Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice Committee 13 April 2010

13 Apr 2010 · S3 · Justice Committee

Item of business

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Robert Brown Watch on SPTV

I am bound to say that there has not exactly been a meeting of minds in the debate. I am somewhat disappointed by the cabinet secretary’s response to what were intended to be helpful amendments, around which I think that the Parliament could to some degree coalesce. The debate has perhaps had some of the overtones of debates once seen on abortion, in which there were no doubt good views on either side that never seemed to meet in the middle.This is an important debate—no one around the table disputes that—and it is important that we get it right, given the need for public confidence in the system that I emphasised earlier. Against that background, it is particularly disappointing that, although the cabinet secretary talked about baselining existing funding to improve the current system, he did not deal with the resourcing of the increased number of community sentence orders, on which the whole of section 17 is postulated. That is a central point on which the SNP Government needs to engage more than it has done so far.I found it interesting that the cabinet secretary endeavoured to cast doubt on the Liberal Democrat position on the issue, but there has never been any doubt about our position. We support a reduction in the use of short-term sentences, and we have always said that three months is the appropriate period. One good reason why that is a good idea in the context of this debate is that such a policy would, broadly speaking, halve the number of additional community sentences that would be required. Whether or not three months was a lead-in to a longer period or an end position in its own right, the same argument prevails.On the other side of the argument, Labour members have made very little attempt to engage with the key debate. What works? Does prison work or does it not? If prison works, in what way does it work? No speaker today has demonstrated that prison does the trick other than in the limited terms that I conceded at the outset: removing malefactors from the community for a few weeks, a couple of months or whatever gives people an element of relief.There is also a degree of contradiction in the argument. On the one hand, there are many platitudes about how community service orders are a good thing that we all support. On the other hand, there is no commitment to say, “Okay, if that is the case, what are the mechanisms that would bring about a greater use of community service orders in an effective fashion without risk to the public, about which people are concerned?” My amendments in the group were designed to deal with that. Angela Constance made the good point that social workers are up for change in this respect, as are many other professionals. I concede one point, which is Richard Baker’s point on prison numbers. It is clear from all the evidence that the proposed changes to section 17 will not lead to any significant savings in the prison budget. Given the level of overcrowding, that is certainly the case in the short to medium term. Of course, overcrowding is a major reason behind the McLeish commission’s recommendation to do something about short-term sentences. Overcrowding impacts not only on those on short-term sentences, but on our ability to resource and deal properly with those on longer sentences who represent a much more serious threat to the public.I readily accept that this is not entirely a black-and-white issue. That said, as a committee, we ought to proceed—as we have done in the past—on the basis of what the research and other professional evidence has shown to work. The reality is: short-term sentences do not work. We should proceed on the principle that the right approach is to do something better—in this case, community sentences—and then to look at the detail of what takes place. I warn the Government that, if the matter is to be taken forward effectively, it must engage with those who are broadly on its side of the argument. It will have to do that if the proposition that it puts to the Parliament is to command the consent of the chamber. I will press amendment 100.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice Committee 13 April 2010

In the same item of business