Chamber
Plenary, 15 Mar 2007
15 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill
Although there are aspects of the bill that we fully support, there are parts of it that still cause us significant concern. We are grateful to the minister for the many changes that have been made to ameliorate some of the problems that were flagged up at stage 2 and for the meetings that the Executive offered to hold to identify whether an accommodation could be reached. However, some difficulties remain, and we should bear in mind the maxim, "legislate in haste, repent at leisure."
I turn first to the aspect of the bill that deals with weapons, which the minister mentioned at the end of her speech. In her comments this morning, Ms Lamont made the valid point that although that aspect of the bill has been ignored, it is of fundamental importance, in that it addresses the supply and availability of weapons such as swords, which are of great significance to our communities and to society as a whole. The sale of swords is a social problem, but we must ensure that the response is proportionate and that people who have a legitimate need to access them—because, for example, they are involved in thespian activities, highland dancing or historical societies—are covered. I believe that the bill addresses such issues and, to that extent, we fully support it, just as we fully support all the measures that the Executive and the Parliament have taken to address the knife culture that exists in Scotland. The problem cannot be tackled solely through legislation, but legislation is necessary and the Executive has our full backing for the provisions.
However, the sentencing aspect of the bill gives us greater cause for concern. We are aware that the present system is in disrepute, but the Conservatives' constant mantra about ending early release is unhelpful. The problem is that the public want a sentencing policy that they can understand. I remember being addressed by learned sheriffs who said, "What is the problem? We all know that a two-year sentence means one year." Any judicial system and any law must be understandable to ordinary men and women in the street. Aspects of law such as information technology law and media law require expert input, but if an offender is given a sentence, that sentence should be understandable to the victim and to the broader community; it should not be understandable only to those who are familiar with the lexicon and the jargon.
We believe that what the Executive seeks to do will be beneficial—a clear statement should be made in open court of what the custody period will be. As far as we are concerned, the bill makes it quite clear that the sentence that is given is the sentence that will be served. The Tories can argue about that, but ultimately the length of the sentence will be made clear to victims and communities.
There must be a community part to sentences if we are to address the fundamental problem of reoffending rates. We cannot lock people up for many years, or even just for a few months or a few years, and then simply open the door and kick them out. We must tackle reoffending not just by punishing people but by providing care, whether that is wraparound care, monitoring and assistance or supervision.
However, problems with the bill remain. The minister appears to be rather too laid back about the substantial increase in prison numbers that the bill will generate. It is manifestly wrong that prison numbers should increase by the figures that have been bandied about, when there will have been no increase in criminality to justify that. Prisoner numbers will increase by approximately a seventh without there being an increase in offending, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. That will not necessarily tackle the root problems.
We need fundamentally to consider what our prisons are for. The Scottish National Party thinks that prisons are for ensuring that dangerous people are taken away for the protection of communities and for formally punishing people who have committed serious offences, the opprobrium of society for which can be demonstrated only by a custodial sentence.
We must ensure that people who are flotsam and jetsam and have problems to do with drink, drugs or deprivation—whether or not their inadequacies are of their own doing—are taken out of the judicial system. If we do not ensure that people at the lower end of the scale are taken out of the system before the new arrangements kick in, we will simply increase the number of prisoners, with no benefit. We must also ensure that the consequential requirements for the provision of social work services, care and other services are met. The Parliament has produced too much legislation that has introduced requirements for local authorities, social work departments, police services or prisons without putting in place the necessary resources. We must ensure that prison numbers are static, if not reduced, by keeping out of prison people who should not be there because they are not a danger to communities and have not committed criminal offences. We must ensure that the resources are in place before the bill is implemented.
I turn first to the aspect of the bill that deals with weapons, which the minister mentioned at the end of her speech. In her comments this morning, Ms Lamont made the valid point that although that aspect of the bill has been ignored, it is of fundamental importance, in that it addresses the supply and availability of weapons such as swords, which are of great significance to our communities and to society as a whole. The sale of swords is a social problem, but we must ensure that the response is proportionate and that people who have a legitimate need to access them—because, for example, they are involved in thespian activities, highland dancing or historical societies—are covered. I believe that the bill addresses such issues and, to that extent, we fully support it, just as we fully support all the measures that the Executive and the Parliament have taken to address the knife culture that exists in Scotland. The problem cannot be tackled solely through legislation, but legislation is necessary and the Executive has our full backing for the provisions.
However, the sentencing aspect of the bill gives us greater cause for concern. We are aware that the present system is in disrepute, but the Conservatives' constant mantra about ending early release is unhelpful. The problem is that the public want a sentencing policy that they can understand. I remember being addressed by learned sheriffs who said, "What is the problem? We all know that a two-year sentence means one year." Any judicial system and any law must be understandable to ordinary men and women in the street. Aspects of law such as information technology law and media law require expert input, but if an offender is given a sentence, that sentence should be understandable to the victim and to the broader community; it should not be understandable only to those who are familiar with the lexicon and the jargon.
We believe that what the Executive seeks to do will be beneficial—a clear statement should be made in open court of what the custody period will be. As far as we are concerned, the bill makes it quite clear that the sentence that is given is the sentence that will be served. The Tories can argue about that, but ultimately the length of the sentence will be made clear to victims and communities.
There must be a community part to sentences if we are to address the fundamental problem of reoffending rates. We cannot lock people up for many years, or even just for a few months or a few years, and then simply open the door and kick them out. We must tackle reoffending not just by punishing people but by providing care, whether that is wraparound care, monitoring and assistance or supervision.
However, problems with the bill remain. The minister appears to be rather too laid back about the substantial increase in prison numbers that the bill will generate. It is manifestly wrong that prison numbers should increase by the figures that have been bandied about, when there will have been no increase in criminality to justify that. Prisoner numbers will increase by approximately a seventh without there being an increase in offending, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. That will not necessarily tackle the root problems.
We need fundamentally to consider what our prisons are for. The Scottish National Party thinks that prisons are for ensuring that dangerous people are taken away for the protection of communities and for formally punishing people who have committed serious offences, the opprobrium of society for which can be demonstrated only by a custodial sentence.
We must ensure that people who are flotsam and jetsam and have problems to do with drink, drugs or deprivation—whether or not their inadequacies are of their own doing—are taken out of the judicial system. If we do not ensure that people at the lower end of the scale are taken out of the system before the new arrangements kick in, we will simply increase the number of prisoners, with no benefit. We must also ensure that the consequential requirements for the provision of social work services, care and other services are met. The Parliament has produced too much legislation that has introduced requirements for local authorities, social work departments, police services or prisons without putting in place the necessary resources. We must ensure that prison numbers are static, if not reduced, by keeping out of prison people who should not be there because they are not a danger to communities and have not committed criminal offences. We must ensure that the resources are in place before the bill is implemented.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5632, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees that the Custodial Sentences and Weapons ...
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, but the past four years seem to have flown by as we have worked on comprehensively reforming our cri...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Will the minister give way?
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Indeed.
Phil Gallie:
Con
I thank the minister for giving way with her usual courtesy, but how on earth can she guarantee that the licence conditions will be met in full? Bail conditi...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Mr Gallie always raises questions about bail and people's responsibility to comply with conditions. The onus is absolutely on the offender: if conditions are...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
Although there are aspects of the bill that we fully support, there are parts of it that still cause us significant concern. We are grateful to the minister ...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
I apologise for being slightly late for the minister's speech. I was debating the matter on television with Bill Butler.During this morning's stage 3 proceed...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Will Mr Aitken enlighten members on the cost of the proposals in the amendments that he moved this morning, which were unsuccessful? What impact would those ...
Bill Aitken:
Con
The minister will appreciate that if the amendments in my name had been agreed to they would have had an impact on the prison estate and another prison would...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I hope that Bill Aitken agrees that it is important to make a distinction between prisoners who are released on licence and shorter-term prisoners who are cu...
Bill Aitken:
Con
I accept the minister's point in part, but if someone reoffends during the unexpired period of their sentence, they can be brought back to the court to be de...
Mr MacAskill:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Bill Aitken:
Con
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.Offences at the lower end of the scale are not a serious matter, but when there is an accumulation of offences, someth...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
We will support the bill today, as we did at stage 1, although we share many of the concerns that were outlined by Kenny MacAskill. The bill is only one part...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
I thank the Justice 2 Committee clerks, our advisers, the ministers and their officials and everyone who gave evidence and helped to shape the bill.I very mu...
Bill Aitken:
Con
Will the member give way?
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
Of course.
Bill Aitken:
Con
Where has the member been for the past 10 years? After all, the Labour Party has had that long to change the current flawed system.
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
The difference is that we are changing the system now. The record will show that the Tories did not do so and that, in fact, they wasted opportunities to mak...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
This morning, Johann Lamont said that there had been attacks on the bill from both sides—from some who appear to want nobody to be sent to prison and from ot...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab):
Lab
The minister is right to say that the bill represents a fundamental—and good—change in the way in which we do things.There was no lack of clarity before. Whe...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
At First Minister's question time today, the First Minister said that the bill will end the Tories' provisions on the automatic early release of prisoners. O...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
We come to closing speeches. We are behind the clock, so I am obliged to Jeremy Purvis for waiving his second speaking slot.
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
It is with disappointment that I rise today. I had great hopes for the bill. Like Bill Aitken and others, including Colin Fox and Patrick Harvie, I feel that...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Johann Lamont):
Lab
The member obviously did not listen to my earlier explanation. When sentencing, judges take into account whatever they choose to take into account, including...
Phil Gallie:
Con
If it is simply not true, minister, why on earth leave those words in the bill? They could have been removed. Given what the minister has said, it would not ...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
Will the member give way?
Phil Gallie:
Con
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute. Patrick Harvie's points on education and addressing addiction were worth while. There is a need for longer terms in p...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
I say to Phil Gallie that, if this is legislating in haste, I would hate to see us taking our time. After 10 years, it is probably time that we got round to ...