Chamber
Plenary, 11 Jan 2007
11 Jan 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The bill's policy objectives, which have been mentioned by most members who have spoken in the debate so far, are laudable. I want to see a clearer, more understandable system for the management of offenders while they are in custody or on licence in the community—a system that takes account of public safety by managing risk and which has the interests of victims at its heart. The problem, however, is that the bill does not meet those objectives. Any examination of the evidence that was given to the Justice 2 Committee will show that it is a widely held view that the bill fails to fulfil the objectives that are set out in the policy.
The Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice told the committee that it
"regrets very much that the Scottish Executive is choosing to follow a path that, far from achieving the … intentions, would incur huge costs and have serious negative … consequences for the criminal justice system and for the safety of Scottish communities."
Likewise, Sacro said that although the bill aims to make the sentencing system clearer, it will not achieve that end but will lead to resources being absorbed when they could be spent more effectively elsewhere in the system.
The community justice authorities added:
"We … concur with the ambition of the Bill but are concerned that, as described, the Bill's purpose will not be fulfilled and may serve to further undermine rather than promote public confidence and understanding."
The Justice 2 Committee report—I am sure that all members in the chamber have read it—said that
"the Committee supports the policy objectives of the Bill"
but
"calls into question whether the measures in the Bill, as currently constituted, can achieve the stated objectives."
In all candour, I must say that I wondered, in listening to Jackie Baillie's comments, whether she was actually on the Justice 2 Committee. A conclusion in our report flies in the face of most of what she just said.
For me, things started to go badly wrong with the bill when the impact on the prison population became clear. Ministers and officials repeatedly told the committee that nothing in the bill will require judges to change their sentencing practice, but virtually every witness from whom we heard suggested that they will. The Scottish Prison Service's representative, Rachel Gwyon, told us that the measures in the bill will increase the daily prison population in this country by between 700 and 1,100 people. That is when the alarm bells started ringing. A prison population that is, as Jeremy Purvis pointed out, already at record levels and chronically overcrowded will be increased by 20 per cent. No wonder HM prisons inspectorate highlighted again its growing apprehension about a return to the 1990s disruption and riots in our prisons.
So, despite the view across the board that short-term sentences in custody are wholly ineffective and are a hugely expensive failure as far as reducing reoffending is concerned, here we have a bill that is determined to take us further up that dead end, with more people going to jail and serving longer sentences.
The community justice authorities' evidence told us that they feared that the bill would overwhelm the SPS, local authorities and independent providers because it "has ineffectiveness built in".
Jackie Baillie and the other members who said that the bill will lead to greater clarity in sentencing should consider some of the evidence that was put in front of the committee. The bill's policy memorandum says:
"A transparent sentencing regime will improve public confidence in the criminal justice system."
That is right, but again it appears that the bill does not provide it. Andrew Coyle, the professor of prison studies at King's College in London, said:
"The aim of the present Bill ‘to achieve greater clarity in sentencing' is admirable. However, it is not immediately apparent that the Bill will achieve its aim. Even when approaching it in a positive manner one needs a calculator and a great deal of patience to unravel the arithmetic of what a prison sentence will mean in the future."
If Andrew Coyle, with his credentials in criminal justice, cannot fathom out the system, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Whatever can Professor Coyle have meant? Perhaps the Sheriffs Association evidence will tell us. It said that it
"does not consider that the provisions of this Bill will achieve the objective of delivering clarity and transparency in sentencing… Although the custody part of a sentence … will be imposed and announced at the public sentencing hearing, it will not be possible to predict or state … what the duration of the period that will actually be spent in prison will turn out to be or what the conditions of licence during the community part of the sentence will be."
The Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice told the committee that it
"regrets very much that the Scottish Executive is choosing to follow a path that, far from achieving the … intentions, would incur huge costs and have serious negative … consequences for the criminal justice system and for the safety of Scottish communities."
Likewise, Sacro said that although the bill aims to make the sentencing system clearer, it will not achieve that end but will lead to resources being absorbed when they could be spent more effectively elsewhere in the system.
The community justice authorities added:
"We … concur with the ambition of the Bill but are concerned that, as described, the Bill's purpose will not be fulfilled and may serve to further undermine rather than promote public confidence and understanding."
The Justice 2 Committee report—I am sure that all members in the chamber have read it—said that
"the Committee supports the policy objectives of the Bill"
but
"calls into question whether the measures in the Bill, as currently constituted, can achieve the stated objectives."
In all candour, I must say that I wondered, in listening to Jackie Baillie's comments, whether she was actually on the Justice 2 Committee. A conclusion in our report flies in the face of most of what she just said.
For me, things started to go badly wrong with the bill when the impact on the prison population became clear. Ministers and officials repeatedly told the committee that nothing in the bill will require judges to change their sentencing practice, but virtually every witness from whom we heard suggested that they will. The Scottish Prison Service's representative, Rachel Gwyon, told us that the measures in the bill will increase the daily prison population in this country by between 700 and 1,100 people. That is when the alarm bells started ringing. A prison population that is, as Jeremy Purvis pointed out, already at record levels and chronically overcrowded will be increased by 20 per cent. No wonder HM prisons inspectorate highlighted again its growing apprehension about a return to the 1990s disruption and riots in our prisons.
So, despite the view across the board that short-term sentences in custody are wholly ineffective and are a hugely expensive failure as far as reducing reoffending is concerned, here we have a bill that is determined to take us further up that dead end, with more people going to jail and serving longer sentences.
The community justice authorities' evidence told us that they feared that the bill would overwhelm the SPS, local authorities and independent providers because it "has ineffectiveness built in".
Jackie Baillie and the other members who said that the bill will lead to greater clarity in sentencing should consider some of the evidence that was put in front of the committee. The bill's policy memorandum says:
"A transparent sentencing regime will improve public confidence in the criminal justice system."
That is right, but again it appears that the bill does not provide it. Andrew Coyle, the professor of prison studies at King's College in London, said:
"The aim of the present Bill ‘to achieve greater clarity in sentencing' is admirable. However, it is not immediately apparent that the Bill will achieve its aim. Even when approaching it in a positive manner one needs a calculator and a great deal of patience to unravel the arithmetic of what a prison sentence will mean in the future."
If Andrew Coyle, with his credentials in criminal justice, cannot fathom out the system, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Whatever can Professor Coyle have meant? Perhaps the Sheriffs Association evidence will tell us. It said that it
"does not consider that the provisions of this Bill will achieve the objective of delivering clarity and transparency in sentencing… Although the custody part of a sentence … will be imposed and announced at the public sentencing hearing, it will not be possible to predict or state … what the duration of the period that will actually be spent in prison will turn out to be or what the conditions of licence during the community part of the sentence will be."
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5336, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Custodia...
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
Just over two years ago, when I launched the Scottish Executive's criminal justice plan, I said that reducing reoffending must be a priority for every part o...
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
The minister talks about people wanting to lock up more offenders for longer, but no one wants to do that. We want to lock up fewer offenders. We see the Sco...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I am glad to hear Mr Gallie's conversion to the cause of reducing reoffending and ensuring that we do not have to lock up as many people in the future. I loo...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
The minister will be aware that in certain parts of the country, notably the north-east, less than half of the target number of supervisory meetings between ...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I thank Stewart Stevenson for his intervention. We have discussed the issue a number of times, so I know of his commitment to solving some of the problems in...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (Sol):
Sol
Will the minister take a short intervention?
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I would like to move on—the Presiding Officer is looking at me.Our success will be measured by results. I believe that we will see the real benefits of the n...
Tommy Sheridan:
Sol
Will the minister give way on that point?
Mr Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP) rose—
SNP
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I will take a short intervention from Mr Sheridan.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
Be very brief, Mr Sheridan.
Tommy Sheridan:
Sol
I will. Although I support everything the minister has said so far, I am sure that prevention is a much better approach. Does the minister believe that there...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Of course. I am sure that Mr Sheridan is aware of the work that is already under way, especially the let's not scar another generation campaign, which we are...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the minister for introducing the bill and for the comments she made in her speech. We generally support the direction in which she is travelling, and...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
Before I call the next speaker, I remind members, and members of the public, that their mobile phones should be off.
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
The bill comes before the Parliament today as a result of serious concerns about the existing system of early release and the extent of knife crime.I think t...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
Does Mr Aitken accept that it is important that we reform the way in which offenders are managed in order to reduce the likelihood of their reoffending? Does...
Bill Aitken:
Con
There is an easy remedy. All that is required is for the sentence to be handed down——four years or whatever—and for a further order to be made stating that t...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
Will the member take an intervention?
Bill Aitken:
Con
I do not have time. Sorry.It is inevitable that the licence that will be granted to most offenders will contain only one condition— that they be of good beha...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
If I am correct, we just heard from the Conservatives a speech that called for the abolition of the Parole Board. It is the Parole Board's role not only to e...
Phil Gallie:
Con
The minister talked about trying to reduce the number of people in our prisons, yet Jeremy Purvis suggests that the bill will increase the prison population....
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
The issue is how the reforms will operate. As the financial memorandum says, the consequence of the reforms will be an increased prison population. The princ...
Colin Fox (Lothians) (SSP):
SSP
The member has been right to raise that matter in committee and is right to do so again today. Short-term sentences in custody do not work. How does he recon...
Jeremy Purvis:
LD
That depends on whether the bill is amended. The Parliament's job is to scrutinise legislation.One of my concerns is that the length of the custody part of a...
Mr David Davidson (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I thank the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their support in helping the Justice 2 Committee to consider the bill, and I thank all ...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Will Mr Davidson, in his capacity as the Conservative committee member who dissented, point to the principles within the bill with which he has difficulties?
Mr Davidson:
Con
The reason for my dissension is simple: I feel that the bill does not do what it says on the tin and is not yet in a form that is worthy of support.An offend...
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab):
Lab
I support the motion in the name of the minister. As a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I record my appreciation of the excellent support that the clerking...