Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 27 Jun 2001

27 Jun 2001 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Serious Violent and Sexual Offenders

Jackson, Gordon Lab Glasgow Govan Watch on SPTV

It will come as no surprise to members to learn that I, too, welcome unreservedly the contents of the white paper. I have also been pleased to hear a degree of unanimity on the matter. I am particularly glad that Roseanna Cunningham and the nationalists have not lodged an amendment to the motion, although that does not mean to say that they have not been critical occasionally. On this occasion, it is appropriate that they did not lodge an amendment but are simply commending what is happening.

I am sorry that Phil Gallie lodged an amendment. He largely welcomed what is happening, but he could not simply commend it: he could not quite resist the temptation to go back over the old ground of wanting to lock people up for longer. That is a wee bit ironic, as the Executive is ensuring that people who are a danger to the public will not be released back into society. We all commend that.

On a personal level, I am delighted by what is happening. I am pleased that we are considering the subject at all. At long last, we are getting to grips with certain important issues. For a long time, penal justice—the way in which we treat our offenders and run our prison system—has been ignored. Successive Governments have swept the issue under the carpet. As I have—perhaps cynically—suggested, there have not been a great many votes in how we deal with that sort of thing, but we are now coming to grips with it.

In the past, judges were able only to lock up and let out—society locked offenders up for a period and then, at the end of it, opened the door and they were back into society. Time and again, I have come across cases in which reports were prepared suggesting that some kind of treatment was needed, but the judge—whether naively or cynically, I was never sure—would say, "They will get it in the jail". We all knew full well that there was not a snowball's chance that they would get anything in the jail other than their three meals a day and release at the end of it.

The reality is that we were doing nothing for society. During the lock-up period, we were not helping the individual. Therefore, we were not helping the body corporate and, when we let them out, we were certainly not doing anything to protect society. In the past, that was particularly true for sexual offenders. As the MacLean report tells us, many of the people who commit serious violent offences have a mental health problem. In the past, there were only two options: they were either put in a regime such as Carstairs—which is an excellent institution in its way—or they went to the jail. Forensic psychiatrists would often say that they were pulling their hair out at the total lack of imagination and available options.

We are now making real progress. Reports have been produced by the MacLean committee, the Millan committee and Lady Cosgrove's committee. Most important, we are now having a cold, careful and unemotional look at how we deal with such offenders and how we manage risk. A great deal of nonsense is talked about risk and there can be a great deal of scaremongering. It is important that we look sensibly at the risk to the public, without exaggerating or overstating it. On the other hand, we need to acknowledge and deal with it.

Earlier today, I read again the remit of the MacLean committee:

"to consider whether the current legislative framework ... provides the courts with an appropriate range of options".

Roseanna Cunningham made a similar point in her summary—she saw me looking quizzically at her, which was because I was not quite sure what she meant. I am up for anything that increases our range of options. The MacLean committee was instructed

"to compare practice, diagnosis and treatment with that elsewhere".

Our practice in Scotland might not always be the best and there might be other places from which we could learn. The MacLean committee was also instructed to build on current expertise and research to inform the development of the process. To me, that sounds marvellous although, to others, it might sound quite normal. For many years, we have had a system that simply ignored all that, but we are now saying that we will look at international practice to consider how things should best be done. We are going to tackle the problems.

Were you signalling to me to wind up, Presiding Officer?

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 27 Jun 2001

In the same item of business