court for a trial that does not take place; the stress that victims suffer through unnecessary delays in cases' progress, which prevent people from getting on with their lives and, in some instances, having closure; and the waste—which is not cost free in time or money—for court staff, judges, the prosecution, the police and the defence. The situation undermines the public's faith in the justice system, which must be paramount.

It has been suggested that the proposed reforms to legal aid and the wider summary system, which seek to encourage the early resolution of cases, will in some way infringe civil liberties. Let me be clear: anyone who wants to have their day in court will continue to have a right to it, and anyone who wants to plead not guilty will continue to be able to do so—that fundamental right remains sacrosanct. However, the system must also take into account the rights of the community. The process must be visible, speedy and efficient.

We want to reward solicitors fairly for the critical work that they do in advising and representing accused persons and protecting their rights. We want a system in which justice is upheld and the taxpayer receives the best possible value for money.

On Margaret Smith's amendment, we do not believe that the proposed changes will create substantial problems in relation to eligibility for legal aid, but we are happy to consider the matter further, to ascertain whether there are genuine cases of hardship for which special allowance must be made. On that basis, I am happy to accept her amendment.

On Monday, I had a constructive meeting with the Law Society of Scotland and representatives of local bar associations to discuss the proposed legal aid reforms. The people whom I met have concerns about the proposals and want to put forward an alternative approach. Any such approach must support the system model and be affordable, given the tight financial constraints that we face. I am hopeful that we can reach agreement and that it will not be necessary for me to impose a solution, so I have agreed to extend the consultation period until the end of January, to allow for further discussion. After all, it is good to talk—as the saying goes—and reaching agreement is better than enforcing a solution.

The 2007 act received unanimous support, and work has been going on to prepare for the implementation of its provisions. The first phase of implementation will take place from next Monday and will include reforms to bail and remand, criminal procedures, sentencing levels and lay justice.

The bail reforms were welcomed in the Parliament as a sensible way of making the law more transparent. It is correct that the court should decide, on the circumstances of each case, whether an accused should be remanded or bailed. It is right that the Parliament should set a framework within which the court reaches such decisions. Public safety must be considered by the court when it is deciding whether to bail or remand. Judges will be obliged to give reasons for bail decisions. The accused will be left in no doubt about the responsibility that is placed on them when bail is granted, and there will be increased penalties for breach of bail orders, coupled with tough enforcement. We want there to be increased respect for bail, so that breach rates fall.

Lay justice is critical. Much important progress has been made in taking forward reforms. Since March 2007, 470 existing justices of the peace have accepted new appointments, which they will take up from Monday. Almost all of them have attended three-day refresher courses. Feedback has been excellent and reflects their enthusiasm about improving their skills. Strengthened lay justice will play a key role in the reformed summary justice system.

We are happy with the amendment in Mr Aitken's name, which is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. The Government is already on the case in the context of the enforcement of fines, the review of community penalties, the requirement for custodial sentences to be reduced in some instances and the requirement for offenders to be dealt with through firm, tough punishment in communities. As the amendment says, for some offenders the only suitable punishment is prison. The sacrosanct principle is that it is for the judiciary and the presiding sheriff or magistrate to decide whether a sentence should be custodial.

More of the 2007 act's provisions will be implemented in March, with reforms to fines enforcement, court unification and procurator fiscal direct measures. By working together, criminal justice agencies can make the changes that we all want. As people on the ground will see the effects of the changes before anyone else, the national and local criminal justice boards will play a crucial role in monitoring and evaluating them.

Of course, the impact of these extensive and complex changes will not become apparent overnight. When, in due course, sufficient data become available, this Parliament, and in particular the Justice Committee, will want to scrutinise them. I believe that when that time comes, we will have a summary justice system that lives up to its name and ensures that any citizen—no matter whether they are a Cabinet Secretary for Justice or anyone else—who is the victim of or a witness to an assault or other minor summary incident does not have to be cited to court on three separate occasions. The least that we can do is to ensure that a summary trial is held less than a year after the incident. Our job is not only to make better law for our communities but to provide some justice to victims.

As I have said, I am happy to accept both amendments.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that a summary justice system should deal with offending behaviour quickly and effectively; believes that the implementation of the provisions contained in the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 will help bring about improvement in how the summary justice system deals with offending behaviour; considers that the legal aid system should complement the reformed summary justice system and ensure that solicitors receive fair remuneration for their work in advising clients while also providing best value to taxpayers, and looks forward to the Justice Committee providing effective post-enactment scrutiny on the impact of the programme of summary justice reform.

In telling the chamber about his personal experience of an incident in Edinburgh, the cabinet secretary has somewhat upstaged me. In February, on a Glasgow bus, I witnessed a nasty assault. The case has still not been disposed of and, like Mr MacAskill, I have experienced a considerable amount of personal hassle. The idea behind summary justice is that the minor—or comparatively minor—matters involved should be dealt with quickly, but clearly that is not happening.

Today's debate is simply a corollary of the debate that we had earlier this year in passing the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill. Although we might have had some misgivings about certain aspects of the legislation, we felt that it was, on the whole, worth while. Mr MacAskill has already mentioned bail. It was apparent to us all that urgent measures had to be taken on that matter in the public interest, and the provisions in the 2007 act moved in that direction.

Under the legislation, sentences for summary matters have been increased from six months to a maximum 12 months. I pressed for such a move for many years; however, even as recently as 2003, it was always voted down by the previous Administration. Of course, the measure suddenly became a bit more acceptable when the Administration introduced it. That is a good thing—I am a great believer in praising people who convert to the side of common sense.

That said, we are not happy with certain other measures, and we will have to see how they work. For example, diversions might make sense in many instances, but I find it regrettable that in certain other instances we will lose the salutary effect that a court appearance might have. I can appreciate that the cabinet secretary, like his predecessors, does not wish to clutter up the courts with comparatively minor matters. Of course, it all comes down to the definition of "comparatively minor". We might well have to revisit the issue.

Diversions will reduce the flow of activity in the sheriff summary and district courts. I find it interesting that many more cases will not be cited but will come to the court through letters of undertaking. Although that move will speed up the process, one very real problem is that, at the moment, many such letters are not answered and people simply do not show up at the required time. As a consequence, the number of warrants and remands in custody will increase, but I do not see any way around the issue.

The high number of no responses in cited cases has been a problem for many years and, if things do not improve significantly, we will have to come back to the issue somewhere down the line.

When a letter comes back pleading not guilty and a trial diet and intermediate diet are fixed, it is all very well to think that everything will go swimmingly but, frequently, the accused does not turn up for the intermediate diet, which results in a discharge of the trial diet and the fixing of a notional diet, to which the accused has to turn up, but more court time is wasted. The 2007 act does not deal with that problem, which might continue—again, we will have to wait and see.

We all want non-custodial disposals in summary cases to work. I am sorry Mr MacAskill, but I must revisit the question of fines, because the system that is being introduced is unnecessarily complex. There is a problem with fines not being paid, although it does not necessarily show up in the statistics. The last time that I looked, there was between £3 million and £4 million of unpaid fines. In percentage terms, that amount is artificially low, because the substantial monetary penalties that are imposed under health and safety at work legislation, which are paid by diligence, tend to be collected, as do those penalties for motoring offences that attract high-tariff fines. However, payment issues arise with fines of £200 or £250 for crimes such as theft by opening lockfast premises or breach of the peace. I accept that, under the 2007 legislation, steps are being taken to beef up the collection process, but I return to the simple option that successive Administrations have been reluctant to consider—namely, negotiating with the benefits agency so that fines can be deducted in instalments from wages or benefits. That would put an end to all the problems.

Community service is a valid disposal and part of the summary courts. The problem is that many of us—and not exclusively Conservative members, I suspect—are not convinced that community service orders are being enforced sufficiently robustly. The breach rate is high, and social work departments are lenient with breaches to the point of indulgence. I am convinced that only a fraction of the community service that the courts order is being completed. We must consider that.

Custodial sentences must always exist as the last resort. A while back, a Labour member—I think that it was Margaret Curran—pointed out that some of the cases that go before the summary courts will be fairly serious, particularly now that the courts can give sentences of up to 12 months. There could be cases of repeated drunk driving, domestic violence or common-law assault, all of which will need to attract reasonably high-tariff sentencing on a summary complaint. We must recognise that, but we must also recognise that a great many people are eventually jailed in the district court, not because what they have done is terribly serious, but because they have done it 40 or 50 times previously, frequently while under a succession of bail orders. I am sorry, but the custodial alternative must always exist.

I am pleased that Mr MacAskill—in what he said today and in one of his more constructive contributions to the Justice Committee the other day—has dealt with the legal profession's concerns about legal aid. Margaret Smith has properly pointed out that issue in her amendment. We are perhaps going down a reasonably constructive route on that.

Delays in court proceedings must be considered seriously. In my experience in Glasgow sheriff court, 16 or 17 summary trials were sometimes allocated to one court in a day. If everybody had turned up and maintained their not guilty plea, the court would have been sitting ad infinitum. In practice, very few trials proceeded. However, one device that is beloved by many accused is to turn up on the day, to wait for the call-over for the trial to end and only at that stage—once the witnesses have been checked and are all there—to change their plea. That is not acceptable, so we must consider how the situation may be tightened up.

As I have already said to the cabinet secretary and other members informally, I commend the New York system of summary justice. I would like the community court system to be trialled in Glasgow or somewhere else. I appreciate that our two systems would not necessarily be totally compatible, and that there would have to be some hard thinking about how to make the arrangements compatible here. However, it could work. If it works in midtown Manhattan or Red Hook, I really think that it could work here. However, it would work here only if it was a straightforward facsimile of what is done in New York.

I am afraid that a lot of sacred cows would have to be slain in order for that system to be implemented. We would have to recognise that the vast majority of people who would appear before community courts would do so from custody, and that there would be no question of deferring sentencing for a social inquiry report or of assessing people's fitness for community service. Instead, they would be out on the streets that day with their uniform on, carrying out their work. The recent celebrated cases of Boy George and Naomi Campbell are classic illustrations. We cannot deny the facts: the levels of minor crime in the areas concerned have plummeted. Let us consider the use of that system.

We welcome the proposals that are before the Parliament today, although we will have to measure their success. I am sure that the Justice Committee will wish to carry out an inquiry, once the measures have bedded in and have had time to work. At that stage, we can consider the system, accept and build upon what has worked, and reject or toughen up what has not worked. Subsequently, we will probably get by with a bit of tweaking. Let us hope that we can prepare legislation and a system that works to the benefit of the people of Scotland.

We will not be dividing the chamber at decision time.

I move amendment S3M-983.1, to insert after second "behaviour":

"and recognises also that the success of a revised summary justice system will be dependent on fine payments being enforced and a much tighter and rigorous control of community service orders, and that in some cases custodial sentences are the only appropriate disposal".

I begin by apologising to the Parliament for the absence of my colleague Mike Pringle, who has had a minor accident. Unfortunately, members are going to have to listen to me twice this afternoon.

I welcome the debate and the Scottish Government's commitment to taking forward the work of the previous Executive and Parliament on the summary justice system. It is undoubtedly the shared aim of everyone in the chamber to ensure that our summary justice system, which accounts for 96 per cent of criminal court business, deals with offending behaviour quickly and effectively. That point was well made in the cabinet secretary's personal anecdote—perhaps topped only by Bill Aitken's. I have already related to colleagues the fact that I witnessed an assault earlier this month. The message to the general public from all that is that they should not be in our company or have anything to do with us, as we are obviously dangerous people to be around.

The changes that were introduced under the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 had a great deal of cross-party support. I am pleased that the Government intends to build on those reforms, which will free up the time of our courts and legal practitioners and will allow resources to be concentrated where they are most needed and can be most effective. They will enable courts and prosecution resources to be used more efficiently. Crucially, they will protect victims and witnesses from the needless distress of unnecessary court appearances.

Bill Aitken was right to highlight the potential use of letters of undertaking. That is just one of the many areas that we will have to examine carefully as the legislation beds down. It is vital for the reforms to be closely monitored and scrutinised as they come into effect and embed themselves in the system. We cannot simply pass legislation and then walk away, patting ourselves on the back for a job well done. As the motion says, there is definitely a place for scrutiny by the Justice Committee. I am sure that the cabinet secretary knows that we like to scrutinise him a great deal at the Justice Committee. There is a role for the Government there, too.

Bill Aitken's amendment reminds us that one of the most important reforms of criminal justice legislation was the establishment of fines enforcement officers. They form a critical part of the new system. It is essential that the public have faith that fines will be paid and that breaches of community sentences, alternatives to prosecution or bail conditions will be dealt with effectively and swiftly. Those of us who support greater use of alternative disposals must take them seriously. That is not just the concern of Mr Aitken and others; it should be our concern, too.

When I read again the Official Report of the stage 3 debate on the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, two things were clear. First, there was a fair amount of consensus and all parties supported the legislation. Secondly, there were concerns throughout the Parliament about how the various reforms would bed down, including the deemed acceptance of fiscal fines and compensation orders, trials in absence, and the wider powers of the police and Crown Office in relation to direct measures and undertakings. Time and again, ministers and others said that we would need to monitor the impact of the guidelines and legislation. I agree. That is why we welcome the Scottish Government's consultation and the announcement of an extension to its timing.

We also welcome the fact that the minister has been meeting interested parties. The Edinburgh and Glasgow bar associations and others have raised a number of concerns. Some of them are procedural and relate to the implementation of the legislation. We all agree that there is a need to ensure that cases are prepared as soon as possible to allow resolution as soon as possible. It is hoped that early disclosure will lead to earlier guilty pleas. However, the Crown's disclosable summary is a new feature of the system and, as yet, it is untested. It should be monitored for a period of time to ensure that it is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the Crown, the defence and the court. Proper training for the police who will write the short summaries is vital.

Concerns have also been raised about the proposed changes to legal aid. It is important not to lose sight of the key point that the provision of legal aid is not an end in itself but a means to an end. That end is access to justice. There is concern that linking legal aid applications to four different points in the system will add to bureaucracy. That is the opposite of what the Government intends. I appreciate that the Government wants to reduce the number of accused—50 per cent in some courts—who plead guilty on the day of the trial. There are understandable concerns that the present system of legal aid encourages not guilty pleas because the accused can then access legal aid. The process continues until the trial, at which point there is a guilty plea. However, there is also concern that the proposed reforms will put pressure on solicitors to encourage guilty pleas from their clients because such pleas will attract higher fees.

The criminal legal aid budget is not spiralling out of control. There has been a 35 per cent reduction in the cost of the average court case in the past 10 years, partly as a result of fixed fees. I hardly expect the country's teachers, police officers or unemployed to sympathise with the financial concerns of the legal profession, but it is not the bank balances of individual lawyers that concern me and my party. The suggested payments could mean a loss of up to 20 per cent in turnover for some firms, and four out of six might be worse off. There will be a reduction in the legal aid budget anyway, because fewer cases will go to court and more will be dealt with by fiscals. However, if the reduction in the legal aid budget and the proposed changes to legal aid mean that more legal practices believe that it is not financially viable to provide criminal legal aid, we might find a replication of the current situations with civil legal aid—I have spoken about that on many occasions in the past few weeks—and national health service dentists.

Looking further ahead, practitioners including members of the Edinburgh Bar Association suggest that the changes might lead to fewer trainees going into criminal law and more going into commercial law instead. That would leave future generations with reduced access to justice. Inability to access criminal legal assistance might lead to more self-representation, which could also be a serious barrier to justice, given that some people are unable to defend themselves effectively. It could also lead to the frightening prospect of perpetrators of domestic abuse cross-examining their victims.

It is also important to ensure that access to justice is not restricted by the eligibility criteria for legal aid. A reduction in the savings allowance will mean that fewer people will be able to receive representation through legal aid. That is likely to affect thousands of people. Practitioners have also raised with me their concern that the financial restrictions on access to assistance by way of representation will mean that no working man—if I can use that phrase—will qualify. The income limit is £208 a week. The minimum wage for a 40-hour week is about £220. When a partner's income is added, and given that no allowance is made for outgoings, we can see that even the poorly paid will be denied access as a result of the limits. Under the existing system, allowances are permitted for rent, mortgage payments, council tax and other types of debt, and a wife's or partner's income is not counted.

Make no mistake about it—practitioners use the Scottish Legal Aid Board key card and will not even put someone forward for aid if they are financially ineligible. I appreciate that the Government needs to be prudent with taxpayers' money in relation to the legal aid bill, but it must seriously consider whether the new eligibility criteria will create barriers to justice. I am reassured by the cabinet secretary's comments on that today.

We all want a swifter resolution of summary criminal cases, but none of us wants that at the expense of our right to a fair hearing. We all want to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent effectively, but none of us wants that at the expense of access to justice. We all want to keep people out of court and out of prison if at all possible, but there will always be occasions when that is not possible. That is why we need to ensure that our reformed summary justice system is effective.

I welcome the cabinet secretary's acceptance of my amendment. I commend the motion and my amendment to Parliament.

I move amendment S3M-983.2, to insert at end:

"and further calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the views of professionals are taken into account in the consultation on summary justice to ensure that access to justice for the weakest and most disadvantaged in society is protected."

It feels as if there is a fortnightly afternoon session with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice—he must like our company. Although the debate is not well attended, it is important and I welcome the chance to discuss summary justice.

It was as far back as Jim Wallace's time as justice minister that the decision to review summary justice was taken. The starting point was that our courts must meet the expectation of being modern, efficient, fair and just. Meeting the needs of the 95 per cent or more of people who will come into contact with the summary justice system required a shake-up of that system. As Bill Aitken and Margaret Smith have illustrated, the balance of probability is that, as so many people come into contact with summary justice, members will have had experience of it too.

It is no longer a summary justice system if it is not a summary of events. The correlation between being prosecuted and coming to court without delay to face the charges and hear the evidence is fundamental if summary justice is to work. Following the setting-up of the McInnes committee, its recommendations found their way into the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, now the 2007 act. At the time, the Justice 1 Committee members thought that it was about time that we had a bill with a different name, rather than just another criminal proceedings bill, but I guess that we cannot move away from form.

As others have said, the reform is the work of the Labour-Liberal coalition Government. Although we will work with the Scottish National Party, we will not let it claim the reform as its work. However, we want to talk to it about the implementation, because the SNP Government will be responsible for that.

Let me say a few words about scrutiny of the 2007 act. The act includes changes to bail and remand for solemn and summary procedure. It suggests that sheriffs should be able to explain their decisions about bail and remand and bring transparency in sentencing—that is an important part of the agenda.

However, the main provisions of the act do the following: extend the range of alternatives to prosecution; reform the fines and other financial penalties that can be collected and enforce the collection of those fines; allow the police to move away from the collection of means warrants, freeing up their time to pursue other warrants, which is part of the agenda to free up police time; establish justice of the peace courts from the former district courts; and give the power to ministers to increase the sentencing levels in district courts if and when the time comes.

The changes to summary justice will not be a big bang, as the reform of the High Court might be described. They will be done differently because reform is much harder to achieve. We will see many wholesale smaller changes that are designed to make the system faster and better.

When the Justice 1 Committee scrutinised the bill, it did not let the Executive off the hook. I am sure that, under Bill Aitken, the new Justice Committee will not let the Executive off the hook in scrutinising the implementation of the act. Like Margaret Smith, I believe that there is an awful lot of work to be done in scrutinising how the changes will be made. I must confess that there was a bit of frustration when we were asked as a Parliament to give far-ranging powers to the Crown and the police without having the detail of how those powers might be used. It was down to the perseverance of the Justice 1 Committee that we forced some of the detail that is critical when deciding the framework. An amendment in my name reduced the amount of the fiscal fine from £500 to £300, which was the right decision. I think that £300 is more than adequate. We know that we want to take offenders out of the system and divert them from prosecution where that is appropriate, but we must be clear about which offenders we are talking about.

Section 39, entitled "Fixed penalty and compensation offers", extends the range of offences for which a fixed penalty can be offered. There are clear public policy issues in that, which we would expect the Crown Office to make us aware of, given that it is adopting much more of a quasi-judicial role in deciding which offenders will be diverted from prosecution in court.

The fiscals raised minor concerns about the recall process, which is the process that is used when someone challenges the decision to impose a fiscal fine on the ground that they did not receive communication of it. Members of the Justice 1 Committee raised the issue of the effect that deemed acceptance of fiscal fines will have on people with learning difficulties. We must ensure that the system is right and that nobody can claim that they did not know that they were offered a fiscal fine.

Fine enforcement is an essential part of the act. The ability to collect the full extent of fines on time is an important issue. Section 43, which amended the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, set out further variations in relation to time to pay, deduction from benefits, powers of diligence and further reference to the court if it is needed. The creation of fines enforcement officers was the right way to proceed and it should lead to a greater collection of fines.

The Labour-led Executive began two pilots on fine defaulters. I would like to hear more about whether the Government intends to roll out those programmes so that if people fail to pay their fines, they are not sent to jail in the first instance but receive supervised attendance orders or other alternatives to custody.

It is right that Crown Office marking policy will remain confidential, but we should be kept informed of the general areas of prosecution—I believe that the code of practice will be published.

I want to say a word about the liberation on an undertaking procedure, which Bill Aitken mentioned. That is an extension of the procedure whereby a person is released from police custody on the undertaking that they will appear at court on a specified day and at a specified time. That procedure is already used in cases of drunk drivers and a few other instances, but there will be a huge extension of it. The mechanism will be central to bringing accused persons to the court speedily.

We spent quite a bit of time trying to understand how the process would work. In essence, there is a tight timescale for the police to be able to complete their summary report and for the procurators fiscal to mark the cases. It will be a huge piece of work for the police and the Crown Office. We would like to be kept informed about how it is going. I know that modelling is taking place. If the procedure works, the benefit will be that cases will be brought to court more quickly and the accused person will get a summary of the case against them much more quickly. It is important that we get that right.

I turn to the role of the procurator fiscal. Many years ago, when the Justice 2 Committee carried out its inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, it came to the conclusion that we perhaps do not value our fiscals as we should. They are very much on the front line—I know that others are, too. The fiscals briefed some members last night on the prospect of a ballot on pay. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will meet the First Division Association on the matter and that the strike can be averted. I hope that it is accepted that, in order to deliver this kind of legislative change, we need to resource our fiscals and our Crown Office properly. More experienced fiscals are going to be needed to take decisions about fiscal fines, the value of which we have increased from £100 to £300.

I see that I should be closing soon, so I will conclude on the important issue of the unification of the district courts. Sheriff McInnes took the view that lay justices should disappear from the system, but the Parliament decided that lay justices were important to the system, with some provisos about the kind of system that we wanted to have in place. It is important to examine in detail what is likely to happen with some of the powers that are contained in the act. It is suggested that some business will move from the sheriff court to the district court and there is nothing wrong with that. The Justice 1 Committee, when dealing with the bill, was clear that it did not want public confidence in the system to be dented, which it might be if the public perceived that crimes were being downgraded to a lower court. Therefore, it is vital that we get an assurance that proper JP training is taking place and that decisions to move marking policy from the sheriff court to the district court are acted on and that we know about that when it is happening. I urge that no decision on extending the sentencing powers of the new JP courts be taken without the whole Parliament being satisfied that the training has been done and that we have a court system that is up to the job.

There is much more to say about what is contained in the act, but the central message is that we must continue to be vigilant about the implementation of the act. Although, clearly, there are responsibilities for the Crown Office and the police, we have given them huge and wide-ranging powers. It is up to us to ensure that those powers are used in the way in which they were intended to be used.

We will support the motion. I hope that we get a further chance to discuss some of the key issues. It is important that we also consider the legal aid issues because we cannot change the system without talking to all those who are involved in making the system work, to ensure that they are reasonably happy with the outcome. We have the potential to make a huge difference to summary justice. I am sure that we can all make it work.

Summary justice reform is a matter of great significance to the running of an efficient judicial system, as we have heard, so it is important that the Parliament makes progress on it. As all members will testify, the issue is rather technical. I am sure that, as a consequence, this debate will be somewhat tamer than this morning's debate on the Scottish constitutional issue.

There are various issues in summary justice reform that will be discussed, some of which have been highlighted already. I will focus my attention on the proceedings of summary justice.

According to the McInnes report, which was published in 2003, the percentage of cases that were disposed within 10 weeks of the date of the offence was a mere 6 per cent. Inversely, 98 per cent of cases were completed within 100 weeks. Some 500 work days were used to dispose of those cases. Simply put, a system that fails to dispose of more than half of all cases within six months of the date of the offence cannot truly be considered to be summary justice. Summary trials are generally shorter and much less likely to take place over more than a day. That means that the proportion of summary trials in which an accused will have the opportunity to abscond part way through the trial will be smaller than is the case in relation to solemn trials.

That is why, when we are considering the provision of summary justice, a main focus of concern should be the more efficient and effective delivery of that justice. Improving the speed at which summary justice operates is likely to deliver significant benefits to the victims and witnesses in at least two ways: earlier access to justice; and a reduction in wasted court appearances.

Summary justice not only benefits the victims and witnesses; it benefits the court system. Swifter judicial action is also likely to contribute to reducing reoffending and deterring criminals who might have benefited from the drawn-out judicial process. Certainly, there is little doubt that delays in the system have allowed some offenders to believe that there is little to no effective sanction against their behaviour. On the other hand, with an increased efficiency in summary justice, disposals can be more appropriately tailored to fit the offending behaviour in a shorter timescale after the offence has been committed.

It has been suggested that a statutory time limit should be instituted for summary cases. Such an idea has many positive aspects. Setting a time limit of some months from when a person is charged with an offence within which the case must be brought to trial or dropped could be very effective at improving the speed of summary justice. Sub-targets could be presented within the overall target that relate to individual facets of the system, such as the time that is taken by the police to report cases to the procurator fiscal; the time that is taken by the procurator fiscal to get cases ready for court; and the ability of the court to accept such cases when they are ready. That would institute an idea of competition that would ideally propel each affected body to effectively and efficiently accomplish its course of action.

Although time limits could of course be extended for unique cases that demanded an extension, the negative aspects of the idea of time limits are quite obvious. The principal beneficiaries of a statutory time limit would be neither the victim nor the witnesses. It would be the accused person who managed to delay their case by taking advantage of systemic delays to have the case dropped. There would be widespread, and very justified, public concern if large numbers of cases fell because a time barrier had been passed.

There are several simple solutions to the delays in summary justice. Primarily, there should be greater and more effective communication between all levels of the judicial process. As the number of judges is limited, certain administrative proceedings could be more efficient if a judge's presence were not necessary. If a clerk were allowed to fix a date for trial in response to a written plea of not guilty, that would immediately lighten the load for the judges. To speed up the sentencing procedures for a convicted offender, the relevance of previous convictions could be taken into account to properly penalise the person in question.

To bring about further efficiency, a trial could be permitted to proceed in the absence of the accused, provided that the court was satisfied that the accused had been properly cited to appear and considered it to be in the interests of justice to proceed. Given that roughly 8 per cent of accused fail to appear on the day of their summary trial, which means that more than 4,000 hearings result in a warrant for the arrest of the accused, allowing the court to proceed in absence would dramatically hasten summary trials.

It is intended to provide the courts with more extensive powers when a witness fails to appear for a court hearing, such as the power to release the witness on bail when they have been apprehended following a failure to appear. That provision, which was inserted into solemn procedure legislation in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 by the 2007 act, would also assist in speeding up summary trials.

The overload of appeals in the High Court is increasingly a factor in preventing efficient summary justice. The High Court is under a severe burden from dealing with appeals. Given that all the appeals are dealt with at the High Court, the process becomes slower. The McInnes committee recommended that there could be a separate court to deal solely with summary justice appeals. That was not in the 2007 act and so has not been established—it might be something to be considered at some point in the future.

To adequately provide justice, the summary justice system should be fair to victims, witnesses and accused; effective in deterring, punishing and helping to rehabilitate offenders by taking action against an offender as quickly as possible, which maintains a link between the crime and consequence in the offender's mind; and, of course, efficient in the use of time and resources by ensuring that the flow of information between those involved in the system is streamlined. Considering the elements that have been put forward today and following those three principles will drastically facilitate a better summary justice system.

It is a fact that most people who experience involvement with the courts—whether as victim or accused—will be dealt with through the summary justice system. Summary justice deals with the offences that affect people who live in the communities that members seek to represent—cases that range from breach of the peace and antisocial behaviour through to weapons offences. It is an important matter to the people in my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, as I know it is for people who live in other members' constituencies.

The previous Labour Executive introduced legislation that will come into force this month to ensure that the Scottish system is fairer, more visible and more effective so that our communities can see its effect. We had to ensure that there were more practical measures to make the system fair and efficient.

There appears to be very little disagreement between members on the need to drive ahead with reforms of our summary justice system. The Procurators Fiscal Society section of the First Division Association in principle supports the changes to the way in which summary justice is dealt with in the criminal justice system. Like everyone else, it seems to have reached a level of agreement; it knows that the current system is not working efficiently and that it must change. Like us, it wants the system to change for the better.

The SNP Administration must ensure that the legislation is properly implemented with proper investment and full involvement of the public and the hard-working people who form Scotland's justice system. The current Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is running on good will and constant overtime, but that is not an acceptable way for it to operate. As well as the changes to the system, there must be improvements to pay and conditions for staff if we really want to retain experienced, motivated and hard-working people.

The hard-working lawyers—I am not trying to sook up, as they say in Kilsyth, to the minister, who is a lawyer—who work in the public service and who have enormous responsibility placed on them by the Scottish people to deliver justice, must be fully involved and properly valued by the Scottish Government if any justice reform is to work. I understand that there is a recruitment and retention problem in the Crown Office, with vacancies not being filled and good, experienced people moving on to other career paths. If that problem is not addressed, we can forget about getting in place the reform that we all agree is needed. People must be valued—part of that must be proper remuneration and support for them in the job that they do.

A poor comparison can be drawn between the salaries of Government lawyers and prosecutors. In April, agreement was reached between management and staff that there was a problem and that we had to move forward, so terms of reference for a pay and grading review were produced and agreed. That review involved management and staff but, sadly, later in the year, when it came to drawing up the conclusions of the review, the FDA representatives were not involved. I am gravely concerned because members are now being balloted on industrial action, which would take place on 3 January—one of the busiest court days of the year.

The cabinet secretary said that

"The system is not in crisis".

It is not, but if we are not able to resolve the disagreement between management and staff, it will be. He and Bill Aitken both talked about the length of time it takes for cases to come to court: if there is industrial action, then the delays will be even longer. Action in the form of work to rule will mean that some work will not be done, which will also make the process longer. The cabinet secretary said that everyone will continue to have the right to their day in court, but people might forget exactly what they are meant to be in court for if we are unable to get this matter resolved.

The cabinet secretary wants to reward solicitors fairly. I want to be able to fairly reward solicitors who work in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, too. The agreement was drawn up in April, after which people were supposed to get around the table, come to conclusions and bring the matter to the Lord Advocate and then on to ministers. That has not happened, so we must ask why the matter has not been resolved when it is, at this time of year, necessary to budget resources for the service.

If the SNP really wants summary justice reforms to work it must provide the proper resources to the people who make Scotland's justice system work. It needs to ensure that the people of Scotland can see justice being done, which also means properly valuing the people who implement and deliver the justice service, so that swift action can be taken against criminals, and so that victims can see that justice has been done. The cabinet secretary must intervene in the dispute to deliver on the legislation in order to make Scotland's justice system faster and more effective in the communities that it serves, and to get a motivated workforce who want to go out and do the job that they love.

I am no longer a member of a justice committee, so it has been some time since I have been involved in a justice debate. However, it is interesting to see that some of the familiar faces from the past eight and a half years are still involved in the debate. Yes—I am referring to Mr Aitken and Ms McNeill.

One of the real benefits of the past eight years of the Scottish Parliament is that all the reforms of our criminal justice system have come about because the Scottish Parliament exists. During the first two sessions, justice legislation made for one of the largest volumes of legislation going through Parliament. That was because, for many years reform of our justice system had been ignored for practical, rather than party-political, reasons. It was at times difficult to get the required time at Westminster to ensure that the necessary reforms to the Scottish justice system were given an opportunity to be debated and considered. It is therefore fair to say that the reforms within the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 are long overdue and will help to improve the system in order to benefit our constituents and communities.

I said that the justice system has benefited from the Scottish Parliament's existence and the fact that we have been able to extend the reform programme in our justice system. That programme has been accelerated during the past eight years, and there are anxieties in certain quarters that some of the reforms have moved forward too hastily. However, that accusation would not stick in relation to the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, given the considerable time over which it was considered. Pauline McNeill said that the process was initiated by Jim Wallace, the former Minister for Justice, but he initiated it back on 19 September 2001, when he established the McInnes committee to review summary justice in Scotland.

The McInnes committee was made up of individuals who had considerable experience of the summary justice system in Scotland. They gave two and a half years of their time to examine the matter in detail before they passed the report to the justice minister for his consideration. After that, the Executive gave us a period of consultation on what the McInnes review proposed, followed by committee consideration of the bill.

A considerable amount of time has been devoted to reform of our summary justice system. I am confident that the reforms have been well thought out and will make a significant difference. I will pick up in particular on court reform, which is dealt with in part 4 of the 2007 act. Some of the important changes that the act intends to make to our district court system will help to provide a more effective local justice system.

I welcome the unification of the summary court system under the Scottish Court Service, which Pauline McNeill mentioned. When I have visited district courts, I have been struck by the significant variations in how they have operated and in how justices have operated. Local authorities have tried their best to operate the courts as effectively as possible, but my impression has often been that the district courts were not among their highest priorities.

An issue that was often raised with me by justices on the bench in district courts was the great variation in the support that they received as they carried out their role. The McInnes report highlighted the lack of any minimum training standards or competence levels for lay justices. A number of years ago, the then District Courts Association introduced a training framework to try to achieve some consistency, but there was no statutory obligation on local authorities to continue to give their lay justices updated training or to monitor their competence. One of the benefits of a unified system is that it offers opportunities—now that it falls under the sheriff principal—to achieve greater consistency, to ensure that competence is actively monitored, and to have a much more effective local justice system through the new justice of the peace courts.

I welcome the fact that the 2007 act maintained a role for lay justices within our justice system, and that the Government is continuing with that policy. I am aware that the McInnes report was not unanimous on the issue—there was a note of dissent, and the report itself recommended that there should be a professional judiciary at all levels, including all levels of our summary justice system. I welcome the fact that the previous Executive went against that particular recommendation and that this Government is continuing that approach to ensure that people from the local community who are affected by the issues that the court will consider are involved in dispensing justice.

It is in everyone's interests to ensure that there is a quick and effective justice system. It is important that we ensure that the right individuals have responsibility, which is why I welcome the fact that the clerks to the new justice of the peace courts will also come under the Scottish Court Service: the problem with their coming from the local authority side is that they can often be drawn off into other issues. I am happy to support the Government's motion.

The subject of the debate is important to the people of Scotland. I always enjoy hearing Michael Matheson talk on justice matters—he obviously got time off for good behaviour, but those of us who remain on the Justice Committee are always attentive to what he has to say, because he speaks good common sense.

There is little—in fact, nothing—in the Government's motion or in Mr MacAskill's speech with which I could disagree. The debate has, correctly, been consensual. Given that the focus of the debate is implementation of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, that is hardly surprising.

The consensus that the act generated when it was passed at stage 3 is nowhere better illustrated than in the following wise words from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice—perhaps the minister could pass them on to him. Mr MacAskill said:

"As far as we are concerned, summary justice has to be speedy and efficient. It must balance a variety of factors. Pre-eminent among those are the interests of justice and the rules and regulations that must be followed, but we must also consider costs, time and effectiveness."—[Official Report, 18 January 2007; c 31305.]

Mr MacAskill's words at that time chimed exactly with the then ministerial team of Cathy Jamieson and Johann Lamont and with the Justice 1 Committee, which had the task of dealing with a complex and—as Stuart McMillan said—technical bill that dealt with difficult issues.

The reforms of the summary justice system in the 2007 act are critical. I hope that the act's various provisions—some will come into operation in the first phase of implementation, which will begin on 10 December, while the second phase is planned for 10 March 2008—will ensure that the vast majority of offenders who come into contact with the criminal justice system for the first time will be dealt with quickly and effectively, because that provides a better chance of stopping a life of crime in its tracks. The summary process can and must play its part in reducing offending and reoffending. Implementation of the act's provisions will play a vital role in achieving that objective.

Successful implementation of the act will put public safety and the interests of the law-abiding majority first in an expeditious and practical manner. That is how it should be. For example, the act introduces fines enforcement officers to enforce fines strictly against people who can pay but who choose not to. That is a good thing. The act enables fines to be deducted directly from salaries and from moneys that are held in bank accounts. Coupled with the fact that officers will be dedicated case managers for enforcement of fines, that provision will ensure that fine defaulters cannot frustrate the aims of justice by refusing to pay their fines and ending up incarcerated.

I voted for that provision in the previous session because recognition was afforded to the fact that some people who wish to pay their fines face genuine difficulty in doing so. Such individuals will be offered advice and assistance to enable them to pay in a way that they can manage. The balance that has been struck between hard-edged enforcement and access to advice means that imprisonment for fine default will be a genuine last resort. That is a good thing. The act deals with the problem in a practical, humane and commonsense way. I take it that the budget will provide enough money to allow effective implementation of that aspect of the act. Perhaps Mr Ewing can give that assurance in his summation—I would be grateful for that—as, I am sure, would other members.

Another aspect of the act that was welcomed when it was passed—and which will form part of the Justice Committee's post-enactment scrutiny of the impact of the summary justice reform programme that the previous Labour-led Executive initiated—is an essential refocusing of the role of district courts, which will be renamed justice of the peace courts. The relevant provisions, along with the move to bring the courts under the auspices of the Scottish Court Service, are eminently reasonable. The act's requirement that all JPs receive regular training is a necessary and sensible part of the reform programme, to which Mr Matheson was right to refer. I would be grateful if Mr Ewing would say in his summation under which phase of implementation those changes will be introduced.

I bring to members' attention information that I and other members have received from the FDA, which is the only union that represents prosecution lawyers in Scotland and of which the Procurators Fiscal Society forms a section. Members have raised the issue, and I understand that a ballot on industrial action will be held to seek support for a one-day stoppage on 3 January 2008, as my colleague Cathie Craigie said. The union's grievance is about what it calls

"the failure of the ‘Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service' … management to resolve the issues of fair pay for ‘its' members over more than five years."

That is a serious allegation and concern. Given that fiscals play an important role in various aspects of summary justice, will the minister say what the Scottish Government is doing to resolve their grievances and prevent damaging industrial action? I am sure that all members would urge the Government to do all in its power to help to achieve a negotiated settlement and allow the business of justice to proceed. I hope that we would all agree on that.

I will end on that cautionary note. I support the motion.

Of course I, too, fully endorse the desire to speed up the summary justice system and ease the process for victims and witnesses, but I also endorse the idea that access to the justice system needs to be available to everybody in Scotland.

Following the passing of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, the Scottish Court Service made a number of recommendations on court unification in the Grampian, Highland and Islands sheriffdom. Mr MacAskill recently endorsed those plans, which signalled the closure of the local district court in Inverurie. From 2 June, the business that would have been heard in Inverurie will be transferred to Aberdeen city, which will leave Grampian without a court to serve the rural area.

The simple fact that the population of Aberdeenshire is steadily increasing while that of Aberdeen city is on the decline seems to have been overlooked when the decision to close the court in Inverurie was taken. More and more people are moving away from the city to rural areas, and Inverurie is becoming a new centre for local services. However, as a result of the decision, people will be forced to travel back into the city to attend court, often when there is heavy traffic on the roads. Many people will be forced to rely on infrequent and unreliable public transport. The decision also apparently ignores the recent trend in the court business: as the consultation paper showed, far from steadily declining, court business has climbed back in recent months to the level at which it was five years ago. It is likely that it will rise further still with more people moving to the region.

In the minister's most recent reply to my representations on the matter, he informed me that

"new JPs will be appointed to serve Grampian Highland and Islands as a whole but it is our intention that when possible JPs from a local area will handle business from their own local areas, so that they can bring their local expertise to bear."

Grampian, Highland and Islands sheriffdom's area is very large, so it is not only likely that that approach will prove to be impractical, but, as I have pointed out to the minister, several local justices who currently sit in Inverurie have said that they would not want to transfer to the Aberdeen court. The change will deprive the justice system of a wealth of local knowledge and experience, and surely the same trend will be seen with future recruitment. How many people from rural Aberdeenshire will be willing to serve as JPs knowing that they will have to trek across the region to do so?

The minister also informed me that

"This should also make reporting local cases in local newspapers easier."

I, for one, would be fascinated to hear how moving services away from a region makes it easier for that region's local paper to report on them.

I am familiar with the arguments that the member has advanced. However, are the Liberal Democrats opposed to the court unification process?

Absolutely not—although a number of consultees made the point that, for Inverurie, there are alternatives to a unified court. I am disappointed that their suggestions were not explored. The fundamental strength of the lay justice system is that it means that there is local justice—justice is done and is seen to be done in the community. Whatever claims to the contrary are made about the decision, the simple fact is that, as a result of relocating Inverurie hearings to Aberdeen, justice will no longer be done or be seen to be done in the community. The closure of the Inverurie district court is another example of the continuing erosion of local services in rural areas.

The goals of the reforms to summary justice are to make things easier for witnesses and victims, to speed up the process and to ensure that access to justice is available to everybody in Scotland. Forcing people to make long journeys, alienating experienced local justices and removing important local services will not achieve that goal. By agreeing to the closure of the court at Inverurie, the Government has acted to make lay justice more difficult and more inconvenient for the people involved, and it has cast a shadow over the important work of the summary justice reform process. I urge the cabinet secretary and the minister to reconsider the decision, to lend their support to the communities in Aberdeenshire that wish to retain the local court in Inverurie, and to ensure that summary justice is not only quick and effective, as members have said they want it to be, but is also—which is just as important—accessible.

It was a fairly uncomfortable experience when a whip stopped me in the corridor and said the words "summary justice". It was a relief to find out that he was talking about a debate. It has also been a relief to me that the debate on justice in Scotland has not followed the Daily Mail agenda of wild-eyed ranting; rather, it has followed the far more sensible course of seeking to find what works and ensuring that we aim for that.

Parties may have different attitudes on the proper solution—there is even evidence that there are different attitudes within parties—but the general desire in Parliament is for a justice system that works. Such a system would protect us and increase our security, punish wrongdoing, help to maintain society's values and, most important, reduce recidivism. That is why I was pleased by the announcement that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice made a while back that he is considering more imaginative uses of sentencing. He is looking to address reoffending behaviour, rather than just jerk the knee and lock people up.

It was recently reported that there are about 7,500 people in Scottish jails. I cannot help but question whether that is not a terrible waste of human life. The number of crimes that are reported has fallen by about 40,000 compared with 20 years ago, but the prison population has increased by a third. Scotland is spending incredible amounts of money on hosting offenders in prisons, and a substantial percentage of that money is being spent on repeat offenders. Addressing recidivism is not only about saving individuals—it is about changing the face of the justice system and transforming people from offenders who are a drain on public finances into people who make a valid contribution to our society. The argument for addressing offending behaviour is as much about improving the country's economic outlook as it is about protecting society.

I welcome the strengthening of sheriffs' hands in sentencing. The current restrictions seem to leave sheriffs in the invidious position of not having the necessary tools at their disposal to play their part in protecting society and punishing wrongdoing. I am not certain that the additional powers go far enough, but I am prepared to accept that the cabinet secretary has considered the issue carefully and will continue to keep a beady eye on our courts' performance. I note that the potential increase in powers of JP courts may lead those courts to take on some elements of sheriff courts' current work. I trust that the matter will be kept under review as development of the courts proceeds, and that we will hear regularly from the cabinet secretary about their performance—not that I want to check up on his work, of course. The cabinet secretary's experience of the law from the other side—as a solicitor, before he became a legislator—and the experience of our law officers gives me confidence that our justice system is in the hands of people who will consider the issues carefully, rather than seek a news headline.

Alongside sheriffs' increased powers to impose imprisonment and to levy financial penalties, a number of other disposals will be available to them. I am aware that there are issues relating to resourcing of support for some non-custodial disposals. Over the past few years, there have been a few instances of courts commenting on the paucity of support that is available, but I am convinced that non-custodial sentences are more effective than custodial sentences at reducing recidivism, and I believe that the research supports my view. I look forward to seeing alternatives to custody used more widely and am pleased that the cabinet secretary has pledged Government support for such disposals.

I admit to feeling some disquiet about the work orders for which section 51 of the 2007 act provides. It may be the phraseology—"work orders" smacks of chain gangs to me—but I will seek reassurances about how those orders are working once the pilots start. I agree with the intention of depriving offenders of their free time—a variation on depriving them of liberty—but I hope that the orders will not be used inappropriately. While I am on that subject, I make it clear that I welcome Mr MacAskill's recent comments that there will be no uniform for people who are subject to work orders—there will be no orange jump suits. I agree with him that ridicule should not be part of the effort to rehabilitate offenders.

The fixed penalty provisions have obvious upsides and possible downsides. Although the freeing up of court time and increased collection rates are obvious benefits to the running of our courts, there are two areas of immediate concern. First, there is a possibility that the fixed penalty will be seen by some people as an easy option—pay and walk, if you will—and that the seriousness of accumulating a criminal record will be lost on some members of society. Secondly, there is a possibility that some will see paying the fixed penalty as being an easier option than going to court, where charges may have been dismissed, and that small miscarriages of justice will become commonplace. Although we should look to improve the performance of our justice system, we should remain vigilant to ensure that the pursuit of justice remains at the centre of the system. I look forward to getting an assurance from the cabinet secretary that he will keep those points under review.

With the small caveats that I have issued, I will support the motion.

This is one of those interesting debates in which I find myself batting at number 11. In another format, that would suggest that I might be going to bowl the new ball, but on this occasion it means that I must find an issue that has not already been covered to speak about. I find such an issue in the subject of bail.

The act that we are talking about—the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007—sets out the law on bail properly for the first time. It sets out that there is a general entitlement to bail and sets out the grounds for bail being refused when serious offences are involved. It streamlines the appeals procedure, provides extra protection for witnesses and, we hope, deters people from offending while they are on bail.

Bail is essential—we simply could not operate without it—but, as many members have said, it is an area on which we need to keep an open watch. I am sure that, as time goes by, the Justice Committee will want to see how all the provisions are working.

The act puts into primary legislation the grounds on which bail can be refused, thereby making the position clear for the first time. Such changes were essential. In 2005, the Sentencing Commission for Scotland said:

"We found that in some instances the law itself was unclear; that reasons for bail decisions were not always apparent; and that sanctions for breach of bail were not always applied or were applied inconsistently."

In a recent communication to several members, the Law Society of Scotland said:

"the system should be just and fair, certain and predictable and effective and efficient."

That is quite a neat way of summing up what we are trying to achieve.

I note that there are grounds for bail being refused when serious offences are involved. Bail can be refused when someone who has a previous conviction for a sexual or a violent offence, or for drug trafficking, is charged with such an offence. Those provisions are clearly designed to improve the safety of the public and to remove from the public sphere people who pose a serious risk to the public.

If the accused is denied bail, the reasons for bail being denied must be given. Equally, if the accused is granted bail, the reasons why bail is being granted must be given. In particular, the accused must be left in no doubt about their responsibilities under those circumstances. That brings me to my first concern.

As practical politicians, we issue a lot of leaflets, which a sizeable fraction of the population do not read. My advice from teachers is that at least 10 per cent, and perhaps as many as 20 per cent, of the population are functionally illiterate—in other words, they tend not to read. I hope that it is not unkind to suggest that those people are slightly more likely to finish up in front of the bench. I am concerned that written documents should not be our only way of communicating with folk in that position. If the accused is to be left in no doubt about what is going on, we might have to ensure that they are told what is going on rather than merely being given something that is written down.

Remand is another issue that I would like to discuss. At present, there are approximately 1,200 prisoners on remand in Scotland; they account for about 18 per cent of the total prison population and almost 50 per cent of the total number of prison receptions. Given that 50 per cent of prisoners who are held on remand are cleared anyway, a significant amount of time is spent in dealing with people who will subsequently be found to be innocent.

One of the bodies that is concerned about the number of people who are held on remand, Sacro, has estimated that the current process costs about £35 million a year. Perhaps we should give serious consideration to that aspect of our system and look at an alternative to remanding people who will not be granted bail, such as home detention. I encourage the cabinet secretary to consider whether that issue should be examined.

Time is against me, so I will not talk about the streamlined appeals procedure other than to say that it will be welcomed.

Victim Support Scotland, which covers all courts in Scotland and offers free services to witnesses, has broadly welcomed the changes that will be brought about by the 2007 act. However, the organisation has raised issues. First, when a court decides whether to grant bail the accused's solicitor can put across an argument, but the victim has no say unless an argument is made via the police or the PF. There is perhaps an issue to do with balance in that regard. Secondly, victims who do not attend court are given no notice that an accused has been granted bail. The courts could provide better information to victims via the police.

We all acknowledge that bail is a necessary part of the process and that every now and again the courts will get it wrong and the tabloids will have their day. It is always a matter of balance. I welcome the changes, which I am sure will significantly improve the system.

As Pauline McNeill said, during the past few weeks we have had debates on justice in the Thursday afternoon debate slot—perhaps the Parliamentary Bureau pencils in such debates at its weekly meetings. I have enjoyed hearing the range of contributions to the issues. Over the piece, members have made good speeches and proposed good ideas, and there has been a level of consensus. Today's debate has been no different.

One point that has emerged is that our justice system as it stands is without question failing the population of Scotland and consumers of legal services. The Parliament has recognised failings in the summary justice system, which is why the system is being reformed.

Stuart McMillan and other members said that more than half of all cases are not disposed of within six months of the offence taking place. What message does that send to victims? What inconvenience does it cause for witnesses? If we turn that statistic around, what benefits will follow through reduced reoffending? What benefits will follow a successful reform of summary justice, which creates a public perception that justice is swift? The purpose of the debate is for us to consider how we take the legislation that was supported by the Parliament in the previous session through the difficult period in which it is put into practice.

Many members talked about the people at the heart of the criminal justice system—victims, witnesses and practitioners in the public and private sectors. Much of what I say will be about the people on whom our communities depend to ensure that justice is done. Recently, John Scott, of the Edinburgh Bar Association, asked a group of around 150 law students how many of them planned to go into the criminal sector. Only one hand in the room went up, which illustrates the size of task that we face if we want to encourage well-qualified and ambitious people to go into the criminal justice system—I mean the right side of the system.

The system model builds on Sheriff Principal McInnes's work and the 2007 act, which provided for an expansion in alternatives to prosecution, a range of procedural reforms, including allowing prosecutors to roll up charges into a single case, and an increase in sheriffs' sentencing powers. It was principled legislation that sought to save costs and free up court time to relieve the pressures that are inherent in the system.

The legislation not only safeguarded lay justice, which was an area of concern for many members, but, as Nigel Don pointed out, greatly—and quite rightly—clarified the issue of bail. It gave fiscals greater powers through direct measures and introduced fiscal fines to take minor offences out of the court system.

We have seen some new and some old faces in this interesting debate. Michael Matheson escaped the chamber as soon as he could, but he was right to highlight that one important provision in the legislation was the unification of the district courts under the banner of the Scottish Court Service. He was also right to say that the legislation provides an opportunity for greater consistency, crucially with regard to training. That was a concern, even for those who fought long and hard to retain lay justices.

I am sorry that my colleague Mike Pringle is not present for the debate, as he has many interesting stories to tell from his many years as a JP. We should not underestimate the extra pressures that these reforms will put on those who work in the criminal justice system. In that respect, I hope that the minister will respond to Alison McInnes's concerns about the potential loss of experienced local JPs.

Cathie Craigie, Pauline McNeill and Bill Butler expressed concerns about pay and conditions in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The future of the summary justice system and the reforms that the Parliament has approved will be put at risk if we do not properly reward legal practitioners in the public and private sectors. A career as a public prosecutor must be seen as a viable alternative for law students and others in the legal fraternity.

Bill Butler was right to mention the importance of the new fines enforcement officers. At the moment, about 80 per cent of fines are collected, which still leaves many millions of pounds uncollected. I hope that the minister will confirm that the budget will provide for both enforcement and assistance. We should pursue those who choose not to pay fines, not those who cannot pay. It would be helpful if the minister could tell us what is happening with the fine defaulter pilots.

Other colleagues highlighted the importance of community disposals and alternatives to court and custody, which must be seen as a good way forward. Although, as Bill Aitken and others constantly remind us, we should be concerned about the monitoring of breaches, a bigger prize awaits us if we get all this right. We might well be able to ensure that community disposals and alternatives to custody result in lower recidivism rates and are better suited to deal with reoffending.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary will accept our amendment, which is a genuine attempt to ensure that the reforms result in communities and individuals getting access to justice. Of course, that is all bound up with the current legal aid system. Practitioners have expressed concerns about this very complex issue, and I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary is discussing it with them. If we can find a way forward that addresses many of those concerns, it will not only mean better access to justice but give a fair wind to the summary justice reforms. After all, that is what we all want.

I commend the motion and my amendment to the chamber.

Step 1 in summary justice reform was the passing of the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. Step 2 is implementing that act in practice, starting next week and going forward to March and April next year. However, step 3, which is just as important as steps 1 and 2, is the continual clear and careful review of what happens on the ground. It is vital that the legislation that the Parliament passed in January results in effective, efficient and proper justice on the ground, as was intended. The cabinet secretary mentioned the statistic that the vast majority of criminal cases—more than 90 per cent—are summary cases. That is why it is critical that we get the system right.

There are positive aspects in the latest instalment of the process, which is described as the summary justice system model. One or two of those aspects have been mentioned, but others have not. The first thing that is good about the model is the clear aim of reducing the time between charge and first calling at court. In the past, there has been far too big a gap between a person being charged and them ending up in court in front of a sheriff. The clear indication that the time will be cut dramatically is to be welcomed. Let us hope that that truly works in practice.

Another important aspect is the positive emphasis that the model puts on proper investigation by both sides—the Crown and the defence—at a much earlier stage of the proceedings. Far too many cases drift on and on without either party really looking into the facts, when much of the narrative could be agreed earlier. That could result in guilty pleas and cases being taken out of the system. When I was at law school, I remember hearing that

"An incompetent lawyer can delay a trial for months or years. A competent lawyer can delay one even longer."

There is a nub of truth in that statement.

A third good thing about the summary justice system model is the idea of holding the intermediate diet four weeks, rather than two weeks, before the trial. That will give a crucial extra two weeks in which to resolve difficulties and to ensure that statements are agreed, sorted out and passed round the various parties, thereby decreasing the chances of a trial being stopped, which is to be welcomed.

All the measures will be underpinned by a more proactive judicial approach—asking probing questions, demanding information and ensuring that cases stay on track. There is to be more of an inquisitorial style, rather than the purely adversarial style that we have at present.

Before I talk about our amendment and what we see as the important issues, I will pick up on two issues that have been raised. Nigel Don, in a very good speech, talked about the high number of people in the country as a whole who are unable to read or write. When I volunteered in Saughton prison, it was estimated that about 50 per cent of people there were unable to read or write. Sending letters and using the written word for everything can put people at a major disadvantage. However, I point out to Mr Don that it is not only people who cannot read or write who do not read political leaflets—I am told that one or two people who can read and write also put them straight in the bin.

Stuart McMillan made a point about a mandatory time target for summary justice. I am not sure, in the end, whether he called for such a target—I think that he put both sides of the argument. It is perfectly acceptable to have an aim or a target, but I would have deep concerns if we were to make the target mandatory to the extent that an accused could be released purely because the courts were busy. I hope that the Minister for Community Safety will address that in his speech and rule out such a target.

The Scottish Conservatives want to raise three issues. One is the collection of fines, which my colleague Bill Aitken discussed ably. Fines are often tacked on to the end of the list of disposals, but they are extremely important because, in 64 per cent of convictions, the disposal is a fine. Fines are the most common disposal anywhere in the criminal justice system, but they are particularly common in summary cases. The most recent figures that I have are those for 2003, which were published in 2006. In 2003, sheriff courts set fines of about £15 million, of which £3 million was left unpaid that year. That is the average sum that is left unpaid, so there is an issue about fines not being paid.

The new fines enforcement officers could be part of the solution. They have teeth: they have the power to apply to the court for deductions of benefits, for the arrestment of earnings and for the power to seize vehicles. However, we must assess how sharp those teeth turn out to be in practice. We are keen to review that area closely. It is all well and good giving the powers to the officers, but if the officer has to go back to the court to apply for a deduction of benefit or for the arrestment of earnings, that is something of a circuitous route. We might need to examine and tighten up those arrangements.

We have concerns about how community service orders have worked out in practice. In 2005-06, 32 per cent of community service orders had a breach application—that is 1,892 orders out of 5,937. I do not doubt for a second that there have been some good community service orders, nor that there have been some very appropriate ones, but if so many orders have been breached, the option must be examined extremely carefully. Community service orders cannot be seen as a soft option, but if 32 per cent of them are being breached, the bucket is very leaky. The system needs to prove itself far beyond reasonable doubt.

No mention was made in the Government's motion or in the cabinet secretary's speech of some of the rhetoric that we have heard about abolishing prison sentences of six months or less. I hope that the cabinet secretary does not want to pursue that. The disposal of a short-term custodial sentence needs to be on the table for all judges to use. A range of disposals is needed, of which the short-term sentence ought to be one that is reserved for appropriate circumstances. In practice, it is used most often as a last resort, except for persistent or serious offenders, but the option must be kept on the table.

The idea of rehabilitation in prison has not been talked about; that is something to debate another day. We talk about prison not working and about trying to rehabilitate people out of prison, but some excellent work is being done in Saughton prison, where staff are trying very hard to rehabilitate prisoners. That includes prisoners who can read and write teaching those who cannot.

We accept the terms of the Government's motion, and we have lodged an amendment that we think is sensible and right. We hope that the solutions that have been advanced will work; it is critical that we review them.

Labour members will support the amendments in the names of Bill Aitken and Margaret Smith. We think that they make good sense. Bill Aitken amplified a number of the greater public's concerns about ensuring that fines on individuals are effectively enforced. Margaret Smith's amendment speaks volumes, and it will help to ensure that the profession is with us and is part of the reforms. The cabinet secretary will be encouraged by the fact that we will also support his motion, which Labour members are greatly encouraged by. Of course, the motion is on the implementation of a piece of work that was carried out by the Labour ministers Cathy Jamieson and Hugh Henry. We want that legacy to be taken forward, and we thank the cabinet secretary for the kind words in his speech that acknowledged the work of the previous Executive and for his assurance that it will be implemented.

Labour members want to ensure that the new legislation is enforced effectively and is resourced. We can see from the financial memorandum to the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill that the Government will face a number of challenges in the upcoming spending review period to ensure that some of the financial commitments relating to courts are met. We will be holding the cabinet secretary to account in that respect.

The public perception—sometimes unfair—is that justice is not being done, that it is not being done within the timescales that are required to secure public support and that it is not being effectively enforced. I am not in a position to give any personal experiences of having being cited as a witness, but many of us have heard from constituents who have endured very difficult experiences. The minister referred anecdotally to his own experience.

During the passage of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, we heard about the experiences of many communities and their frustration with the justice system. Their perception was that the justice system works in favour of the accused—the perpetrators—rather than the victims. The 2007 act addresses that. It will help us to strike the right balance and consider the victim's point of view.

A number of specific matters were raised during the passage of the 2007 act, and the cabinet secretary mentioned some of those today. A key element of ensuring that the legislation works is the early preparation of cases. It is fair to say that there should be early preparation anyway and to ask why it was necessary to bring forward a new initiative. Perhaps we should have considered more effective early preparation of cases, which perhaps should have been happening before the bill was passed. However, we want to look forward rather than back. Labour members are confident that the Lord Advocate and her team will ensure that the time framework is delivered.

Resources will be required, and I ask the Minister for Community Safety to clarify how the challenges will be resourced. For example, we have heard many times about the cost of preparing social inquiry reports and the difficulties associated with that. We have heard from the Scottish Police Federation about the challenges, including information technology challenges, that it faces in preparing for cases. We have to ensure that the resources are in place. That is a challenge for the Government.

We have heard anecdotal evidence of the need to ensure that hearings are more effective. I am sure that we all hope that the change in the period between hearings from four weeks to two weeks will improve the system. We want the timescales to be fine tuned. The minister must make a commitment to provide the funds that are required to do that. We also want to ensure that the timeframe is enforced locally. Stuart McMillan was right to say that we need to take steps to ensure that we enforce the timescales. However, I do not agree with his specific point, because individuals could take advantage of statutory timescales. I do not want such difficulties in our justice system, so I do not think that that is the way forward.

It is crucial that our JPs and sheriffs work with the system and us to implement the reforms; otherwise, they will not work. The previous Government signed up to provide significant resources to ensure that training was provided to assist with the process. I ask the minister to provide the necessary resources to train both new and existing sheriffs and JPs so that they are aware of the reforms. We must be clear that, unless those at a senior level in public services sign up to the reforms that the Parliament legislates for, they will not work.

I disagree with Christina McKelvie's comments on work orders. We believe that there is a time and a place for work orders. In fact, in the financial memorandum to the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, we set out the costs of the work orders, which we saw as a way forward. I seek assurances from the minister that the pilots that were set out in that financial memorandum are in place and that, if they are successful—as the evidence that was brought forward showed they would be—they will be effectively resourced in the future.

The cabinet secretary is well aware of the challenges that face him in ensuring that the legislation is effectively enforced. We want an effective justice system—one in which the greater public have absolute confidence.

This has been an excellent debate, with a remarkable degree of consensus—uncharacteristic of this place, if I may say so.

The debate illustrates that we are all committed to improving the system of summary justice in Scotland. We all accept that it needs to operate more quickly and to become more efficient and effective. The speeches have tended—rightly—to focus on the practical aspects and problems and on the need to monitor the operation and implementation of the 2007 act. It has been extremely useful for the Government to hear contributions from all parties.

I should declare an interest in that, like the cabinet secretary, I was a criminal solicitor, although I had far less wide-ranging experience: most of my clients pled guilty—and most of those who did not were found guilty. There is a tendency in human nature, which I detected among the clients who were unwise enough to select me as their defender, to procrastinate. They would often leave things until the last possible minute and defer changing their plea until the fateful day when they appeared in court.

We all recognise that the right to a trial is fundamental. It is a right that, despite some commentary to the contrary, is not eroded by the new system. As we have heard from Mr Aitken and others, courts operate in very different ways. The system is a trundling vehicle that we need to transform somehow into a sleek, shiny and new Ferrari.

I want to respond to as many of the points that were raised in the debate as possible. Resources were mentioned by several members, including Paul Martin and Bill Butler. The financial settlement resulted in a significant increase in the amount allocated to the Scottish Court Service. That reflects the additional demands of summary justice reform, including the creation of fines enforcement officers. To answer Margaret Smith's question, I can say that fines enforcement officers will be introduced on 10 March 2008.

Margaret Smith also mentioned legal aid—the Liberals were right to mention that issue, because it has been raised widely outside Parliament. She repeated the statement that law firms would lose 20 per cent of their business, a figure that some have paraded in the press. We cannot know the effect of measures when that has not yet been gauged, but the estimated average savings to the legal aid fund will be about 7 per cent. Against that, solemn fees are to rise by 7 per cent.

On eligibility for legal aid, which is as important, Margaret Smith asked whether a working man would qualify for assistance, given a limit on income of £208 a week. We understand that the shift of some cases from legal aid to ABWOR may remove eligibility in perhaps only 1 per cent of cases. In fact, I have information that suggests that, in 2005-06, the changes would have affected 290 out of 78,677 cases, which is 0.36 per cent. I do not know whether Mr Stevenson provided that information, but it sounds like he did.

Stuart McMillan raised the issue of summary appeal courts. High Court reform has delivered improvements in efficiency, so we hope that, to some extent, the need for a summary appeal court will be reduced.

Margaret Smith made the point that we often hear elsewhere that solicitors are under pressure to enter guilty pleas because of higher payment. The payment for not guilty pleas is not being reduced—the standard fee for a not guilty plea is being raised from £500 to £525—and we are paying more to solicitors who enter early guilty pleas, which I believe are better for everyone.

Pauline McNeill and Margaret Smith raised the treatment of fine defaulters, which has been a perennial problem for the justice system. I am sure that they will be pleased to know that mandatory supervised attendance orders have now been rolled out nationally by an order made in September. An SAO, rather than imprisonment, will be imposed on someone who defaults on the payment of a fine of under £500. We will have to see how that works out. The message about that, and about so many other aspects of the implementation and delivery of the 2007 act, is that we have an open mind. If things are not working as we would all hope, we are willing to listen to reasoned argument—which we are about to get from Mr Aitken.

Is the minister aware of the growing problem that some of those who are required to undergo supervised attendance are simply not doing so? The social work department then sends the offender who has breached the order back to the court, whose only sanction is to tell the offender to go back to the supervised attendance centre. Things carry on in that way until the court eventually runs out of patience and remits the fine.

We recognise that that problem exists in some—perhaps even many—cases. However, we have information that tends to suggest that rigorous, regular and regulated court appearances, as happens under drug treatment and testing orders or supervised bail orders, are having some success. Nigel Don referred to supervised bail orders, about which I heard a great deal when I visited Sacro at the new community link offices in Edinburgh, which I opened this week—there is a nice brass plaque to evidence that.

I do not want to duck the question of the proposed strike action, which Pauline McNeill, Cathie Craigie and Bill Butler raised. We all hope that there will not be a need for industrial action and that such action will not take place. However, that is a matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to negotiate and it would be inappropriate for us to intervene. We hope that the matter will be resolved, but it is freestanding and separate from the implementation of the summary justice reforms.

Will the minister give way?

I am just about in my last minute. I am very sorry.

I have been to jail a lot recently—[Interruption.] Not enough, I hear. [Interruption.]

Order.

Members might think that I am over the upper age limit for Polmont, but I was there more than a week ago. I was at Saughton this week and I am visiting Porterfield later this month. Next year I hope to visit Barlinnie and Cornton Vale—I have a vista of pleasure ahead of me.

One of the issues that prison officers raise is the sheer frustration of dealing with prisoners on short sentences; it is not easy to deal with them, which bolsters the Liberal Democrats' arguments that support our case for more effective community disposals.

I welcome the contributions made in the debate. Many people have claimed credit for the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007: Sheriff Principal McInnes and his committee; the former Administration and ministers, to whom I pay tribute; the former Justice 1 Committee; and many other individuals. It is a baby with many parents. My name might not be on the birth certificate, but I find myself thrust into the locus of having responsibility for the upbringing of this infant.

Our aim is to ensure that summary justice is just that: short and effective. We want to ensure that it is not a long, interminable tale, as though written by Count Leo Tolstoy, but, rather, that it proceeds swiftly from offence to disposal with the least possible expense.

It is a great privilege to take part in this debate, which has been excellent. As always, the Scottish Government has listened to and will learn from the contributions of all parties in the Parliament.