Chamber
Plenary, 15 Mar 2007
15 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
On the face of it, Mr Fox's comments and the points that were made by Susan Matheson in Sacro's submission have some merit. However, we need to look at these matters in a different light.
Sentences of 14 days and fewer have been handed down primarily for fine defaults and, frankly, that particular system has been brought into disrepute. People all over Scotland were aghast when they found that if people who were given a sentence of seven or 14 days because they had chosen, for whatever reason, not to pay a fine surrendered themselves at 6 am, they were free by 4 in the afternoon. We had to address the frankly unacceptable situation—one might describe it as a manifest injustice or illogicality—in which people who were given a two-year sentence had to do two years in prison while those who were given seven days were released after eight hours or whatever.
I do not think that the solution lies in treating sentences of fewer than 14 days as a parallel matter. Instead, we must ensure that, when a fine is imposed, it is paid and that, if it is not paid, the money is secured by some other method or manner. By doing so, we will not have the nonsense of people not serving the appropriate time and, indeed, we will ensure that the taxpayer does not have to bear the great cost of putting such people in prison. Thankfully, that matter has been partly addressed in other legislation. For that reason, I simply do not think that the amendments would address the problem of fine defaulters.
Should we be giving people sentences of fewer than 14 days anyway? In most cases, the answer is absolutely not. However, in some cases, a sheriff might think that such a punishment—similar, one might say, to a short period of disqualification for a driving offence—would be suitable. In dealing with driving offences, the sheriff might say, "Mr X, take two weeks' holiday and you won't have to lose your job as a result of the disqualification". Such cases will be few and far between—and there are certainly better ways of punishing people—but I do not want to restrict the sheriff's discretion to say, "Mr X, you can use the two weeks that you would have spent sunning yourself in Spain to learn the error of your ways."
Although there appears to be an illogicality in the bill, I think that we should leave matters as they are.
Sentences of 14 days and fewer have been handed down primarily for fine defaults and, frankly, that particular system has been brought into disrepute. People all over Scotland were aghast when they found that if people who were given a sentence of seven or 14 days because they had chosen, for whatever reason, not to pay a fine surrendered themselves at 6 am, they were free by 4 in the afternoon. We had to address the frankly unacceptable situation—one might describe it as a manifest injustice or illogicality—in which people who were given a two-year sentence had to do two years in prison while those who were given seven days were released after eight hours or whatever.
I do not think that the solution lies in treating sentences of fewer than 14 days as a parallel matter. Instead, we must ensure that, when a fine is imposed, it is paid and that, if it is not paid, the money is secured by some other method or manner. By doing so, we will not have the nonsense of people not serving the appropriate time and, indeed, we will ensure that the taxpayer does not have to bear the great cost of putting such people in prison. Thankfully, that matter has been partly addressed in other legislation. For that reason, I simply do not think that the amendments would address the problem of fine defaulters.
Should we be giving people sentences of fewer than 14 days anyway? In most cases, the answer is absolutely not. However, in some cases, a sheriff might think that such a punishment—similar, one might say, to a short period of disqualification for a driving offence—would be suitable. In dealing with driving offences, the sheriff might say, "Mr X, take two weeks' holiday and you won't have to lose your job as a result of the disqualification". Such cases will be few and far between—and there are certainly better ways of punishing people—but I do not want to restrict the sheriff's discretion to say, "Mr X, you can use the two weeks that you would have spent sunning yourself in Spain to learn the error of your ways."
Although there appears to be an illogicality in the bill, I think that we should leave matters as they are.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill. Members should have with them copies of the bill as ...
Section 4—Basic definitions
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Group 1 is minor and technical amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 45, 4, 48, 54, 65, 68, 69, 71, 74, 6 to...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Johann Lamont):
Lab
This large group of amendments deals with a number of technical and drafting issues that have resulted from a final proofreading of the bill's provisions. Th...
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—Johann Lamont—and agreed to.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Group 2 is on the abolition of custody-only sentences. Amendment 16, in the name of Colin Fox, is grouped with amendments 17 to 19 and 33. Again, I draw memb...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
The purpose of the amendments is to address what has been widely accepted as an anomaly in the bill—the fact that offenders who receive 14-day sentences serv...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
On the face of it, Mr Fox's comments and the points that were made by Susan Matheson in Sacro's submission have some merit. However, we need to look at these...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
Colin Fox is technically correct to say that the bill appears to contain an anomaly. However, in my experience, sentences of 14 days or fewer are unheard of....
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
At what stage can proper rehabilitation services and support start? At stage 1 and stage 2, Colin Fox made good points about the time it would take the priso...
Johann Lamont:
Lab
Amendments 16 to 19 and 33 seek to address Mr Fox's concern that custody-only prisoners could spend longer in prison than those custody and community sentenc...
Colin Fox:
SSP
Those members who argue that the current system is in disrepute are absolutely correct. That is what the bill seeks to address. However, the passage of the p...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
There will be a division. Since this is the first division in these proceedings, there will be a five-minute suspension.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
We will proceed with the division on amendment 16.
ForBaird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvi...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Amendment 17 moved—Colin Fox.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
There will be a division.
ForBaird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green) Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green) Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP) Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) Harvi...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—Johann Lamont—and agreed to.