Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 15 Mar 2007

15 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Lamont, Johann Lab Glasgow Pollok Watch on SPTV

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 sentence prisoners who receive very short sentences. Mr Fox wants to remove the anomaly by eliminating the category of custody-only sentences; all offenders who are given a custodial sentence, with the exception of those who are given life sentences, would be subject to a custody and community sentence.

I do not think that anyone disputes that there is an anomaly—that point was acknowledged at stage 1 and stage 2. However, we had to consider the practicalities of ensuring that the custody and community sentence was as effective as possible.

We agree that as many offenders as possible should be subject to the new custody and community regime. That is why we have set the threshold at the lowest practical point—15 days. I emphasise that we have to consider the practicalities. We have said many times that 15 days is the minimum time in which arrangements can be put in place for initial assessments to be made and conditions to be set. We are committed to tackling reoffending, but there is a particular problem with the group of offenders who are committing the types of offences that lead to short custodial sentences. For that group, it will be crucial to break the cycle and provide alternatives to a life of petty crime.

There is a limit to what we can do with those people, given the short sentences, and I know that some commentators do not want custody and community measures to apply to very short sentences—although they do not say what should be done with those offenders instead. I do not think that we should be doing nothing.

For people who are given very short sentences, the approach that is taken will be more about getting them in contact with the range of services that they will need—such as drug treatment, accommodation services, and advice on housing and benefits—to stabilise their lifestyles and move them away from offending. The service will be more akin to signposting people on and brokering access to services, rather than to formal supervision by social work. We have therefore stretched the application of the custody and community regime as far as practicable. Custodial sentences have to be meaningful, and that is what the 15-day threshold seeks to achieve.

Those who are sentenced to fewer than 15 days make up a very small percentage of the prison population. Most of those cases are for fine default. If a person defaults on a fine, they are flouting a disposal already made. In the financial year 2005-06, the average daily prison population of prisoners who had been sentenced to fewer than 15 days was just two. That average excludes fine defaulters.

We are seeking to address fine defaulting in other ways. With fine defaulters, supervised attendance orders provide courts with an alternative to custody. We have announced that, from September this year, supervised attendance orders will be the mandatory penalty for fine default of up to £500. That will mean that the vast majority of fine defaulters will no longer be sent to prison. We estimate that that will remove approximately 3,000 annual receptions to custody for fine default.

Points have been well made about the inadvisability of amendments 16 to 19 and 33 in the name of Colin Fox. I urge Parliament to reject them all.