Chamber
Plenary, 15 Mar 2007
15 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill
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. When a sentence was passed, most people knew that the offender would not serve all of it. Indeed, in some ways, the new system has less clarity. In the past, a prisoner had a date on their door and knew what was happening, whereas that will not be the case from now on. However, the bill will establish a much better way of doing things.
The previous arrangement, whereby people served half or two thirds of their sentence before simply walking out the door, did not make sense. Bill Aitken made the valid point—the only one that he made—that that arrangement made sense only in the day when governors could take away remission. I am not sure how often they did that in practice, but at least if people misbehaved remission could be removed. However, once that power passed into history, there was no point in having that system.
My friends on the Tory benches have the sheer effrontery to condemn what we are doing and say simply, "There should be no early release. Whatever the sentence is, people should simply serve it all." One has to ask what that would mean in practice. At the moment, a judge can give someone three or four years or whatever. Do the Tories believe that, if the person had to serve all of their sentence, judges would keep giving the same length of sentence? The resource implications of that are unthinkable. It is much more likely that judges—who are not stupid—would simply halve the sentence. When a judge sentences someone to three years under the present system, they are saying that that person should be in custody for 18 months. If the offender had to serve all of their sentence, the judge would simply give them an 18-month sentence. The result would be the same: people at the end of their custody period would simply walk out the door and there would be no control, no supervision, no licence—no nothing.
However, we are bringing in a big change. It is important that people have their sentence managed throughout and that, once they are in the community, there is monitoring of how they behave. The big change, which the Tories simply have not tackled, is that we are abandoning the idea that we should lock people up, leave them alone and, at the end of their sentences, let them walk out the door to do whatever they want.
Phil Gallie asks whether we can guarantee that people will behave during that period, but no one can guarantee that someone will not reoffend once they are released from prison. However, the bill represents an attempt to make a difference.
To some degree, however, I understand what Patrick Harvie is saying, although I think that he is in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. He is saying that he cannot support a bill that has a lot of good in it simply because he has some concerns about it. I think that he is being a little overpessimistic, but I also have some concerns about the bill. There are huge resource implications in terms of social work involvement and justice involvement, which have to be worked out.
I agree with Kenny MacAskill that, if we are to produce such measures, we must consider the whole package and think about how we can drop people off the bottom, because we still send to jail people who should not be in custody at all. We should consider the argument that short sentences are not good—there is a real debate to be had on that. I am with Kenny MacAskill in saying that we must consider resources and ensure that the bill does not simply increase our prison population. However, Patrick Harvie is a little overpessimistic, because the bill is worth a try. To use a justice expression, the jury is out as to how the bill will work in practice, but it is innovative and bright and will be a fundamental change for the better, so it is worthy of support from the Parliament.
There was no lack of clarity before. When a sentence was passed, most people knew that the offender would not serve all of it. Indeed, in some ways, the new system has less clarity. In the past, a prisoner had a date on their door and knew what was happening, whereas that will not be the case from now on. However, the bill will establish a much better way of doing things.
The previous arrangement, whereby people served half or two thirds of their sentence before simply walking out the door, did not make sense. Bill Aitken made the valid point—the only one that he made—that that arrangement made sense only in the day when governors could take away remission. I am not sure how often they did that in practice, but at least if people misbehaved remission could be removed. However, once that power passed into history, there was no point in having that system.
My friends on the Tory benches have the sheer effrontery to condemn what we are doing and say simply, "There should be no early release. Whatever the sentence is, people should simply serve it all." One has to ask what that would mean in practice. At the moment, a judge can give someone three or four years or whatever. Do the Tories believe that, if the person had to serve all of their sentence, judges would keep giving the same length of sentence? The resource implications of that are unthinkable. It is much more likely that judges—who are not stupid—would simply halve the sentence. When a judge sentences someone to three years under the present system, they are saying that that person should be in custody for 18 months. If the offender had to serve all of their sentence, the judge would simply give them an 18-month sentence. The result would be the same: people at the end of their custody period would simply walk out the door and there would be no control, no supervision, no licence—no nothing.
However, we are bringing in a big change. It is important that people have their sentence managed throughout and that, once they are in the community, there is monitoring of how they behave. The big change, which the Tories simply have not tackled, is that we are abandoning the idea that we should lock people up, leave them alone and, at the end of their sentences, let them walk out the door to do whatever they want.
Phil Gallie asks whether we can guarantee that people will behave during that period, but no one can guarantee that someone will not reoffend once they are released from prison. However, the bill represents an attempt to make a difference.
To some degree, however, I understand what Patrick Harvie is saying, although I think that he is in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. He is saying that he cannot support a bill that has a lot of good in it simply because he has some concerns about it. I think that he is being a little overpessimistic, but I also have some concerns about the bill. There are huge resource implications in terms of social work involvement and justice involvement, which have to be worked out.
I agree with Kenny MacAskill that, if we are to produce such measures, we must consider the whole package and think about how we can drop people off the bottom, because we still send to jail people who should not be in custody at all. We should consider the argument that short sentences are not good—there is a real debate to be had on that. I am with Kenny MacAskill in saying that we must consider resources and ensure that the bill does not simply increase our prison population. However, Patrick Harvie is a little overpessimistic, because the bill is worth a try. To use a justice expression, the jury is out as to how the bill will work in practice, but it is innovative and bright and will be a fundamental change for the better, so it is worthy of support from the Parliament.
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 ...