Hansard

When reading this white paper, we have no choice but to go along with the stated aim of the minister: to make Scotland a safer place to live in. That is the aim of all members. To some of us in the Conservative party, that aim would be a bit more convincing if, when Labour came to power and the Scottish Executive came into being, they had implemented with a little bit more enthusiasm, and in full, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997. That would have addressed a number of the issues that the MacLean report considers, albeit not, perhaps, with the thoroughness of that report.

We welcome the underlying direction of the white paper, which is based on the findings of the MacLean committee. At the same time, I express some reservations about the minister's earlier comments on time scale. It is a year since the MacLean report was published, although, admittedly, consultation has taken place between then and now. However, it will take time to draft a bill. Perhaps, in his closing speech, the minister will express his thoughts on when a bill will be introduced to Parliament that covers the issues that are addressed in the MacLean report.

We consider that, in effect, the MacLean report endorses the Conservatives' stated aims and objectives over a number of years with respect to securing the safety of the public from the activities of violent criminals and sex offenders. Our amendment underlines the realities of the situation that the public perceive in Scotland and registers further steps that we believe need to be taken to further the public's interest.

The Executive—and, indeed, the Parliament—does not always listen to Conservative members when they make suggestions on issues that are important to the public and which could well affect public perceptions of law and order. The amendment covers a number of those issues. In time, the Parliament will come to endorse those views, just as it has endorsed, in effect, those of the MacLean report, which goes back to the intentions of the Conservative Government of 1997.

Perhaps what is happening now with tagging will make the minister recollect my support for tagging in the latter days of the Conservative Government. Such support was objected to by 100 people out of 101 in the Conservative Government's consultation on tagging. I was pleased to hear the minister's comments today on tagging. I hope that tagging will not be used as a means of reducing the punishment and deterrent elements of sentencing and simply as a means of keeping people out of prison. Tagging has a useful role. I believe that it can be put to good use.

The situation at Her Majesty's Prison Barlinnie suggests that the Executive would do well to listen to representations from members of all parties about the conditions in Barlinnie and the way in which funding that was used in other areas should have been directed.

I also cast my eyes southwards and point to my Conservative colleagues' recent comments on double jeopardy. I recognise that MacLean considered that subject. My message to the minister is that he should not totally ignore all that Opposition spokesmen say on such issues. When I have spoken previously in the Parliament about double jeopardy, that has been ridiculed to some extent. However, in the future, Mr Blair and his Government intend to pursue a similar line to that of my Conservative colleagues.

No doubt the amendment will be disagreed to. If it is, we will support the minister's motion, as we believe that—apart from the self-congratulatory elements that are always part of Executive motions—the motion is well worth supporting.

The white paper has three main elements: the risk management authority; the new sentence—the order for lifelong restriction; and mentally disordered offenders. With regard to the RMA, the minister talked about consistency. I go along with that—consistency is a good word to describe the aims of the RMA in establishing elements of risk. I like to think that the RMA will induce some consistency in relation to those who are released into our society in the future.

The RMA could be considered to be just another quango and, at the moment, there is a move to rid us of quangos. However, the Conservatives will not object to this quango, which, we believe, has meaning and serious objectives. The intention is for the RMA to deal with serious violent offenders and sex offenders, but we consider that the authority, which is an intermediary body, should perhaps become involved with other, even more serious, categories of offender. It is somewhat ironic that the cases of those who have been convicted of murder will be addressed only by the Parole Board for Scotland, now that the Minister for Justice has opted out of his role in determining whether people will go free. The fact that people who commit lesser offences—a serious violent offender has committed a lesser crime than someone who has committed murder—will be subject to two levels of scrutiny suggests that the minister should reconsider that issue when he introduces the bill. If he were to do so, that would be welcome.

A number of questions come to mind with regard to the RMA. It is acknowledged that risk assessment techniques and the knowledge that is required to make those assessments are sadly lacking. The principal task for the RMA will be to address such problems, but the authority is also charged with making judgments on standards set on best practice.

I ask the minister whether, in establishing the level of risk assessment and insisting that that assessment is part of how we deal with prisoners in the future, it will be possible in the short term to produce best-practice criteria, so that there will be no delay when the RMA becomes involved in the release of prisoners in the future.

The remit that the RMA has been given is limited to those offenders who have been sentenced under an order for lifelong restriction. Will the minister hazard an estimate of the likely periods of punishment and deterrence that will be set, following the introduction of the new type of sentence, from today's date? I am talking about serious offenders and sex offenders and I recognise that that question will be extremely difficult to answer, but I ask it because the length of those periods will have an impact. If we assume that the new sentences will be of about five or six years, in effect that would be the length of time before the RMA's role of determining whether individuals were to be released would come into action.

Clarification is needed on other matters. Ultimately, the Parole Board sanctions release. Paragraph 35 of chapter 2 of the white paper underlines the board's right to instruct Scottish ministers to release lifelong restricted prisoners when they have served the punishment-and-deterrent element of their sentence. Now that we are introducing the RMA, will that body be able to put a block on the Parole Board, or will the RMA be only an advisory body to the Parole Board? If the latter were the case, that would be unfortunate. Given all the expertise within the RMA and all the thought that it will put into the plans that will be produced, it should be mandatory for the Parole Board to consider those plans, and the board should not allow release if the plans go against release.