Hansard

Although there are aspects of the bill that we fully support, there are parts of it that still cause us significant concern. We are grateful to the minister for the many changes that have been made to ameliorate some of the problems that were flagged up at stage 2 and for the meetings that the Executive offered to hold to identify whether an accommodation could be reached. However, some difficulties remain, and we should bear in mind the maxim, "legislate in haste, repent at leisure."

I turn first to the aspect of the bill that deals with weapons, which the minister mentioned at the end of her speech. In her comments this morning, Ms Lamont made the valid point that although that aspect of the bill has been ignored, it is of fundamental importance, in that it addresses the supply and availability of weapons such as swords, which are of great significance to our communities and to society as a whole. The sale of swords is a social problem, but we must ensure that the response is proportionate and that people who have a legitimate need to access them—because, for example, they are involved in thespian activities, highland dancing or historical societies—are covered. I believe that the bill addresses such issues and, to that extent, we fully support it, just as we fully support all the measures that the Executive and the Parliament have taken to address the knife culture that exists in Scotland. The problem cannot be tackled solely through legislation, but legislation is necessary and the Executive has our full backing for the provisions.

However, the sentencing aspect of the bill gives us greater cause for concern. We are aware that the present system is in disrepute, but the Conservatives' constant mantra about ending early release is unhelpful. The problem is that the public want a sentencing policy that they can understand. I remember being addressed by learned sheriffs who said, "What is the problem? We all know that a two-year sentence means one year." Any judicial system and any law must be understandable to ordinary men and women in the street. Aspects of law such as information technology law and media law require expert input, but if an offender is given a sentence, that sentence should be understandable to the victim and to the broader community; it should not be understandable only to those who are familiar with the lexicon and the jargon.

We believe that what the Executive seeks to do will be beneficial—a clear statement should be made in open court of what the custody period will be. As far as we are concerned, the bill makes it quite clear that the sentence that is given is the sentence that will be served. The Tories can argue about that, but ultimately the length of the sentence will be made clear to victims and communities.

There must be a community part to sentences if we are to address the fundamental problem of reoffending rates. We cannot lock people up for many years, or even just for a few months or a few years, and then simply open the door and kick them out. We must tackle reoffending not just by punishing people but by providing care, whether that is wraparound care, monitoring and assistance or supervision.

However, problems with the bill remain. The minister appears to be rather too laid back about the substantial increase in prison numbers that the bill will generate. It is manifestly wrong that prison numbers should increase by the figures that have been bandied about, when there will have been no increase in criminality to justify that. Prisoner numbers will increase by approximately a seventh without there being an increase in offending, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. That will not necessarily tackle the root problems.

We need fundamentally to consider what our prisons are for. The Scottish National Party thinks that prisons are for ensuring that dangerous people are taken away for the protection of communities and for formally punishing people who have committed serious offences, the opprobrium of society for which can be demonstrated only by a custodial sentence.

We must ensure that people who are flotsam and jetsam and have problems to do with drink, drugs or deprivation—whether or not their inadequacies are of their own doing—are taken out of the judicial system. If we do not ensure that people at the lower end of the scale are taken out of the system before the new arrangements kick in, we will simply increase the number of prisoners, with no benefit. We must also ensure that the consequential requirements for the provision of social work services, care and other services are met. The Parliament has produced too much legislation that has introduced requirements for local authorities, social work departments, police services or prisons without putting in place the necessary resources. We must ensure that prison numbers are static, if not reduced, by keeping out of prison people who should not be there because they are not a danger to communities and have not committed criminal offences. We must ensure that the resources are in place before the bill is implemented.