Committee
Justice Committee 13 April 2010
13 Apr 2010 · S3 · Justice Committee
Item of business
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Richard Baker
Watch on SPTV
Along with our concern about the proposal for a presumption against custodial sentences of six months or less, our other key concern has been about the absence from the bill of provision for the action that is required to tackle violent crime, in particular knife crime. We seek to remedy that through amendment 10, which would give effect to the proposal for a system of mandatory minimum sentences for knife carrying.Scotland still suffers from rates of violent crime that are higher than those anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and knife crime remains at persistently high levels. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research highlighted that violent crime accounted for 30 per cent of crime in Scotland but only 20 per cent of crime in England and Wales. In 2007-08, 8,989 offences of handling an offensive weapon were recorded by police. In 2008-09, there were only nine fewer such offences. Only 29 per cent of those who were convicted of such offences received a custodial sentence. Of course, if a presumption against custodial sentences of six months or less, or three months or less, continues to be pursued, even fewer of those offenders will receive a custodial sentence. The cabinet secretary referred to the number of such sentences for knife offences when we discussed section 17.We do not believe that the situation is appropriate. Given the persistently high levels of knife crime, we believe that the sentencing regime for knife carrying must change. That is why I propose a mandatory minimum custodial sentence of six months for knife carrying, except in exceptional circumstances. That would put knife offences on the same footing as firearms offences, which already carry a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ custody. Far more people in Scotland are killed with knives than with firearms. Last year, knives were responsible for 58 per cent of homicides in Scotland, which is the highest percentage ever recorded.There has been debate about the cost of our proposal due to its impact on prison places. Robert Brown has said that it would cost £23 million. However, that presumes that the policy would have no deterrent effect, which we do not accept, and it needs to be balanced with other factors including the recent estimate that, last year, injuries resulting from knife crimes cost the national health service in Scotland £500 million. Furthermore, we do not accept the counsel of despair on the impact of prison. The argument is made that rehabilitation cannot take place in custody over that period, but we believe that that notion should be challenged and that greater efforts should be made to engage in rehabilitation in prison. Why should we accept the status quo, if that is what it is?The other key fallacy in the debate has been the argument that those who carry knives legitimately—for example, for their work—would be targeted by amendment 10. They would not, because the 1995 act already makes exemptions for those who have knives for use at work, for religious reasons or as part of a national costume. We do not seek to change the law in that area.The committee has received a range of evidence on the proposal. Some were concerned about those who carry knives legitimately—I have addressed that point. Others argued that mandatory services do not work, but the empirical evidence that was put forward to support that view was pretty insubstantial. We have mandatory sentences for homicides and firearms offences and we have seen reductions in those. The violence reduction unit has emphasised that other methods of reducing knife crime should be employed, particularly the education of young people. I point out that the vast majority of knife crimes are committed by adult offenders, but it is also important to say that we do not regard the proposed change to the sentencing regime as an isolated measure to tackle knife crime. We believe that it is complementary to the other work, which is often very good, that is continuing in communities to reduce knife crime and divert those who are at risk of becoming involved in it.I turn to the convener’s amendment 10A, with which we have sympathy. Others have accused us of being in a bidding war on the level of sentences, but that is not the case. Our proposal has been for a minimum sentence of six months, and that remains our position today. The convener has made it clear that he does not regard that as adequate and he proposes a minimum of two years. I highlight the fact that our proposal is for a minimum sentence and it would still be open to the court to impose a sentence of up to four years. We believe that the crucial thing is to introduce the principle of a minimum custodial sentence so that those who are convicted of carrying knives can expect to go to jail. I appreciate that the convener has made a different legislative proposal based on a different precedent in the law, and we would be happy to reflect on that before stage 3. We will therefore abstain in any vote on amendment 10A.We believe that there is a clear difference on the committee between members who have listened to the victims of knife crime and their families who have fought so hard for the proposed change in the law and members who have not. It is crucial that we move to stage 3 with an intact proposal for a mandatory minimum sentence so that, at the very least, the matter can be debated further. To those who question the practicality and cost of the proposal, I simply point to the powerful evidence that the committee heard from John Muir, who eloquently and persistently stated his case and that of other victims. The real question is what the costs will be of not pursuing the change in the law, which is why I move the amendment in my name.I move amendment 10.
In the same item of business
The Convener
Item 2 is day 3 of stage 2 proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. The committee will not proceed beyond the end of part 3 today; ...
The Convener
Amendment 399, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 400 to 402, 402A, 378 and 544.
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to Ann Moulds, her group Action Scotland Against Stalking and their vigorous campaign to highlight the problem of stalking in Scotland, ...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
Amendment 402 is intended to create a statutory offence of stalking. It would make it an offence for a person to engage in a course of conduct with the inten...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
In this group, amendments 402A and 544 are in my name. As Rhoda Grant and the cabinet secretary have indicated, the group raises a number of overlapping issu...
Stewart Maxwell
I entirely agree with Robert Brown’s comments on amendment 400 and the role of the Crown Office, so I will not repeat his arguments. In relation to amendment...
James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
I support Rhoda Grant’s amendments. She has put her case well and I pay tribute to her for the amount of work that she has done to get the amendments to this...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP)
I will briefly address amendment 378. As James Kelly noted, we have received several submissions on the issue. I do not buy them lock, stock and barrel, but ...
The Convener
The series of amendments that Rhoda Grant, the Government and Robert Brown have lodged seeks to build on the protection that is given—largely to women—under ...
Rhoda Grant
I have listened carefully to what committee members and the cabinet secretary have said. On reflection, given the concerns about amendments 399, 400 and 401,...
The Convener
I should have given the cabinet secretary another bite at the cherry. Do you have anything to say?
Kenny MacAskill
I have listened to the committee’s comments, and I think that Stewart Maxwell’s suggestion is appropriate. We understand the committee’s desire to address th...
The Convener
That is a constructive contribution.Amendment 399, by agreement, withdrawn.Amendments 400 and 401 not moved.
The Convener
Amendment 5, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 6 and 7.
Rhoda Grant
A non-harassment order is an order that gives a victim protection from further abuse. The order comes with powers of arrest, and breach of the order is a cri...
Kenny MacAskill
We fully understand Rhoda Grant’s sentiments. However, section 15 already provides that a non-harassment order may be made after a conviction for a single of...
The Convener
Amendment 5 is entirely meritorious, but I question its necessity, given the other provisions in the bill.
Rhoda Grant
I seek leave to withdraw amendment 5, as the cabinet secretary has given the reassurance that I sought. He has indicated that evidence of a course of conduct...
The Convener
Amendment 100, in the name of Robert Brown, is grouped with amendments 101, 388, 1, 392 and 393.
Robert Brown
Section 17 is one of the most important sections in the bill. I will deal with it at two levels: the principle and the practicalities. In principle, the poli...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab)
The proposal for a legislative presumption against custodial sentences of six months and under has been a focus for debate. My amendment 1 seeks to give effe...
Angela Constance (Livingston) (SNP)
I cannot support the detail of Robert Brown’s amendments 100 and 101, but I support in principle his logic in eloquently arguing against short-term sentences...
James Kelly
I support amendment 1 and oppose amendments 100, 101 and 388.One of the arguments that is used by those who argue for a presumption against short-term senten...
Kenny MacAskill
The presumption against custodial sentences of six months or less has been the subject of some debate and attacks by parts of the Opposition. We do not doubt...
The Convener
I call Robert Brown to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 100.
Robert Brown
I am bound to say that there has not exactly been a meeting of minds in the debate. I am somewhat disappointed by the cabinet secretary’s response to what we...
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.
The Convener
There will be a division.ForBrown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)AgainstAitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)Constance, Angela (Livingst...
The Convener
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 0.Amendment 100 disagreed to.Amendment 101 not moved.Amendment 388 moved—Robert Brown.
The Convener
The question is, that amendment 388 be agreed to. Are we agreed?Members: No.