Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 27 Jun 2001

27 Jun 2001 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Serious Violent and Sexual Offenders

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Con Lothians Watch on SPTV

Although the number of members in the chamber is somewhat depleted, there have been some extremely good speeches. Pauline McNeill was right to stress the importance of social workers, who do a great deal to minimise reoffending. I welcome the publication of the white paper and the proposal to create the new risk management authority, which will assist the parole board in determining how best to protect the public. The protection of the public should at all times be the paramount principle and I am glad that the Administration is giving it much higher priority. I cannot help but reflect that the Minister for Justice will hand over responsibilities to the new authority, but it is refreshing that he will do so in a way that will reassure and protect our citizens.

We welcome Lord MacLean's report, which was published after a great deal of consultation, and which will make our countrymen and countrywomen better protected. However, had certain elements of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 relating to the early release of prisoners, minimum mandatory sentencing and imprisonment for life for certain offences been put into operation, a considerable amount of risk would have been eliminated.

Nonetheless, that does not alter the reality that Lord MacLean has contributed a great service to Scotland. He correctly diagnosed the problem and one of his key points was that judges, in sentencing offenders who might pose a high risk, do not have the systematic risk assessment information that they require. It was also made clear that offenders who have mental disorders are not in every case being given a sentence or disposal that reflects the underlying risk to the public. Lord MacLean advocated a central body that would act as a repository of information, guidance and standards, and he called for co-operation among the statutory, voluntary and private sector agencies to reduce risk.

He was absolutely right to argue for research from the risk management authority, and for it to set consistent standards and to reduce risk. Research reveals the truth, and it is always of assistance to those who are in positions of authority to know the truth and nothing but the truth.

It is right that the authority should adopt best practice on whether and when dangerous and potentially dangerous prisoners should be released, and on the long-term arrangements for such prisoners' supervision that should be put in place. It is also right that the order for lifelong restriction is a disposal that is, when necessary, readily available to the courts and that an offender can challenge the risk assessment, as described in the white paper.

I was glad to read in the document that,

"At the sentencing hearing, it will be for the Crown to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the statutory criteria for an Order for Lifelong Restriction are met."

The guilt or innocence of the accused should be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but when a conviction is made, the disposal should be decided on the balance of probabilities, because that will give the public more protection.

Is the Minister for Justice satisfied that appropriate arrangements will exist in all cases for the supervision of Scotland-domiciled people who commit a killing abroad and who are then returned to this country and continue to represent a potential danger to the community? Perhaps he can tell the Parliament whether he is in touch with United Kingdom ministers on that issue, because that problem might relate to reserved matters and involve complex issues.

Will the Minister for Justice assure us that a mentally ill person who has committed a terrible act of violence—possibly a killing—will be held in secure accommodation while such risk remains, and that such people will be released only subject to appropriate supervision requirements? Many years ago, a killing was committed by an individual who was unfit to plead. In later years, that person was not subject to recall after release. I hope that the minister will address that matter.

Gordon Jackson was right to call for the necessary funds not only to implement the white paper, but to deal with degrading circumstances such as slopping out. That was to have been dealt with by £13 million that was diverted. I hope that the minister will ensure that the matter is given appropriate priority, considering the recent relevant case.

I am glad to say how much the Conservatives welcome the paper on serious violent and sexual offenders. We look forward greatly to the minister's response on the speed of implementation.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 27 Jun 2001

In the same item of business