Meeting of the Parliament 23 June 2015
No, sorry. I do not really have much time.
In the ministerial statement prior to this debate, Fergus Ewing reminded us that irrational decisions can result in judicial review. I refer to the briefing that we were all provided with on Sunday by not only four academics but Apex Scotland, Circle Scotland, Howard League Scotland, Positive Prison? Positive Futures, the Scottish Association of Social Work, Social Work Scotland and the women for independence justice for women group. They all said:
“the Bill ... seems to us to have been created without careful thought and without being informed by the extensive national and international evidence on custodial and community sentencing policy.
Furthermore, the Bill misses the opportunity to better clarify sentencing and release policy. It may well be possible to combine the virtues of public safety with clarity in sentencing, but unfortunately this Bill appears to achieve neither.”
During the passage of the bill we have taken a constructive approach to it. We supported the Government at stage 1 and at stage 2, very much in the hope that a proportionate supervisory sentencing regime could be achievable. The Government debated my stage 2 amendment, and my stage 3 amendment was lodged in time for the Government to lodge an improved alternative. If 12.5 per cent of the sentence was not thought appropriate, there was time for the Government to come forward with something that was more appropriate, but it did not do so; it has stuck with the blanket six-month supervisory sentence at the end of the sentence.