Hansard

The presumption against custodial sentences of six months or less has been the subject of some debate and attacks by parts of the Opposition. We do not doubt that members’ motivation, like that of the Scottish Government, is to make our communities safer, but members have not been clear about why they oppose our proposals and what they would do instead.Our approach is plain. We will make Scotland safer by making low-level criminals face up to the challenge of turning round their behaviour and repaying their communities for the damage that they have done. That is better than the alternative of a short custodial sentence, for reasons that the Justice Committee set out clearly in its stage 1 report. Custodial sentences of six months or less do not work and do not stop offending behaviour. The figures show that three quarters of people who are released from short sentences go on to reoffend within two years of getting out, whereas, in contrast, three out of five people who are sentenced to community punishment do not go on to reoffend over the same period.There will be some cases in which a court decides that a short custodial sentence is the only appropriate option. If we were proposing to prevent courts from imposing such sentences in those cases, the Opposition’s criticism might be right, but we are not making such a proposal. Courts will still be able to use their discretion, and there will be no statutory bar. The sentence will remain a matter for the presiding sheriff.Our policy is exactly in line with the unanimous view of the Justice Committee. Short sentences will not make Scotland safer, but in some cases they cannot be avoided. The bill reflects that unanimous view by presuming against use of short sentences but allowing for their use when that is needed. That is why our proposal is the right proposal and the right way to make Scotland safer.Amendments 100 and 101, in the name of Robert Brown, support the principle of a presumption against short custodial sentences. Indeed, the “Pocket Guide to Scottish Liberal Democrat Policies”, which was published last month, acknowledges:“there is clear evidence that very short prison sentences simply reinforce offending behaviour.”The document goes on to say that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland will“end the ‘revolving door’ prison system by replacing very short sentences, which are ineffective and expensive, with tough community penalties where offenders can pay back the communities they have harmed.”The main area on which we appear to differ is the period to be specified in that presumption—although we would not know that from the Scottish Liberal Democrats’ policy guide, in which no cut-off point is specified. Robert Brown’s amendments would set the cut-off point at three months, but we remain unconvinced of the wisdom of such an approach. The offences for which prisoners receive a sentence of three months or less are not significantly different from the offences that receive sentences of six months or less. Most sentences of six months or less are given for a small group of offences, of which the most common are shoplifting, breach of the peace, breaches of bail or social work orders, common assault and handling of an offensive weapon. Those are also the most common crimes in the list of offences that receive a sentence of three months or less. 11:15 We believe that we can achieve more if we have the courage of our convictions now to create a presumption against sentences of six months or less. The backstop will be the same, irrespective of which option we choose, because judicial discretion will remain intact. Sentencers will still be able to impose a custodial sentence, in either scenario, if they consider that the circumstances of the case leave them no alternative. If we are to make a difference, we must seize the opportunity before us. We will make Scotland safer by making low-level criminals face up to what they have done, change their offending behaviour and pay back to their communities for the harm that they have inflicted. That makes far more sense than the alternative of a short custodial sentence, for reasons that the committee set out clearly in its stage 1 report. Custodial sentences of six months or less do not work and do not stop offending behaviour. The evidence does not suggest that changing to a presumption against sentences of three months or less would make the provision any more effective or have any better impact on reoffending.We do not accept that there is anything to be achieved by delaying the commencement of section 17, as proposed by amendment 388. That amendment seeks to provide that the presumption may not be brought into effect until the Scottish ministers lay before the Parliament a report setting out the expected impact of the presumption in terms of the reduction in the number of prison sentences, the increase in the number of community payback orders, the increase in the costs for local authorities and the additional funding that will be provided to meet the expected pressures on local authorities.The financial memorandum already sets out in some detail our costings for a range of increases in the number of community payback orders. We have repeatedly made it clear that we expect most of the increase to come from a change in judges’ sentencing patterns, with reduced use of short prison sentences offset by an increased use of the community payback order. We have already said that, in 2010-11, £6 million more will be provided to support improved service delivery of community penalties and to resource the initial increase in community payback orders. We have said that that will be baselined, which will ensure that at least current funding levels for community penalties will be the top priority when decisions are taken for 2011-12. We have said that we will monitor increases in uptake very closely and work with local authorities to assess the need for additional funding. In the absence of clarity about the likely total Scottish budget from 2011-12 onwards, it would be difficult to do more. I urge members to resist amendment 388.Amendments 392 and 393 would ensure that the Scottish ministers could not commence section 17 using the normal procedure but would need to lay an affirmative order on which the Parliament would be required to vote. If the Parliament agrees to section 17, what would be the point of requiring another vote at the point of commencement? We urge the committee to resist amendments 392 and 393.I ask the member to withdraw amendment 100.