Chamber
Plenary, 15 Mar 2007
15 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill
This morning, Johann Lamont said that there had been attacks on the bill from both sides—from some who appear to want nobody to be sent to prison and from others whose attitude is more, "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." Any rational person would take a position somewhere between those two extremes.
The bill takes as its starting point rational principles: that prison is only one way to manage offenders, and not necessarily the best way; that people who are released from prison should be required to co-operate with some form of community supervision and should expect to receive some form of support in the community to help them to avoid reoffending; that the regime should be clear and comprehensible; and that we should focus on high-risk offenders in the interests of protecting the public. Sadly, however, I cannot agree that the bill as it stands will achieve those aims or put those principles into practice.
Prison can and must be used to protect the public from some dangerous offenders, but it can do so only if the time spent inside is used properly, by challenging behaviour, supporting recovery from addiction, teaching basic skills and encouraging better attitudes. If we do those things, we will release people who are less likely to reoffend.
We do not, however, do those things. We pack ever more offenders, including those who are not a threat to the public, into ever more overstretched and overburdened prisons, thus reducing the scope for meaningful work with offenders during their time in custody. We often release them even more damaged than when they went in. As a result, reoffending rates continue to be unacceptable. If we do not reduce prisoners' chances of reoffending, we protect nobody.
Bill Aitken gave a particular example, but I do not believe that sending even a petty repeat shoplifter to prison protects the shopkeeper unless the time the offender spends in prison reduces the likelihood of their reoffending when they come out. If that does not happen, a short prison sentence is worth little in the way of deterrence, little in the way of rehabilitation and little in the way of public protection. If a sentence is not worth those things, what is it for?
It is possible to express differences of opinion on this subject without accusing one another either of not caring about victims or of being on the side of criminals. In this morning's session, and again during First Minister's question time, there was a little too much of that uncomfortable "tough on crime" rhetoric, which helps nobody. Whoever feels that they are winning the "tough on crime" trophy always ends up accusing those who disagree of being on the side of the criminals. We can do a little better than that.
In reality, the interests of victims and criminals are not opposites. By giving offenders the best chance of changing their lives and offering them the greatest support to overcome addiction and other problems, we can prevent the creation of more victims in the future.
Despite the good principles behind much of the bill and despite my support for some of its aspects, such as those relating to the sale of weapons, I find myself struggling to justify support for it. The bill could have damaging consequences not only for the overstretched prison system but for criminal justice social work services. The Executive tells us not to worry, as it can build more prisons. That is exactly the kind of predict-and-provide mentality that still holds sway in its transport policy—"Too much congestion? We'll build more roads." I fear that custodial sentences will eventually result in filling up whatever space we make available and that we will be back in this chamber at some point asking why rehabilitation is not having the desired effect.
If we had passed amendment 44, in the name of Colin Fox, I would have found the bill more palatable. As it is, I am unable to support it. Although I do not agree with the statement of one expert that this is the worst bill that has come before us—that goes too far; I am sure that I could find even worse Executive bills—I find myself struggling to justify it as it stands.
The bill takes as its starting point rational principles: that prison is only one way to manage offenders, and not necessarily the best way; that people who are released from prison should be required to co-operate with some form of community supervision and should expect to receive some form of support in the community to help them to avoid reoffending; that the regime should be clear and comprehensible; and that we should focus on high-risk offenders in the interests of protecting the public. Sadly, however, I cannot agree that the bill as it stands will achieve those aims or put those principles into practice.
Prison can and must be used to protect the public from some dangerous offenders, but it can do so only if the time spent inside is used properly, by challenging behaviour, supporting recovery from addiction, teaching basic skills and encouraging better attitudes. If we do those things, we will release people who are less likely to reoffend.
We do not, however, do those things. We pack ever more offenders, including those who are not a threat to the public, into ever more overstretched and overburdened prisons, thus reducing the scope for meaningful work with offenders during their time in custody. We often release them even more damaged than when they went in. As a result, reoffending rates continue to be unacceptable. If we do not reduce prisoners' chances of reoffending, we protect nobody.
Bill Aitken gave a particular example, but I do not believe that sending even a petty repeat shoplifter to prison protects the shopkeeper unless the time the offender spends in prison reduces the likelihood of their reoffending when they come out. If that does not happen, a short prison sentence is worth little in the way of deterrence, little in the way of rehabilitation and little in the way of public protection. If a sentence is not worth those things, what is it for?
It is possible to express differences of opinion on this subject without accusing one another either of not caring about victims or of being on the side of criminals. In this morning's session, and again during First Minister's question time, there was a little too much of that uncomfortable "tough on crime" rhetoric, which helps nobody. Whoever feels that they are winning the "tough on crime" trophy always ends up accusing those who disagree of being on the side of the criminals. We can do a little better than that.
In reality, the interests of victims and criminals are not opposites. By giving offenders the best chance of changing their lives and offering them the greatest support to overcome addiction and other problems, we can prevent the creation of more victims in the future.
Despite the good principles behind much of the bill and despite my support for some of its aspects, such as those relating to the sale of weapons, I find myself struggling to justify support for it. The bill could have damaging consequences not only for the overstretched prison system but for criminal justice social work services. The Executive tells us not to worry, as it can build more prisons. That is exactly the kind of predict-and-provide mentality that still holds sway in its transport policy—"Too much congestion? We'll build more roads." I fear that custodial sentences will eventually result in filling up whatever space we make available and that we will be back in this chamber at some point asking why rehabilitation is not having the desired effect.
If we had passed amendment 44, in the name of Colin Fox, I would have found the bill more palatable. As it is, I am unable to support it. Although I do not agree with the statement of one expert that this is the worst bill that has come before us—that goes too far; I am sure that I could find even worse Executive bills—I find myself struggling to justify it as it stands.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5632, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees that the Custodial Sentences and Weapons ...
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, but the past four years seem to have flown by as we have worked on comprehensively reforming our cri...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Will the minister give way?
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Indeed.
Phil Gallie:
Con
I thank the minister for giving way with her usual courtesy, but how on earth can she guarantee that the licence conditions will be met in full? Bail conditi...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Mr Gallie always raises questions about bail and people's responsibility to comply with conditions. The onus is absolutely on the offender: if conditions are...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
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 ...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
I apologise for being slightly late for the minister's speech. I was debating the matter on television with Bill Butler.During this morning's stage 3 proceed...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Will Mr Aitken enlighten members on the cost of the proposals in the amendments that he moved this morning, which were unsuccessful? What impact would those ...
Bill Aitken:
Con
The minister will appreciate that if the amendments in my name had been agreed to they would have had an impact on the prison estate and another prison would...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I hope that Bill Aitken agrees that it is important to make a distinction between prisoners who are released on licence and shorter-term prisoners who are cu...
Bill Aitken:
Con
I accept the minister's point in part, but if someone reoffends during the unexpired period of their sentence, they can be brought back to the court to be de...
Mr MacAskill:
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Bill Aitken:
Con
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.Offences at the lower end of the scale are not a serious matter, but when there is an accumulation of offences, someth...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
We will support the bill today, as we did at stage 1, although we share many of the concerns that were outlined by Kenny MacAskill. The bill is only one part...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
I thank the Justice 2 Committee clerks, our advisers, the ministers and their officials and everyone who gave evidence and helped to shape the bill.I very mu...
Bill Aitken:
Con
Will the member give way?
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
Of course.
Bill Aitken:
Con
Where has the member been for the past 10 years? After all, the Labour Party has had that long to change the current flawed system.
Jackie Baillie:
Lab
The difference is that we are changing the system now. The record will show that the Tories did not do so and that, in fact, they wasted opportunities to mak...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
This morning, Johann Lamont said that there had been attacks on the bill from both sides—from some who appear to want nobody to be sent to prison and from ot...
Gordon Jackson (Glasgow Govan) (Lab):
Lab
The minister is right to say that the bill represents a fundamental—and good—change in the way in which we do things.There was no lack of clarity before. Whe...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
At First Minister's question time today, the First Minister said that the bill will end the Tories' provisions on the automatic early release of prisoners. O...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
We come to closing speeches. We are behind the clock, so I am obliged to Jeremy Purvis for waiving his second speaking slot.
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
It is with disappointment that I rise today. I had great hopes for the bill. Like Bill Aitken and others, including Colin Fox and Patrick Harvie, I feel that...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Johann Lamont):
Lab
The member obviously did not listen to my earlier explanation. When sentencing, judges take into account whatever they choose to take into account, including...
Phil Gallie:
Con
If it is simply not true, minister, why on earth leave those words in the bill? They could have been removed. Given what the minister has said, it would not ...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
Will the member give way?
Phil Gallie:
Con
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute. Patrick Harvie's points on education and addressing addiction were worth while. There is a need for longer terms in p...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
I say to Phil Gallie that, if this is legislating in haste, I would hate to see us taking our time. After 10 years, it is probably time that we got round to ...