Hansard

As the lack of an SNP amendment to the motion suggests, I have no hesitation in welcoming the publication of the white paper on serious violent and sexual offenders, which paves the way for implementation of the MacLean report's recommendations more or less in their entirety. In my speech I want to focus on those proposals.

Since the report was published, I have been calling for the MacLean recommendations to be implemented, so I am not about to start opposing them now. I am happy to welcome the Executive on board—finally. As recently as February this year, the Labour party dismissed the SNP's proposals as "uncosted nonsense". A few short months later, much of that so-called "uncosted nonsense" is being presented to the Parliament by the minister. He may want to reflect on some of the silly, knee-jerk statements that are made on behalf of ministers, perhaps even with their authority. Some months later, those statements can look a little hollow.

For many years, the SNP has argued that our criminal justice system should provide for a form of lifetime supervision for certain categories of offenders—particularly those for whom it is considered that there will never come a point when they can be regarded as no longer posing a danger to the public. It is now a year and a day since the MacLean report was published. At the time I was quoted in the newspapers as saying:

"we must study its proposals in detail but, having waited some time for its publication, we will be looking to the Scottish government to move swiftly in order to act on its recommendations, so we achieve reform and better protection for the public as quickly as possible".

I am not sure that, after waiting a year and day, the Executive is allowed to say that it has acted swiftly. It will also be some time before these proposals are implemented in practice. Nevertheless, I am pleased that progress is being made.

There is certainly a need for legislation to deal with violent offenders. Since new Labour came to power in 1997, the number of serious assaults has increased by 15 per cent and the level of violent crime has risen by 22 per cent. Meanwhile, the number of individuals granted parole is increasing. In 2000, 374 prisoners were granted parole, compared with 311 in 1999. The number of adult mandatory life prisoners released with the agreement of ministers has increased from 10 in 1999 to 17 in 2000.

I have never been a fan of keeping people in prison unnecessarily. There are still proportionately more people in prison in Scotland than in almost any other European country. However, if serious violent and sexual offenders are to be returned to the community, we have a duty to protect society from the possibility of their reoffending. Equally, we should have a desire to support those offenders in their attempts to correct their behaviour, if that is at all possible. I accept that there is a great deal of professional evidence to suggest that for some individuals it is not.

Since 1997, the SNP has pressed for the implementation of what is now the MacLean report's recommendation for an order for lifelong restriction to be available to the High Court for high-risk violent or sex offenders. At the time, we described it as lifetime supervision. That would ensure constant monitoring and a recall to custody if the order were breached. Although this is not covered by the debate, I add a plea for the Executive at least to consider making supervised release orders available to the courts, even in summary cases. In some Scottish courts, sheriffs are arguing that their hands are tied by the lack of availability of such release orders, but perhaps that issue is for a different debate.

There is no doubt that lifetime restriction orders are needed. The name John Cronin will be well known in the chamber. His case underlines the importance of introducing lifetime supervision for serial sex offenders. To be frank, if an individual has a repeated pattern of sexual offending, it is unlikely that there will come a time when that pattern of offending will not require control. If serial sexual offenders are to be returned to our communities, a mechanism must be put in place to ensure that they are under supervision for as long as they are at liberty.

It would be irresponsible for the SNP, as an Opposition party, simply to wave through any piece of legislation, no matter how worthy, without some scrutiny. Therefore, I will raise a couple of small concerns.

The Executive has agreed to the MacLean committee's recommendation to create the risk management authority. That is an interesting decision in the light of the ministerial statement given last week by Angus MacKay, who is at long last striking a small match as a precursor to the much-vaunted and long-awaited bonfire of the quangos. Is there no existing organisation that could have carried out the role envisaged for that new body, such as the Parole Board for Scotland or probation services? I would be interested to learn from the minister whether any thought was given to extending the remit of existing bodies rather than creating yet another quango. If that route was considered, why was it rejected? The creation of another quango will raise eyebrows in some quarters.

I know that concern has been expressed that the proposals might be open to challenge under the European convention on human rights. The application of the convention continues to impact on the criminal justice system, as is demonstrated by yesterday's decision on slopping out. There is no doubt that there will be a challenge to the order for lifelong restriction. The offenders whom such measures are designed to deal with are often extremely resourceful and use the system to their own ends. I sincerely hope that every effort has been made to ensure that the proposals are completely robust in relation to ECHR compliance.

While some commentators believe that there will be ECHR problems, I note that Professor Gane from the University of Aberdeen, who has expertise in the ECHR, served on the MacLean committee and believes that the proposals are compatible with the convention. The key will be watertight risk assessment, bearing in mind the fact that the orders are a continuation of criminal cases. We must consider risk assessment carefully if we are to stay well within the boundaries of the ECHR. The proposals will be challenged—probably sooner rather than later—but I do not believe that such challenges will be successful if the correct statutory powers and guidelines are put in place.

Executive sources have been reported as saying that ministers hope to use satellite technology to track offenders. I may be wrong, but I presume that that refers to electronic tagging, about which the Executive has only just made an announcement. I would be interested to learn whether the Executive has envisaged a time scale for rolling out the electronic tagging proposals, as any reference to time scale was omitted from the Executive's press release.

The debate gets to the heart of what we want our justice system to be about: appropriate punishment for crimes, protection of the public and rehabilitation of offenders. None of those targets has been adequately addressed for the classification of offenders that we are discussing today. The implementation of the MacLean committee recommendations gives us the opportunity to meet those targets. That is why the SNP will support the Executive's motion.