Hansard

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 policy intention of section 17 is not just right, founded solidly on professional evidence and recommended by the McLeish commission and by many other practitioners in the field, but vital if Scotland is to protect victims of crime in the most appropriate way—by reducing the risk of the crime happening in the first place and the risk of recurrence.It is right that there should be not a bar on, but rather a presumption against, short-term sentences. Despite popular mythology, short-term sentences do not work. In the vast majority of instances, they do not deter criminals. If they do, why are an incredible 91 per cent of inmates at HM YOI Polmont there for a second or subsequent time?Short-term sentences do not protect the public, except by offering a short period of relief from criminality. I do not underrate the value of that, but, nevertheless, it is limited. The sentences are short and the vast bulk of those who serve them come out more hardened and more likely to reoffend than they were when they went in.Short-term sentences do not begin to tackle the causes of offending, which are often rooted in bad parenting, neglect, lack of bonding, illiteracy, lack of skills, unemployability, drug or alcohol addiction and, too often, mental health problems. How could such things be tackled in a short period in prison? Instead, short-term sentences put a lot of bad boys—it is mostly boys—together. They separate them from their families, which I admit is not always a bad thing, and render their chances of current or future employment negligible.Short-term sentences do not provide reparation to the victim in the way that a compensation order or a community payback order can. In short, it is doubtful whether, for most offenders, short-term sentences fulfil any of the classic functions of sentencing. I wonder whether the committee recalls the evidence of Dr Sarah Armstrong of the University of Glasgow that“short prison stays are not only ineffective but criminogenic.”—Official Report, Justice Committee, 2 June 2009; c 2018. I had not heard the word “criminogenic” before, but I think that we understand what Dr Armstrong was getting at.I turn to the practicalities of the Government’s proposals. It is an absolute requirement that the reduction in short-term sentences has public confidence. That means that an increased number of timely and effective community sentences must be available, along with the add-on of action on unemployability, addiction and various other problems, which the bill rightly emphasises and which we have supported in previous sections.My amendment 100 and its consequential amendment 101 would reduce the period in the presumption against short-term sentences from six months to three months. That is for two reasons. The first is that although any period is arbitrary, the spread of crimes that receive sentences of under three months looks pretty much like the spread of crimes that receive other, non-custodial disposals and the spread of crimes that receive three-to-six-month sentences tend to look rather more like the spread of crimes that receive longer sentences. There has been a certain amount of comment about the sort of people who would be affected by the arrangements.The second reason is that the reduction to three months would make the whole system more manageable and affordable by reducing the number of cases involved. Given the financial pressures and the need to bed in the new arrangements successfully, such a change would be helpful.Amendment 388 is intended to make central the numbers affected and the linked funding. Public confidence in the system is vital. The Government must demonstrate publicly and specifically, before bringing section 17 into effect, that it has a clear handle on the numbers, that the additional cases requiring community service orders will be funded and that community justice authorities have the capacity to deliver the goods.I am grateful to the Government for the additional funding that it has provided to improve existing community orders. That funding is manifestly having an effect, but we know that the quality of orders is patchy across the country. We know, too, that reoffending rates will be lower with the most effective interventions and that the additional orders consequential on section 17 will need yet more funding in what we know are stringent financial times. The Government should be clear that the improvement funding cannot be double counted to pay for the increased number of community sentences, too.Amendments 392 and 393 are consequential on amendment 388.It follows that I urge the committee to reject Richard Baker’s amendment 1, both for the obvious reason that I think that it is wrong in principle and flies in the face of common sense, and because it is clear that it is likely that there will be a parliamentary majority for some form of amended section 17. Among other things it is the committee’s job to reflect that reality to ensure that section 17 passes into law in the most effective fashion and after the most detailed of scrutiny.I move amendment 100.11:00