Hansard

Along with our concern about the proposal for a presumption against custodial sentences of six months or less, our other key concern has been about the absence from the bill of provision for the action that is required to tackle violent crime, in particular knife crime. We seek to remedy that through amendment 10, which would give effect to the proposal for a system of mandatory minimum sentences for knife carrying.Scotland still suffers from rates of violent crime that are higher than those anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and knife crime remains at persistently high levels. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research highlighted that violent crime accounted for 30 per cent of crime in Scotland but only 20 per cent of crime in England and Wales. In 2007-08, 8,989 offences of handling an offensive weapon were recorded by police. In 2008-09, there were only nine fewer such offences. Only 29 per cent of those who were convicted of such offences received a custodial sentence. Of course, if a presumption against custodial sentences of six months or less, or three months or less, continues to be pursued, even fewer of those offenders will receive a custodial sentence. The cabinet secretary referred to the number of such sentences for knife offences when we discussed section 17.We do not believe that the situation is appropriate. Given the persistently high levels of knife crime, we believe that the sentencing regime for knife carrying must change. That is why I propose a mandatory minimum custodial sentence of six months for knife carrying, except in exceptional circumstances. That would put knife offences on the same footing as firearms offences, which already carry a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ custody. Far more people in Scotland are killed with knives than with firearms. Last year, knives were responsible for 58 per cent of homicides in Scotland, which is the highest percentage ever recorded.There has been debate about the cost of our proposal due to its impact on prison places. Robert Brown has said that it would cost £23 million. However, that presumes that the policy would have no deterrent effect, which we do not accept, and it needs to be balanced with other factors including the recent estimate that, last year, injuries resulting from knife crimes cost the national health service in Scotland £500 million. Furthermore, we do not accept the counsel of despair on the impact of prison. The argument is made that rehabilitation cannot take place in custody over that period, but we believe that that notion should be challenged and that greater efforts should be made to engage in rehabilitation in prison. Why should we accept the status quo, if that is what it is?The other key fallacy in the debate has been the argument that those who carry knives legitimately—for example, for their work—would be targeted by amendment 10. They would not, because the 1995 act already makes exemptions for those who have knives for use at work, for religious reasons or as part of a national costume. We do not seek to change the law in that area.The committee has received a range of evidence on the proposal. Some were concerned about those who carry knives legitimately—I have addressed that point. Others argued that mandatory services do not work, but the empirical evidence that was put forward to support that view was pretty insubstantial. We have mandatory sentences for homicides and firearms offences and we have seen reductions in those. The violence reduction unit has emphasised that other methods of reducing knife crime should be employed, particularly the education of young people. I point out that the vast majority of knife crimes are committed by adult offenders, but it is also important to say that we do not regard the proposed change to the sentencing regime as an isolated measure to tackle knife crime. We believe that it is complementary to the other work, which is often very good, that is continuing in communities to reduce knife crime and divert those who are at risk of becoming involved in it.I turn to the convener’s amendment 10A, with which we have sympathy. Others have accused us of being in a bidding war on the level of sentences, but that is not the case. Our proposal has been for a minimum sentence of six months, and that remains our position today. The convener has made it clear that he does not regard that as adequate and he proposes a minimum of two years. I highlight the fact that our proposal is for a minimum sentence and it would still be open to the court to impose a sentence of up to four years. We believe that the crucial thing is to introduce the principle of a minimum custodial sentence so that those who are convicted of carrying knives can expect to go to jail. I appreciate that the convener has made a different legislative proposal based on a different precedent in the law, and we would be happy to reflect on that before stage 3. We will therefore abstain in any vote on amendment 10A.We believe that there is a clear difference on the committee between members who have listened to the victims of knife crime and their families who have fought so hard for the proposed change in the law and members who have not. It is crucial that we move to stage 3 with an intact proposal for a mandatory minimum sentence so that, at the very least, the matter can be debated further. To those who question the practicality and cost of the proposal, I simply point to the powerful evidence that the committee heard from John Muir, who eloquently and persistently stated his case and that of other victims. The real question is what the costs will be of not pursuing the change in the law, which is why I move the amendment in my name.I move amendment 10.