Hansard

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 effect to the conclusion in the committee’s report that the proposal should not proceed. I am grateful for the convener’s support for my amendment; he has previously highlighted some of the key concerns about this ill-judged proposal.I am confident that our judiciary already seeks to use imprisonment as a last resort and only in cases in which the offence has been serious. For more minor offences, such as fine defaulting, we have already seen great reductions in the number of offenders receiving custodial sentences. The presumption will create an unnecessary bureaucracy by having courts provide reasons for imposing sentences of six months or under, which will delay court processes, but it is not just about that. The policy drive that was first outlined in the Scottish National Party’s 2007 manifesto was clear that in all but the most exceptional circumstances such custodial sentences would no longer apply.Ministers have made it clear that the proposal is an arbitrary measure to reduce the prison population and to make savings on that basis, but the cabinet secretary’s officials made it clear to the Finance Committee that the proposal would not produce savings in the prison estate because the infrastructure would need to be maintained. The crucial issue is that the interests of justice must be paramount; therefore, sentences should be based on what is just and appropriate, not simply on prison capacity. To do otherwise is not to serve the victims of crime.The presumption applies not only to minor but to serious offences. It would apply to 40 per cent of those convicted of indecent assault, to 88 per cent of those convicted of crimes of dishonesty and, particularly seriously in our view, to two thirds of those convicted of knife carrying. In its evidence, Scottish Women’s Aid highlighted that the presumption could“have a negative impact on women, children and young people experiencing domestic abuse.”When I quizzed the First Minister on the matter, he said that serious crimes should receive longer sentences, but that is to seriously misrepresent the presumption. There is no proposal that such offenders should receive longer sentences; there is a proposal only that there should be a presumption against their serving any custodial sentence. That is what the Government’s plans arbitrarily to reduce the prison population are all about.The argument is made that those who go to jail are more likely to reoffend—Robert Brown made that argument again today—but the unfortunate reality is that by the time that an offender receives a custodial sentence they will normally have received numerous different disposals for other offences. They are, by definition, a repeat offender by the time that they go into prison. Even those who agree with the presumption point out that it must be accompanied by increased investment in more effective community sentences. Instead we have seen cuts in funding to those organisations with expertise in addressing reoffending, the Scottish Government has vetoed the establishment of the community court in Glasgow, and we believe that there is a funding gap of tens of millions of pounds in the Government’s plans, which will demand thousands of additional community sentences.Despite Robert Brown’s support for the Scottish Government’s general approach, his amendment 388 and related amendments, and his amendment 102 in the next group, highlight the awareness that the extra investment in robust community sentences that is needed to give any logic to the proposal is simply not there. Indeed, it is from information revealed to Robert Brown that we know that only a fraction of community sentences start within the target period of seven days. We also know that, under the current Government, a third of community sentences are being breached. I simply do not recognise the improvement to which Robert Brown referred. The paucity of robust alternatives to custodial sentences under the current Government means that the proposal is not only nonsensical, but detrimental to community safety and certainly to the justice system. The same principles apply to Robert Brown’s proposal to change the presumption to one against custodial sentences of three months and under. For example, it would cover 28 per cent of those convicted of indecent assault, over half of those convicted of crimes of dishonesty, and a third of those convicted of knife carrying. We will oppose amendments 100 and 101 and, on the basis that we seek to remove section 17, we will oppose Robert Brown’s amendment 102 in the next group.