| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As the noble and learned Lord said, we have already touched on this matter, but in view of the comments he has just made I am quite happy to reflect on the matter further, discuss it with my colleagues in government and engage in such discussion with others as might assist to form a view as to whether this development would be acceptable. On that basis I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McCluskey: On that basis I am happy not to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I oppose the Question, That Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill on these grounds. I believe that the extension of powers of sentencing by sheriffs should not exceed the point where a prisoner is regarded as a long term prisoner and subject to different liberation arrangements and different conditions of supervision and conditional release. If the
clause had laid down a maximum of four years, I might have found it a little easier to accept. Certainly SACRO suggested this.This have been a worrying debate. I am sure that we shall return to it on Report. I was going to say that we shall return to it with a vengeance, but perhaps I should not do so. The debate has been particularly significant.
Lord Sewel: At first reading, Clause 12 may not appear to many of us to be a high profile clause. However, as the debate has progressed the more worried I have become. There is at least the likelihood-- I acknowledge that it may be the unintended consequence--that the clause will significantly and adversely affect the nature of the criminal justice system, and in particular the court system, in Scotland. I do not level the charge that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate seeks to bring that about. I think that it would be unintentional. But because of that it is necessary to pause and reflect.
What has struck me most forcefully during the debate is that such a qualitative change in the past has been based upon prolonged consideration and deliberation. From what we have heard this evening, that is lacking in this case, and we should proceed slowly. It is always the case historically that major changes to institutions have occurred by stealth and unintentionally rather than deliberately or by revolution. We may be on the threshold of such a change as regards Clause 12.
I am particularly disappointed that the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the reasons for this change has been based on somewhat shortsighted pragmatism--that is, the pressures on the High Court. If there are pressures on the work of the High Court, as there may well be, the challenge is to sort out the High Court, and to make sure that it has the processes, the means and the resources, to do the job properly rather than seeking to transfer down to the sheriff court those cases which should properly rest at the High Court.
During the debate I have become increasingly worried that, quite unintentionally, we may be changing the nature of the criminal justice system and of the court system in Scotland. It is time to reflect. I do not wish to see the House divide on the matter tonight. However, I believe that it would be to the benefit of all parties and of the court system in Scotland if we were to think long and hard about what has been said, perhaps returning to the issue at a later date.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have listened to the debate with increasing dismay. It is a matter of deep regret to me that there should be an issue which is so bitterly divisive between respected and senior members of the legal profession and of the judiciary on all sides of the House. I fully concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said: that when one has a situation such as this it is wise to go very slowly indeed. Alterations to the constitutional make-up of the courts in Scotland are a matter that must progress with consent on all sides. It cannot be for the benefit of a country for which I have great respect and regard and a legal system that I have long revered to have as divisive an issue as this.
The Committee will recall that I have frequently said that the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system is critical. I do not believe that confidence has been increased in Scotland by the debate that we have heard tonight. I, too, oppose this clause.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I endorse the noble Lord's final remark. I hope that when this subject is raised at a later stage it will be possible for distinguished members of the Bar and the judiciary in this House to discuss it without criticising sheriffs, temporary sheriffs, Crown counsel and others. I do not believe that that helps the public appreciate the legal system at all. We can discuss the issue without criticising different members of the legal profession. I have been quite ashamed this evening to have to be present in this Chamber, with the public listening and where noble Lords may come and go--it is a public forum--and to hear that going on. I hope that we shall not have it next time. I am sorry if I sound pious but I am very depressed by it indeed. The issue is another thing; but the way we do it matters.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: We have had a long debate on the issues that arise in relation to this clause. It may be wrong for me to say much more at this stage. Perhaps later I will discuss with the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Thomas, the possible unintended consequences of constitutional change in view of certain matters about which one has been reading in the newspaper in recent months. It was the noble Lord who said that constitutional change sometimes bring about unintended consequences.
Lord Sewel: We have been consulting for 18 years.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: And look where it has got the noble Lord.
Lord Sewel: With a massive majority looming.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: There are one or two points that I might profitably feed into the discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Thomas, and to the noble Earl for the measured way in which they have sought to bring this debate to a conclusion.
One is that the percentage of High Court judges in Scotland is significantly higher per head of population than in England. That is a factor upon which people may profitably reflect. The second is that the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, about seeking to sort out the problems is one of which I am all too well aware as being a very sensible way forward. Certainly so long as I have been Lord Advocate I have sought, with the co-operation of the Dean of Faculty, the President of the
Law Society, the former Lord Justice General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the present Lord Justice General to address some of the practical problems which the court faces. However, as the statistics to which I referred earlier made clear, there is a major increase in the number of days when the court sits, the number of indictments and so on. It is not just a temporary phenomenon; it is a major practical problem.The suggestion is that it is important to have consensus on all sides before one goes forward. I think it is fair to say that when the sentencing powers of the sheriff sittings and the sheriff and jury court were increased from two to three years there was not overall consensus about that at that stage. Some people were of the view that it should not be moved at all. There was a substantial body of opinion that it should be moved to a higher figure. A view was taken by government, presented to Parliament and approved at that time. So while I fully accept that these are legitimately matters of public debate, it may be totally unrealistic to expect a unanimity of view. In the event that this House were ever called upon to consider legislation dealing with a Scottish assembly, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, would not expect unanimity of view no matter how long and how eloquently he talked.
Perhaps I may endorse what was said by my noble friend Lady Carnegy as to the comments made when debating issues of this nature. I do not offer any criticism as such but I am concerned that, reported in part, some of the comments that Members of the Committee have felt it appropriate to make could give the impression that there are serious weaknesses in the criminal justice system in Scotland in so far as it relates to the work done in the sheriff court. No doubt there are occasions when mistakes are made and when temporary sheriffs--and indeed permanent sheriffs--fail to get things right. The very nature of our justice system is that there are built into it appeal courts to sort these matters out. I hope that when we return to this matter at Report stage, as we undoubtedly shall, it will prove possible, armed with the additional information I have undertaken to provide, to have a productive debate on issues which are clearly important. In the meantime I hope that Members will be content that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Southampton International Boat Show Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
- House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |