Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice 2 Committee, 28 Mar 2006

28 Mar 2006 · S2 · Justice 2 Committee

Item of business

Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Purvis, Jeremy LD Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale Watch on SPTV

I will respond in order to members' comments, which I appreciate. The first questioned whether my amendments would create a variety of maximum sentences in summary cases. In advance of seeing the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Bill, the short answer is yes, they would. Maximum sentences would be defendable in knife cases, in terms of both summary justice and having a maximum—not a mandatory—sentence of seven years in cases of indictment. If there are to be four attempted murders this week in Strathclyde, it would be a good message for this Parliament to send out that not only is knife crime on a par with gun crime, but it is a greater danger to society. The bill proposes that the maximum sentence for possession of a knife should be one year less than the mandatory sentence for possession of a gun. There has been little comment about how that maximum sentence, which is very similar to the sentence for possession of a gun, would send out a signal that we are effectively downgrading the seriousness of carrying a gun. I do not accept that.As regards cost, my proposed new section 245JA(4)(b) states that appropriate rehabilitation programme arrangements would have to exist before a court could make a custody and behavioural order. The cost implications would be minimal, because an order would be made by a sheriff only if they were satisfied that the arrangements for a rehabilitation programme already existed in their area. That comes down to the choice of the sheriff.The minister asked whether it would be right to allow a sheriff to attach conditions to someone's sentence. We need to have that debate. Given the Audit Scotland report on rehabilitation programmes in jail and our consideration of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, I would like to see greater consistency in sentences passed by courts and imposed by the Scottish Prison Service and criminal justice social workers in the community. That is the thrust of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005. Members will recall from debates in the chamber and our consideration of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill that I argued consistently for greater use of conditions on release for prisoners. Amendment 235 is consistent with drug treatment and testing orders as well as with supervised attendance orders for individuals. It would send out a message and be the right way forward. I would have liked to hear the minister say that increased sentences and custody and behavioural orders would be taken forward, but I did not. I would like to test the committee on all my amendments, on the basis that they are consistent with what I have been arguing for for more than a year.Notwithstanding the minister's comments about the detail of amendment 235, I would like to test the view of the committee. Ultimately, amendment 235 would put into the sentencing regime what Bill Butler has asked for—individuals would understand that learning to compromise and to walk away, as well as anger management education and specific drugs and alcohol programmes, should be part of our criminal justice sentencing regime.I press amendment 2A.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice 2 Committee, 28 Mar 2006

In the same item of business