Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill. Members should have with them copies of the bill as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list, which contains the amendments that have been selected by me for debate; and the groupings that I have agreed. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division this morning. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds; thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. The voting period for all other divisions will be 30 seconds.
Section 4—Basic definitions
Group 1 is minor and technical amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 3, 45, 4, 48, 54, 65, 68, 69, 71, 74, 6 to 10, 76, 11 and 15. I draw members' attention to the pre-emption information that is shown on the groupings paper.
This large group of amendments deals with a number of technical and drafting issues that have resulted from a final proofreading of the bill's provisions. The amendments will make the bill more consistent and readable. I am happy to go into the details of specific amendments if members wish, but at this point I will speak about two amendments in particular.
Amendment 4 provides further clarity to section 6. It addresses an area that has caused practical difficulty, in the past, in cases in which the custody part of a sentence results in a period that includes a fraction of a day. The amendment will require the court, in specifying the custody part of a custody and community sentence, to round up the custody part to the nearest whole day.
Amendment 15 amends section 48 to provide that the order-making power in section 47(1)—to make supplementary, consequential, and so on, provisions in a case in which the order amends primary legislation—is subject to the affirmative procedure. The proposed change reflects the advice of the Subordinate Legislation Committee at an earlier stage, and we are grateful to the committee for its continued interest in the bill.
I move amendment 1.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Group 2 is on the abolition of custody-only sentences. Amendment 16, in the name of Colin Fox, is grouped with amendments 17 to 19 and 33. Again, I draw members' attention to the pre-emption information that is shown on the groupings paper.
The purpose of the amendments is to address what has been widely accepted as an anomaly in the bill—the fact that offenders who receive 14-day sentences serve longer in custody than those who are sentenced to periods of 28 days. The bill insists that those who receive sentences of 14 days or fewer must spend the entire time in custody—not the 50 per cent of the sentence that they currently serve, nor the 75 per cent that will apply to all other prisoners under the bill, but 100 per cent of the time behind bars, so to speak. Clearly, it is nonsense that getting a shorter sentence means serving longer in custody. That patently undermines the bill's objective, which is to make the justice system clearer and more understandable to the general public.
At various stages of the bill, the minister has argued that hardly any sentences of 14 days or fewer are handed down by sentencers. It could be argued that that gives us all the more reason to leave the current 50 per cent custodial part of the sentence alone. However, as the minister knows well, hundreds of fine defaulters end up serving such a sentence although a non-custodial disposal was suggested to be far more appropriate in the first place. Fine defaulters—persons for whom the court did not consider prison to be the appropriate disposal—now spend longer in custody than more serious offenders.
The plethora of evidence that the committee received included a submission from Sacro, which said that it considered the imprisonment of the least serious offenders to be misconceived. However, we are about to ensure that those offenders spend even longer in custody than more serious offenders. Frankly, many people would think that that was nonsense.
During the earlier stages of the bill's passage, the minister argued that we ought not to underestimate the fact that longer sentences also attract a community part under licence. However, under that licence, the offender simply promises to be on good behaviour; otherwise, they get to spend the rest of their time in their own bed and in their own community. Lesser offences attract more severe punishments. My amendments seek to rid us of that silly consequence by keeping the current sentence provision at 50 per cent of time being served. As I said, that is in keeping with the rest of the bill, which, after all, declares that the minimum period in custody should be 50 per cent, rising to 75 per cent if the sentencers so decree.
I am sure that the minister will agree that I listened intently to what she said at stages 1 and 2. Amendment 16 is reasonable, balanced, fair and proportionate, and will avoid the public ridicule that will inevitably greet a bill with such complicated and counter-intuitive provisions and under which people who are on longer sentences will serve proportionately less time in prison than those who are on shorter sentences. I ask Parliament to support this very sensible amendment.
I move amendment 16.
On the face of it, Mr Fox's comments and the points that were made by Susan Matheson in Sacro's submission have some merit. However, we need to look at these matters in a different light.
Sentences of 14 days and fewer have been handed down primarily for fine defaults and, frankly, that particular system has been brought into disrepute. People all over Scotland were aghast when they found that if people who were given a sentence of seven or 14 days because they had chosen, for whatever reason, not to pay a fine surrendered themselves at 6 am, they were free by 4 in the afternoon. We had to address the frankly unacceptable situation—one might describe it as a manifest injustice or illogicality—in which people who were given a two-year sentence had to do two years in prison while those who were given seven days were released after eight hours or whatever.
I do not think that the solution lies in treating sentences of fewer than 14 days as a parallel matter. Instead, we must ensure that, when a fine is imposed, it is paid and that, if it is not paid, the money is secured by some other method or manner. By doing so, we will not have the nonsense of people not serving the appropriate time and, indeed, we will ensure that the taxpayer does not have to bear the great cost of putting such people in prison. Thankfully, that matter has been partly addressed in other legislation. For that reason, I simply do not think that the amendments would address the problem of fine defaulters.
Should we be giving people sentences of fewer than 14 days anyway? In most cases, the answer is absolutely not. However, in some cases, a sheriff might think that such a punishment—similar, one might say, to a short period of disqualification for a driving offence—would be suitable. In dealing with driving offences, the sheriff might say, "Mr X, take two weeks' holiday and you won't have to lose your job as a result of the disqualification". Such cases will be few and far between—and there are certainly better ways of punishing people—but I do not want to restrict the sheriff's discretion to say, "Mr X, you can use the two weeks that you would have spent sunning yourself in Spain to learn the error of your ways."
Although there appears to be an illogicality in the bill, I think that we should leave matters as they are.
Colin Fox is technically correct to say that the bill appears to contain an anomaly. However, in my experience, sentences of 14 days or fewer are unheard of. The minister might have more up-to-date information, but I doubt whether any such sentences were imposed in Scotland last year. Indeed, I would be surprised if there were any.
The provision must be included in the bill because, for various reasons that are usually fairly vague and illogical, some people either refuse to pay fines or do not ask for any time in which to pay a fine when it is imposed. In such cases, the justice or sheriff has no option but to impose a custodial alternative. If amendment 16, in the name of Colin Fox, were agreed to, the sheriff or magistrate would not have such a facility. As I have said before, I have no great confidence in the fine collection measures in previous legislation, but, if the custodial option is not included in this bill, the number of people not asking for time to pay in order to get out of their particular problem will continue to rise.
At what stage can proper rehabilitation services and support start? At stage 1 and stage 2, Colin Fox made good points about the time it would take the prison service and others to identify an offender's particular problems before signposting to other services. Such points have been acknowledged in the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill, and acknowledged by the minister time and time again, but Colin Fox's amendments would make some very short sentences even shorter. He talked about licence. I am not sure whether he was listening at committee meetings, but the Executive offered clarification of the conditions that could be applied with regard to licence. It is not just a bond of good behaviour; it can be more than that.
I disagree with Bill Aitken. When I visited Edinburgh prison, I spoke to a prison officer who had indeed heard of a prison sentence of fewer than 14 days. He told me that, for a prisoner who was sentenced on a Thursday to seven days, reception was on the Friday morning and release on the Friday afternoon, because of the automatic release after half the sentence, and because people are not released on weekends. Kenny MacAskill made a similar point. Mr Fox's amendments would return that absurd characteristic of the present system—which we want to move away from with the bill—into statute. That would be a retrograde step. Amendments 16 to 19 and 33 cannot be supported.
Amendments 16 to 19 and 33 seek to address Mr Fox's concern that custody-only prisoners could spend longer in prison than those custody and community sentence prisoners who receive very short sentences. Mr Fox wants to remove the anomaly by eliminating the category of custody-only sentences; all offenders who are given a custodial sentence, with the exception of those who are given life sentences, would be subject to a custody and community sentence.
I do not think that anyone disputes that there is an anomaly—that point was acknowledged at stage 1 and stage 2. However, we had to consider the practicalities of ensuring that the custody and community sentence was as effective as possible.
We agree that as many offenders as possible should be subject to the new custody and community regime. That is why we have set the threshold at the lowest practical point—15 days. I emphasise that we have to consider the practicalities. We have said many times that 15 days is the minimum time in which arrangements can be put in place for initial assessments to be made and conditions to be set. We are committed to tackling reoffending, but there is a particular problem with the group of offenders who are committing the types of offences that lead to short custodial sentences. For that group, it will be crucial to break the cycle and provide alternatives to a life of petty crime.
There is a limit to what we can do with those people, given the short sentences, and I know that some commentators do not want custody and community measures to apply to very short sentences—although they do not say what should be done with those offenders instead. I do not think that we should be doing nothing.
For people who are given very short sentences, the approach that is taken will be more about getting them in contact with the range of services that they will need—such as drug treatment, accommodation services, and advice on housing and benefits—to stabilise their lifestyles and move them away from offending. The service will be more akin to signposting people on and brokering access to services, rather than to formal supervision by social work. We have therefore stretched the application of the custody and community regime as far as practicable. Custodial sentences have to be meaningful, and that is what the 15-day threshold seeks to achieve.
Those who are sentenced to fewer than 15 days make up a very small percentage of the prison population. Most of those cases are for fine default. If a person defaults on a fine, they are flouting a disposal already made. In the financial year 2005-06, the average daily prison population of prisoners who had been sentenced to fewer than 15 days was just two. That average excludes fine defaulters.
We are seeking to address fine defaulting in other ways. With fine defaulters, supervised attendance orders provide courts with an alternative to custody. We have announced that, from September this year, supervised attendance orders will be the mandatory penalty for fine default of up to £500. That will mean that the vast majority of fine defaulters will no longer be sent to prison. We estimate that that will remove approximately 3,000 annual receptions to custody for fine default.
Points have been well made about the inadvisability of amendments 16 to 19 and 33 in the name of Colin Fox. I urge Parliament to reject them all.
Those members who argue that the current system is in disrepute are absolutely correct. That is what the bill seeks to address. However, the passage of the part of the bill that seeks to make people who are serving 14-day sentences serve even longer than they do now would bring the system into even more disrepute.
To Kenny MacAskill, I say, with all due respect, that it is he who misses the point entirely. I am not suggesting that people should escape punishment. However, as he well knows and as the evidence that was presented to the committee during the passage of this and other bills demonstrated, imprisoning people for short periods of time is a waste of money and time. There are far better disposals available for people in that category. The minister hinted at a few of them—drug treatment and testing orders, supervised attendance orders, community disposals and so on. No one is suggesting that people should walk away without punishment.
Kenny MacAskill and Jeremy Purvis suggested that we should leave matters as they are. Those who want to leave matters as they are should support my amendment, because the bill does not propose to leave matters as they are; it proposes to make people who are sentenced to 14 days in custody spend twice as long in custody as they would under the present system. Both those members have missed the logic entirely. They seem to suggest that leaving matters as they are means that we would not do anything with the current disposal, but that is not the case, as the bill seeks to change the situation entirely.
The emphasis of a large part of the bill, which I welcome, is on the community part of sentences. Jeremy Purvis implied that people need to spend longer in custody so that they can have better rehabilitation services around them, but that flies in the face of all the evidence that he sat through in the committee, as all the experts told us that rehabilitation of offenders serving less than six months is impossible. If that is the case, it beggars belief that it can be done in 14 days. We have to make the sentences shorter by keeping the arrangement as it currently is. That is the point that Kenny MacAskill and Jeremy Purvis missed.
The minister is right to point out that we are dealing with an anomaly. Everybody in the chamber accepts that. However, my amendments are the only way in which that anomaly can be removed from the bill.
I press amendment 16 and ask the Parliament to support it.
The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. Since this is the first division in these proceedings, there will be a five-minute suspension.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will proceed with the division on amendment 16.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 16 disagreed to.
Amendment 17 moved—[Colin Fox].
The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17 disagreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
I remind members that if amendment 18 is agreed to, amendment 45 is pre-empted.
Amendment 18 moved—[Colin Fox].
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 95, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
Amendment 45 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 5—Release on completion of sentence
Group 3 is on prisoners serving more than one sentence. Amendment 46, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 49 to 51, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 75 and 78 to 84. I draw members' attention to the pre-emption information that is shown on the groupings paper.
I am sure that there will be agreement throughout the chamber that, for too long, lack of clarity in what sentences mean has undermined the credibility of the criminal justice system. We have said that one of the key aims of the bill is to improve public confidence by providing greater clarity about sentences, their length and their meaning. This group of amendments is the final step needed to ensure that that is achieved. As recommended by the judicially led Sentencing Commission, we are abolishing the practice of single terming sentences. Single terming means that a second sentence that is imposed during a period of imprisonment for an earlier offence can be entirely absorbed in the first sentence.
The amendments in the group, while complex and lengthy, are essentially technical in nature. They are intended to enhance the regime's operation, and they will prevent subsequent sentences that are imposed during a period of imprisonment from being entirely absorbed in the first sentence, which would not have been the court's intention.
Amendments 78, 79, 81 and 82 introduce new schedules to the bill that detail the processes to be applied when an offender is serving more than one sentence of imprisonment. We have a complex array of provisions in the new schedule that deals with the various permutations. However, it may help the chamber if I offer an example. When a court imposes a consecutive sentence, it will now be served in parts. That, after all, is the court's intention. For example, a prisoner who receives a custody and community sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence that is already being served will serve the custody parts of both sentences before serving the aggregate of both community parts on licence in the community.
In addition, for those on whom the courts impose an extended sentence, the extension periods will also be aggregated. Paragraph 6 of the new schedule that is introduced by amendment 82 also creates a new order-making power to apply the provisions of the new schedule to cases in which a previous sentence is imposed by a court elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That will enable the court, as it does now, to impose a sentence consecutively to a sentence that is imposed by a court outwith Scotland. Amendment 80 adds that order-making power, at section 48(4), to the orders that will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendments 46, 49 to 51, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73 and 75 are all consequential to the introduction of the new schedule. Amendment 83 makes consequential amendments to sections 167 and 204A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and amendment 84 repeals section 204B and subsections (7A) to (7C) of section 167 of the 1995 act, because the new schedule covers everything that was previously covered by those provisions. The changes may be complex, but they will deliver a more honest and transparent approach to sentence calculation.
I move amendment 46.
The Scottish National Party has a great deal of sympathy with what the Executive is attempting to achieve with the amendments. It appears that what the public want, and what we support, is that the sentence that is given should be the sentence that is served—the minister has commented on that—and that judicial policy and sentencing policy should be understandable, not simply to a highly qualified lawyer of many years' standing, but to the victim, to the accused and to the ordinary man or woman in the court at the time or elsewhere.
What causes frustration about the system is misunderstanding. It is all very well for sheriffs to claim that everybody knows that an offender who is given 12 months will be released after six months, but the man or the woman on the street does not understand that or have experience of that. Therefore, we welcome the progress on ensuring that people are provided with a greater understanding of what a given sentence will be. We certainly believe that the sheriff's official statement to the court on the custodial part of the sentence will be of benefit.
However, the problem with the provisions is that a great deal of difficulty will arise because of the complexity to which the minister referred. The new system will be deeply complex even for sheriffs of many years' standing and will need to be discussed, if not walked through, with sheriffs. Therefore, we have great worries about the complexity of the system that is being created.
That said, as members from all parties have commented, the current system is unsatisfactory and is not—to use the buzzwords that are applied to many legislative provisions—fit for purpose. Therefore, we need to move forward. Only time will tell whether the proposals will work out but, given that we have the opportunity to decide only whether or not to support them, we will support the amendments despite the great worries that exist about the complexity that is being imposed.
As Kenny MacAskill said, the matter is complex, but the amendments in the group are indeed welcome. Apart from anything else, the amendments will close a loophole that exists under the 1995 act that affects individuals who are already serving a custodial sentence and who are supposed to be sentenced by another court to a further period of custody after their current sentence. If the sheriff simply imposes a sentence of, say, 12 months' imprisonment, the new sentence will start on the date on which the sentence is passed. In effect, that enables the prisoner to have a roll-up of perhaps three sentences and thereby defeat the purpose of the court, which was that he should be punished for the three offences that he committed.
Of course, the simple way round the loophole is to say that the sentence is 12 months' imprisonment to be served consecutive to the offender's current sentence and any other sentence that may be imposed by a court. Unfortunately, the word on that did not seem to get round terribly well and, in a number of cases, offenders were in effect able to walk free after perhaps as little as a quarter of the sentence that had been intended.
The amendments in the group are welcome. I accept that they are complicated and do not clarify matters terribly much but, bearing in mind the complexity of the issue, I recognise that it is quite difficult to put something in black and white that is tremendously clear.
This issue may be complex, but we should not overstate the complexity of the bill as a whole. The bill's effect on sentence management will be quite straightforward. Sentences will have a custody part, a community part and an assessment of risk during the period in custody. That is not complex.
The amendments deal specifically with single terming. They will get rid of what might be called odd consequences—the term "anomalies" was used earlier—some of which were perhaps hinted at by Bill Aitken. I would not want to say that our judiciary is not capable of dealing with complexity—I enjoy a positive relationship with them and do not want to insult them—but we recognise that we need to work with the judiciary on the range of issues that the bill addresses. We are doing that through the planning implementation group on the bill, so that people understand the importance of explaining what they are doing.
The amendments do not even, I think, deal specifically with whether a court should impose a consecutive or a concurrent sentence. Courts are able to do that at the moment. The amendments deal with single terming, which can complicate matters and mean that people can end up in the position that has been highlighted.
The general thrust of the bill is quite straightforward, but the amendments address a specific complexity that has been recognised as requiring to be addressed. Although the amendments are not straightforward, they will provide the benefits of increased transparency and clarity.
Amendment 46 agreed to.
Amendment 19 moved—[Colin Fox].
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 83, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 disagreed to.
Section 6—Setting of custody part
Group 4 is on custody and punishment parts: consideration of protection of the public. Amendment 20, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendments 22, 31 and 32.
I think that there is genuine agreement that anybody who suggests that sentencing is other than complex and difficult is being naive. Sentencers require to consider many issues. Retribution and punishment of the offender is one, the need to deter the offender or others who might be of like disposition to offend is another, and rehabilitation certainly has a part to play, but surely one of the most important aspects of the selection of a sentence must be the danger the offender poses to the wider public. As the bill stands, judges will be precluded from taking that into consideration.
The issue was debated at stage 2, but I was unconvinced by the Executive's argument that the bill protects the public satisfactorily. I do not accept its argument that the Parole Board for Scotland's deliberations will cover the matter. It remains to be seen to what extent the judge's report in cases of a violent or sexual nature reflect the evidence heard by the court or an agreed narrative presented by the prosecutor. What cannot be denied is the fact that the person who is best able—although not exclusively so—to assess the danger the offender presents is the trial judge.
It is ludicrous that the input of the trial judge is largely ignored in the sentencing process. Prevention is an important aspect of the sentencing consideration. It is ridiculous to remove judges' power to consider the risk that the offender presents. Amendment 20 and the consequential amendments 22, 31 and 32 seek to reinstate the right of judges to take that into consideration.
Scotland has a legal practice of which we can all be proud. Unfortunately, its effectiveness is being diluted by legislation being passed by the Executive that interferes with judicial discretion and replaces judges' rights with the right of the Parole Board for Scotland to make decisions behind closed doors.
The existing system is much more transparent.
The member highlights the parts of the essence of the Scottish system that he alleges are being undermined. Would the system be undermined further if we got rid of one of its key elements, which is the double jeopardy principle?
That is a separate argument. My view on the matter is well known. The double jeopardy principle requires to be revisited in the light of technological advances and in the interest of fairness to victims and their relatives, who should see justice being done.
Does the member consider that amendment 22 is consequential to amendment 20, or should the matter be dealt with in its own right?
It could be dealt with separately, but the basic principle stands.
For the first time, a Parliament is seeking to reduce the powers and independence of the judiciary. That is alarming. The existing system is at least transparent. Under the Executive's proposals, decisions will be taken by the Parole Board based on the information that is provided, which in many respects will not be open to challenge. That is unfortunate in the extreme.
I move amendment 20.
We are genuinely open-minded on the matter and will listen to what the minister says.
Mr Aitken's point is valid. We must take cognisance of the protection of the public, and we would be failing if we did not expect the judiciary to do that too. That said, we come back to the fundamental ethos of custodial sentences. Why do we impose them? Sadly, it is sometimes the case that prisons are receptacles for those who have social inadequacies or suffer from drink, drugs or deprivation. However, the fundamental ethos of prison is that it exists to punish dangerous people from whom we need to protect the public and/or to deal with people who have committed offences that are so serious that the disapprobation of the community can be shown only by a custodial sentence.
It can be argued that the element of protection of the public can be contained within the punishment that the sheriff or judge hands down. If that is the case, doubtless we will be satisfied. We will be interested to hear what the minister says on whether the protection of the public can be dealt with in the punishment aspect—in the sentence that the judge will impose—and on whether that will be taken as read. If not, we will have some sympathy with Mr Aitken.
It is clear that we need an element of protection of the public. The question is whether it needs to be specifically stated or whether it is already dealt with and clearly understood by the judiciary.
I had a sense of déjà vu when I listened to Bill Aitken, because his amendments are remarkably similar to amendments that he lodged at stage 2, which the Justice 2 Committee rejected for the reasons that I will outline to the chamber. However, he managed to be even more mischievous than he normally is, and he perhaps bordered on being something more serious than mischievous in his allegations about what the Executive seeks to do in the bill. We have a responsibility to ensure that we do not, in what we say, undermine people's confidence in the system.
Amendment 20 seeks to remove the requirement for the court to ignore public protection when the custody part of a sentence is set under section 6. Amendment 22 would add the consideration of public protection to the factors that the court must take into account when it sets a custody part of more than 50 per cent of the sentence. Amendments 31 and 32 would make similar provision in relation to life sentences and the setting of the punishment part under section 15.
We have said all along—and we clarified it at stage 2—that the right time for public protection to be taken into account is when the court considers the appropriate length of the total sentence. As we have said before, the bill is about sentence management, not about sentencing itself. It is for the judge to consider all the factors that they consider relevant and to decide the total length of the sentence. At that stage, we are not able to fetter the consideration of the judge in what factors they take into account. The bill is about sentence management, or what happens when the headline sentence has been established.
The custody part of a custody and community sentence—or, as its name suggests, the punishment part of a life sentence—is for the sole purpose of retribution and deterrence. In other words, its purpose is punishment. It forms a minimum of 50 per cent of the overall sentence. Any extension by the court will be based on factors such as the circumstances of the offence and the offender's previous convictions or reoffending while on licence—we added that factor at stage 2. It is right for such factors to influence punishment, but it is not right to expect a judge who has fixed the headline sentence, after taking into account whatever factors he or she thinks are relevant, to look into the future and assess the risk that an offender may pose at the end of the custody part.
The continuing assessment of risk and need by the Scottish ministers—in effect, the Scottish Prison Service—and by local authorities will form part of the sentence management process. Measures will be taken as appropriate during the custodial part of a sentence. That will allow decisions about risk to take account of all relevant factors, many of which transpire during the custody part and of which the court cannot be aware when it is passing sentence. Public protection remains a critical factor in setting the overall sentence and is key to determining whether an offender should move to the community part of a sentence.
Amendments 31 and 32 would overturn the existing provisions for setting the punishment part of a life sentence. They have worked well since they were introduced in the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001. Substantial jurisprudence now supports the arrangement whereby the court sets the punishment part, whereas risk—public protection—is considered at the appropriate time by an independent and impartial tribunal, which is the Parole Board for Scotland.
When the Parole Board determines at the end of the custody part whether an individual can be released, what effect could the European convention on human rights—I am not joking on this occasion—have on decisions that the Parole Board makes?
We know that the Parole Board's actions must be ECHR compliant and that Phil Gallie does not regard that as a good thing, but that is where we are.
The provisions on setting the custody part of a custody and community sentence are modelled on the life sentence arrangements. That underscores the fact that we have not developed the new regime on a whim.
For the reasons that I have given, the amendments are not needed. As Bill Aitken knows, similar amendments were not supported at stage 2. I suggest that the amendments should not be supported now. Most critically, we ought not to allow the Tories to represent the bill as an attack on public protection. Public protection is properly addressed in setting the sentence. While an offender is in custody, their risk can be further assessed. I urge members to reject the amendments.
I listened to the minister with interest. I am interested in how she equates what she said with the wording in the bill. At line 30 on page 3, section 6 says:
"The custody part is that part of the sentence which represents an appropriate period to satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence (ignoring any period of confinement which may be necessary for the protection of the public)."
I say with all due respect that the bill says clearly that the judge must not consider any aspect of public protection. That is manifestly wrong. Surely one of the most important principles of sentencing is protection of the public.
Does the member accept what I have said, which is that judges can—and no doubt will—take public protection into account when establishing a sentence? The notion that the bill will erase public protection from sentencing is self-evidently nonsense. The headline sentence will be established. We are addressing sentence management and assessment while an offender is in custody.
That is not what it says on the tin. What the bill says is clear. If the minister and I agree about the matter, she has a clear remedy: to accept my amendments, which would impose on the bill the questions that the minister has posed. I think that most members think that public protection is apposite to the amount of time someone should spend in prison and must be a principal consideration of any sentencing approach.
My one worry about Mr Aitken's approach relates to how a judge can quantify the danger a person presents. I understand why a judge should be able to say that a vicious assault merits a seven-year sentence or that such a sentence is merited because of the nature of the victim, who could be an old-age pensioner, but on what basis can a judge possibly decide that somebody is a danger? How would a judge know that somebody will be a danger for seven years, but that they will no longer be a danger after seven years and a day?
How can a judge quantify an intangible? A judge can certainly say that an act is reprehensible and goes against the mores, morals and values of our society and that a person should get X years for committing that act, but a judge cannot possibly be qualified to say that a person will be a danger for X number of years. A person might be a danger for ever and therefore must be dealt with, but they could stop being a danger. How can a judge measure whether somebody is a danger?
I accept that when a judge imposes a sentence of, say, six years, it is impossible for them to say that three years of that sentence will be for punishment, two years will be because they are a danger and one year will be for some other factor, but on the basis of the evidence that the judge has heard or a narrative that has been presented, they can make an assessment that is based on the circumstances of the crime or offence and that is indicative of the extent to which the individual poses a clear and present danger to members of the public. My proposals must be considered on that basis. As it stands, the bill does not cover the matter.
The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 20 disagreed to.
Group 5 is on repeat offenders. Amendment 21, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendments 24, 26 and 29. Again, I draw members' attention to the pre-emption information on the groupings list.
I think that there is consensus in the chamber that recidivism is a serious problem in Scotland. Prisoners who are released early from jail frequently reoffend. It is sometimes argued that the problem demonstrates that prison does not work, but that argument is facile. If one compares the records of other countries, one finds that where a high proportion of offenders are sent to prison, there is a corresponding reduction in crime levels. Furthermore, those who are offered community service reoffend to a great extent. The bottom line is that once offenders have reached the stage of prison or community service as a direct alternative, they are usually hardened. As such, they are prone to repeat their offending behaviour.
Amendment 21 would ensure that when an individual has been sent to prison on two or more occasions within a 10-year period, he will spend the entire period of his sentence in custody. He would not spend 50 per cent or 75 per cent of his sentence in custody—he would spend 100 per cent of it in custody.
The bill's wording inhibited the amendments I could lodge in many respects. My party's manifesto policy will, of course, go further than what I have proposed, in that it will propose that repeat offenders serve increased sentences based on the aggregate of previous periods in custody. I could not lodge an amendment to achieve what we want at stage 3, as it would not have been competent and in accordance with the wording of the bill. The amendments seek to deal with the matter in another way, in so far as it is possible to do so.
Those who persistently offend have obviously not learned their lesson, so sentences imposed against a background of two or more custodial sentences within a 10-year period will mean exactly the sentence that is pronounced by the sheriff or judge. That will act as an appropriate deterrent. It will increase public safety and make it quite clear that reoffending has a consequence over and above any sentence that may be imposed by the court at the time of the further offence.
I move amendment 21.
Bill Aitken tells us that evidence from around the world suggests that the countries that lock up most of their citizens have the lowest crime rates. Well, if that trend carries on in Scotland, we will be fourth in the world behind the United States of America, Russia and England. I am not sure what evidence Bill Aitken could present to show that the USA and Russia are crime-free zones.
We are also presented with amendments that, as the Conservatives would put it, mean three strikes and the offender will be in jail for the whole headline sentence. So the Tory policy is to say to victims of an offender's second crime that the offender will be punished harder if they do it again to someone else. What kind of message is that to give to crime victims? Any justice policy that says to victims of an offence that the offender will be treated differently because they have done it only once before is extraordinary.
The message to the offender is also odd: it is that if they commit a third crime, they will get a longer custody sentence—but that is not necessarily so. Under the Conservatives' approach, an offender could serve less time in custody for a third offence than they did for a first or second offence, because the third offence is different. The Tories do not want to spin that.
Bill Aitken said that the amendments would deter repeat offending, but there would be no deterrent for an offender who committed a crime after being in prison; it would happen only if they committed a crime again and again. That is extraordinary.
The message that we should be sending out is that if someone has committed an offence, we will do what we can to ensure that they do not commit a further crime—by making prison work in the first instance. That is why the essence of the bill is to put rehabilitation on the statute book as part of the sentence. Bill Aitken's amendments would undermine that. They would give the wrong signal to offenders and they would let down the victims of crime.
Bill Aitken gave us déjà vu with his group 4 amendments, but the amendments in group 5 are not about anything that came before the committee for its consideration, so the proposed measures have not undergone any parliamentary scrutiny at all. Bill Aitken's suggestion that the amendments are about his party's election manifesto is probably closer to the truth. It is disappointing that we are being treated in this way.
Amendments 21, 24, 26 and 29 seek to insert a new structure into the bill that would mean full-term custody for offenders who have served two or more custodial sentences in the 10 years prior to their latest conviction. No one is arguing that prison does not work. We say that it is not the whole picture and that it cannot do everything. To say that prison does not work is a counsel of despair. It is like saying that we can do nothing and that we just have to live with it.
There are positive examples of people working with offenders in the prison system to address their literacy issues and other problems, to afford them the opportunity to move on when they go back into the community. Prison is part of the picture, but not the whole picture.
One of the problems with Bill Aitken's plan is that it is arbitrary and it will create anomalies depending on when the first sentence was imposed. For example, if a prisoner's second sentence was imposed nine years and 11 months previously, the measures would apply, but if the second sentence was imposed 10 years and one month previously, they would not apply. Why should there be a difference for the sake of a couple of months?
Bill Aitken is in the luxurious position of being able to advocate something without having to work out how he would deal with the consequences of such a policy. Given the number of uncertainties, the consequences would be difficult to predict, but we can deduce that, given the proportion of prisoners involved and the increase in the prison population, if all prisoners served their full custody period in detention, there could be a sizeable impact on the prison population within a few years.
Is the minister's position that, if the interests of justice in Scotland, the interests of victims and the protection of wider society require more prison capacity, she would rather dodge the issue and find complicated legislative compromises in order to avoid that solution?
I hesitate to tell Annabel Goldie not to be ridiculous, but her intervention was entirely ridiculous. We have said that the bill as it stands has consequences for prisoner numbers and that we recognise that that has implications for resources. We say that addressing offending behaviour is partly about custody in prison and partly about what we can do in the community, through work on rehabilitation. Both approaches have an important role to play. Members cannot pluck figures out of the air and claim to have a policy when they have not worked through the consequences and benefits of that policy.
We can deduce from the proportion of prisoners involved and the increase in the prison population that the amendments would have an impact on numbers. In reality, there is no need for the amendments. I disagree slightly with the line that Jeremy Purvis took. The court already has at its disposal a mechanism for punishing persistent offenders—it is called sentencing. The overall sentence that the court hands out will take into account all the matters that the court thinks are relevant, such as the nature of the offence, the offender's history and previous convictions. In addition, section 6(4) provides details of the matters that the court may take into account when considering whether to extend the custody part of the sentence beyond the 50 per cent minimum. They include the offender's previous convictions.
The custody and community structure has received widespread support, in recognition of the fact that there needs to be a community element to the sentence during which offenders can build on work that was begun in custody. That is designed to reduce reoffending by easing the transition from custody back into the community and ensuring that a number of conditions are placed on the community licence. Where restrictions are assessed as necessary, they will be imposed, but at the same time support will be offered, where required. Only through a combination of punishment in custody and rehabilitation in the community can we hope to address offending behaviour and to reduce reoffending.
This is not a simple matter, but it is one to which people must give commitment and energy, rather than glib solutions that do not address the real problem. We are not claiming that reoffending will cease overnight—that would be naive. We are saying that by providing the right mix of punishment and rehabilitation, we have a better chance of getting offenders to turn around their lives. Success will come through maximising the amount of work that is done during the custody part of the sentence, so that more progress can be made when they go out into the community on licence.
For many offenders, the issue will be to direct them away from their old ways by providing supports and some basic help. For others, more stringent interventions will be needed. Our plans allow for both eventualities and all scenarios in between. Surely that is a much more innovative and sophisticated approach than prison, prison and simply prison, and not addressing the core issues that the bill addresses. I urge the Parliament to reject the amendments.
Once again, there has been some illogicality in the arguments that our opponents have made. I will deal first with the issues that Jeremy Purvis raised. He is correct to say that the amendments would result in more people spending more time in prison. I thought that in some respects he might applaud that—he has often spoken in the chamber about the fact that the rehabilitation process in prisons seems to be limited; the amendments would give prison authorities the opportunity to work longer with offenders and, we hope, achieve some beneficial results. I do not accept the argument that the member makes. He will be aware that the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides for extended sentences, which would meet in many instances the requirement that rehabilitation be provided in prison.
The main difference between Conservative members and Labour and Liberal Democrat members is that we speak for victims.
If Bill Aitken spoke for victims, he would have taken a more positive approach to the measures that we introduced to address, at an early stage, antisocial behaviour, which can become offending behaviour. There is no lack of commitment to victims from Labour and Liberal Democrat members. It is an insult for the member to suggest otherwise.
The minister seeks to rewrite history. Despite what she and many of her colleagues repeat time and again, we supported the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill—we opposed only two parts of it. The minister is entering into the realm of believing that the more often a lie is told, the more readily it will be believed. She is trying to mislead the chamber in that respect.
The minister is correct: there would eventually be a cut-off point. She referred to what would happen to somebody who reoffended after nine years and 11 months and what would happen to somebody who reoffended after just over 10 years. Such a problem will always exist. In road traffic cases, for example, we have it if somebody has 12 points on their licence as a result of a speeding offence just within a three-year period. The problem is inevitable, so the minister's argument does not hold any water.
Of course there are consequences of what we propose, including consequences for the prison estate. We recognise that, and we are prepared to invest money in the prison estate to ensure that there are adequate prison facilities.
The fact is that, as I said, we speak for the victims. I simply do not know for whom other parts of the chamber speak.
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 85, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 disagreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 84, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Group 6 is on sentence to be served in custody or before release on curfew licence. Amendment 23, in the name of Bill Aitken, is grouped with amendments 25, 52, 53, 55 to 59, 62, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35 and 13. I draw members' attention to the three pre-emptions that are itemised in the groupings list.
In many respects, this group of amendments encapsulates the principal arguments relating to the entire bill.
It is perhaps important and certainly appropriate that we review why we are debating the matter today. For some time, there has been considerable unease about the sentencing process in Scots law. It has been criticised, rightly, for being unclear, confusing to the victims and public, and, indeed, dishonest. Matters have been further complicated by the intervention of the European convention on human rights, which has resulted in the early release that is available under the existing law being granted automatically, regardless of whether the offender has behaved himself in jail or shown any contrition.
Before anyone else says it, let me make it quite clear that the most recent Conservative Government certainly contributed to the development of the present situation by increasing the proportion of sentences by which a prisoner could be released early. However, a number of important points should be made. First, 12 years ago, remission had to be earned—it would be granted only if the prisoner had behaved himself, shown some contrition, co-operated and demonstrated that he was intent on leading a reasonable life once he was released. However, the fact that prison governors do not qualify as independent tribunals under article 6 of the ECHR meant that it became no longer possible for them to dock or to curtail prisoners' remission, regardless of how the prisoners behaved while they were in custody. Frankly, that made the whole situation ludicrous.
I have criticised the Conservative Government, but I must stress that it had realised the error that it had made and was making efforts to correct it when it lost office in the 1997 general election. It ill behoves members of the Executive parties to criticise that Government for making a mistake when, some 10 years on, they have still failed to take the remedial action to which the Conservatives were committed. There is a degree of hypocrisy in the accusation that the Conservatives are responsible for the present situation.
Over the past few years, there has been a succession of serious cases involving crimes committed by offenders on early release. As a result of constant pressure from Annabel Goldie, Margaret Mitchell and me, the Executive was reconciled to the fact that at last something had to be done. It is truly depressing that the bill that we are considering today is the result of the Executive's deliberations, because it utterly fails to deal with early release.
The Executive claims that, for the first time, every offender will serve their sentence in its entirety, but when we read the small print, we find that that is not the case. The public perception of a sentence is a period spent in custody. The public demand that a sentence that is pronounced from the bench should be the period that is spent in prison—no ifs, no buts, no maybes. However, that will simply not be the case and it is quite wrong for the Executive to claim that it will be.
At present, for example, someone who receives a six-year sentence will serve four years. That is bad enough but, under the proposals before us today, in many instances such a sentence will mean that the offender serves three years. Frankly, I am not confident that many prisoners will serve 75 per cent of their sentences, given that the bill states quite clearly that there must be a presumption in favour of 50 per cent.
All that the Executive had to do to restore public confidence was to introduce a bill under which the sentence imposed was the sentence served. That would have removed the impediment of the application of the ECHR and would have let the public and the victims of crime know exactly what had happened. Instead of adopting such a straightforward and simple approach, the Executive has put forward a hotch-potch of complex and convoluted proposals that will simply cause more confusion. It cannot claim with any credibility that the bill will end early release.
It is perhaps even more ludicrous that it will now be possible for an offender not only to get early release or, indeed, very early release, but to get super-early release, whereby they will serve only a quarter of their sentence in jail. Recently, there was the appalling case of a man who deliberately and systematically defrauded a breast cancer charity of a substantial sum of money. He received a sentence of 18 months—some people might have thought that to be on the lenient side—but, under the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, he was released after four and a half months. How on earth can that be seen as deterring criminality?
Will the member say whether it remains Conservative policy—there have been three policies in the past few months—that an offender should serve one sixth of their sentence on licence in the community, which would mean that a person who received a sentence of two years would be out on early release for about four months?
I repeat what I said to the minister: the bill's wording inhibited how I could lodge amendments. I accept that our approach might appear inconsistent to Mr Purvis, but I could not lodge amendments in any other way. We retain the position that we support earned remission of one sixth of the sentence.
How on earth will super-duper early release deter a person from committing financial crime? The Executive will argue—and I accept—that it is unlikely that prisoners who are guilty of violence or serious sexual assaults will be released, but there will be no deterrent to financial crime if offenders are to serve only a quarter of their sentence. That is a serious issue.
The proposals that are before the Parliament are little short of a disgrace and represent an attempt to hoodwink the electorate into thinking that the Executive has taken action on early release. They provide an incentive to unscrupulous people who would seek to commit financial crime.
I am concerned that inadequate resources are being provided to local authorities for the supervision of offenders during the community part of their sentence. Does any member seriously think that there will be supervision? The vast majority of offenders will be released subject to one condition only: that they behave themselves. It is sad, but experience shows that people often do not behave themselves.
If any member seriously thinks that the bill will improve matters in the short, medium or long term, they must also believe in Santa Claus. The bill verges on the mendacious. The approach will be hopeless at coping with serious criminals. The bill is dishonest, because early release is not ending.
I move amendment 23.
I will speak briefly to Executive amendment 13, but first I address the amendments in Bill Aitken's name, as I will not have another opportunity to do so.
Bill Aitken might have a charming and easy manner, but what he said was remarkably offensive. He implied that the people who are committed to addressing crime and disorder in our communities want to lie to and be dishonest with the public. He should reflect on his comments.
When we said that we would end automatic unconditional early release, we also committed to replacing the discredited system with measures that would create a more flexible approach to sentence management. We wanted measures that would allow for the right mix of punishment, deterrent and rehabilitation, allow the courts to impose a longer period in prison to punish a particularly serious crime or take account of persistent reoffending, and allow offenders to be managed on the basis of the risk they pose and not the length of sentence imposed by the court. That is the Executive's approach and it is dishonest of Bill Aitken to suggest otherwise. He seems to prefer a system in which, after someone has done their time, they go out into the community without conditions.
In the current system, a person who is sentenced to four years gets out after two, with no conditions. In the proposed new system, the person will serve two years in prison, during which time the risk they pose will be assessed. If they are assessed as being able to be released, they will spend two years in the community, with licence conditions that will allow them to be recalled. Bill Aitken will remember that at stage 2 we set out a more rigorous approach to recall.
Amendment 23 and the other amendments in Bill Aitken's name in group 6 reflect a lack of thought. Everyone understands that automatic early release was introduced as a response to prisoner numbers. There were no easy answers then and there are no easy answers now.
Bill Aitken's position at stage 2 was that the custody part of the sentence should be 90 per cent, but now he says that it should be 85 per cent, which suggests that, rather than addressing a serious problem, he is thinking of a number, and then another number, as if the matter were a child's game. The issue requires far more thought than that.
We could make the facetious point that Bill Aitken is now softer on crime than he was at stage 2, but the issues are more serious than that. I would argue that what we are suggesting is a far more serious approach to a difficult problem. We want a flexible regime that takes account of modern sentence management principles and that ensures that the work that has been started in custody can continue and be developed during the community part of the sentence to maximise its effects on public safety and rehabilitation.
Bill Aitken talks about the offender being rewarded for good behaviour. However, we know about circumstances in which people behaved in prison but caused problems in the community after they were released. We are now talking about risk assessment and management of offenders in the community after they have served the custody part. I would argue that that will enhance community safety.
Will the minister give way?
When I have finished these points, I will take an intervention.
Bill Aitken talked about home detention curfew. Home detention curfew has been established as being effective in a very small number of cases. However, we have clearly said that, because there will be a big change in the process, we will not reintroduce home detention curfew until the system has bedded in. We have also accepted that it would be important for the Parliament to return to the issue if we were to reintroduce home detention curfew and that, therefore, that would require to be done by an affirmative order.
Would the minister care to comment on the existing provision for extended sentences? At present, someone could be given a determinate sentence—albeit subject to early release—but, thereafter, be subject to an extended sentence so that, in effect, what would happen would be exactly what she proposes in the bill. The power to do that already exists.
Of course, the provision for extended sentences will remain, but Bill Aitken will recognise that it will be used particularly for serious offenders, such as sexual offenders, who pose a greater risk. What we are saying is that such an approach could be used for far more offenders than would be the case under his proposal.
Members may ask why the maximum duration of the custody part has been set at 75 per cent of the sentence. We believe that that is necessary in order to strike the right balance. As I said earlier, it allows the court, in exceptional circumstances, to reflect publicly the fact that a crime is particularly heinous or that an offender is so persistent in his or her offending that the minimum custody period is not enough in their case. It also allows the Parole Board to deal properly with offenders who are assessed as still posing a high risk at the end of the custody part, and it leaves a reasonable amount of time for restrictions to be effective and for rehabilitative work to continue in the community.
The key question regarding these amendments is whether they would create a system that allowed in each case the right mix of punishment, risk assessment and management, joined-up working, and the opportunity for the prisoner to break the cycle of reoffending.
The minister is very much on the defensive on this issue. She recognises that the system of early release has been discredited. That was recognised by the Tory Government in 1997. Why has the Labour Government or the Scottish Lib-Lab pact not addressed the issue before now?
Through the bill, we are addressing a problem that has been identified in our communities. The quality of the debate from the Tories is not a measure of the importance of the debate to our local communities. The simplistic and trivial way in which Bill Aitken has plucked a number out of the air indicates how seriously the Tories take the matter.
The requirement to serve part of the sentence in the community is not a soft option; it is a smart option. Evidence shows that we have a much better chance of preventing many offenders from returning to crime if we tackle the underlying causes of their criminality. It is significant that the bill is being attacked both by those who want nobody to go to jail and by those, on the Tories' side, who want to sound tough on crime. To be tough on crime is to address the real issues. It is to punish, but it is also to consider ways of turning offenders round. That is what the bill seeks to do.
We want the custody and community parts of sentences to be planned and joined up. We want the community part and the licence conditions to be taken seriously, and we want prisoners who have been released from custody to understand that the community part is an important part of the proposal. Therefore, resources must be identified for both the custody part and the community part.
Amendment 13 seeks to amend section 48(4) in relation to the order-making power in section 6B to alter the minimum proportion of the custody part of the sentence. Of course, it does not affect the 75 per cent maximum custody period, which is set in statute. The proposed changes reflect the advice that we received at stage 2 from the Subordinate Legislation Committee, which we are always delighted to please. Acting on that advice, we propose to make an order that is made under the powers subject to the Scottish Parliament's affirmative procedure.
As far as these issues are concerned, I have no reason to be defensive about the bill. The bill genuinely seeks to address all the issues that must be confronted in communities where serious offending is taking place. We know that we need to tackle such offending early, but we also realise that by sending offenders to prison we can both mark the seriousness of their offences and, if they have chaotic lives, give them help before they go back to the community.
The Tories have clearly given this matter very little thought and we must not allow them to present this serious measure in any other way. I urge the Parliament to reject all the amendments in the name of Bill Aitken and to support amendment 13.
Bill Aitken said that the bill is confusing. However, the only aspect that has confused me over the past three months is the fact that the Conservatives have taken three policy stances on this issue. First, they advocated a system in which prisoners could get out one month in every six; next, they proposed that the custody part of a sentence should be increased to 90 per cent; and, now, they are suggesting that the custody part should be 85 per cent. From a sedentary position, Phil Gallie said that they had been thinking about the matter for 10 years. If they go on in this fashion, in 10 years' time, they will be suggesting that people should serve 5 per cent of their sentence in jail.
All this masks the Conservative policy of releasing people from jail early. Of course, the Tories want to give the impression that, under their proposals, there will be no early release for anyone but, in response to my intervention, Mr Aitken confirmed that, under their policy, people in prison could be out on early release one month in every six. As a result, someone on a two-year sentence could be out for about four months. However, the Tories cannot guarantee that that person will not commit a crime in that time.
The only element of mendacity is the Conservatives' repeated claim that someone serving part of their sentence in the community would never commit an offence. However, they could not guarantee that at stage 2; they cannot guarantee it today; and, in fact, they will never be able to guarantee it. Notwithstanding that, the Tories seek to claim that if someone on licence commits an offence, it is the fault of the Government or the system. That is simply not the case—it is the offender's fault. However, they acknowledge that a sentence should contain some element of rehabilitation, which is why they propose to allow prisoners out of jail one month in every six.
That has to be earned.
In response to Mr Aitken's comment from a sedentary position, I say that prisoners would simply have to demonstrate the lowest level of good behaviour to allow them to be released early. However, if they committed another offence during their period in the community, would that be the fault of the Conservative policy or the offender?
The Tory position is plainly nonsense. The Tories are seeking to spin something that is not their policy and does not match reality. As I have said, that is the only element of mendacity that we have witnessed this morning.
Before I ask Bill Aitken to wind up on this group of amendments, I wonder whether the minister wishes to say anything further. Are you content, minister?
Do not encourage me, Presiding Officer.
I sense your reluctance to respond.
Those two contributions were very interesting. With respect to Jeremy Purvis, he is a member of an Executive party and has therefore not had any of the Opposition's experience of the parliamentary system. As I made it clear earlier, the amendments in my name have to be tailored to the bill before us if they are to be competent under the standing orders of the Parliament. That is the only way in which I can bring these very important matters to the chamber's attention.
Given Mr Aitken's great expertise in the parliamentary process, will he explain why these amendments did not surface at stage 2? If he had lodged them then, we could have had a considered discussion of repeat offending and early release.
I did not lodge these amendments then for the same reason why, time and again, the Executive lodges last-minute—and sometimes manuscript—amendments to every aspect of legislation. The simple fact is that the more one looks at legislation, the more one sees ways of improving it. That is why I have now lodged these amendments. It is not good enough for the minister to keep on harking back to the fact that there is an inconsistency in the amendments. I have explained why they are inconsistent.
Will the member take an intervention?
I really have to make a little bit of progress. We will see how we get on later.
Mr Purvis asks whose fault it is when someone commits a crime and he answers that, of course, it is the fault of the offender. He is quite right, but there is also a problem with the existing sentencing and penal policy. It may be the offender's fault that he committed the offence, but in many instances we have to ask what gave him the opportunity to commit the offence. The answer is the system of early release. It is as simple as that.
One does not need parliamentary experience to be consistent in one's views. Mr Aitken's policy is for prisoners to be out of jail for one month out of every six. He should be consistent in that and should not posture.
I have clearly rattled Mr Purvis's cage. I say to him that we have to acknowledge the parliamentary procedures, according to which we cannot lodge amendments that go against the bill. I can assure him that, in the weeks ahead, there will be every opportunity to discuss and debate Conservative party policy. I am confident that that policy will be accepted overwhelmingly by the electorate. We look forward to hearing Mr Purvis's contribution when he hears our full policy.
I am grateful to Mr Aitken for explaining the dilemma that he is in with procedures. However, before we vote on the amendments in his name, will he tell us whether he actually believes in them?
Yes, I believe in the amendments, which would mitigate the damage caused by the bill. As I have explained consistently all morning, the amendments that we have lodged do not reflect our preferred policy options, but we are inhibited and constrained. I say to Mr Purvis that it was not me who worded the bill but his Executive.
The Executive's principal arguments remain the same. What is being presented to the chamber is not the end of early release but simply an attempt to pretend to the electorate that it is the end of early release. That is little short of disgraceful.
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 89, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
After section 6
Amendment 24 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 86, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 24 disagreed to.
Section 6A—Application of section 6 to persons sentenced to extended sentences
Group 7 is on the treatment of extended sentences. Amendment 47, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 77.
Amendments 47 and 77 are further testament to our wish to make the provisions in the bill as clear as possible. We are retaining extended sentences as they are a valuable sentencing option for the court when dealing with offenders who might pose a greater risk to public safety. Amendment 47 deletes section 6A, which will be replaced by a new section to be inserted by amendment 77, which clarifies the application of part 2 of the bill in relation to custody and community prisoners who are also subject to an extended sentence. Thus, for example, in terms of section 6, the custody part must be set by reference to the confinement term of the extended sentence, that is, the term of imprisonment that the court imposes for the offence before setting the additional extension period.
In relation to section 12, in the case of a custody and community prisoner who has been confined until the three-quarters point of their sentence on the ground of serious risk to the public, the Parole Board must review the case before that point. At the three-quarters point, the prisoner must be released on community licence. Again, amendment 47 applies that provision to extended-sentence prisoners by reference to the three-quarters point of the confinement term of their sentence. In effect, it makes it clear that the confinement period of an extended sentence is comparable to the full term of a normal custody and community sentence. In other words, the extended period is an additional period, during which the offender will be on community licence and will be subject to recall to custody for breach of the same.
I move amendment 47.
Amendment 47 agreed to.
Section 6B—Power to amend section 6(3)
Amendment 25 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 74, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 25 disagreed to.
Section 6C—Judge's report
Amendment 48 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Amendment 5 is the only amendment in group 8.
Again, I make no apology for stressing the importance of the process for setting the custody part of the custody and community sentence, because it is a key measure in the new provisions. The process has, quite rightly, attracted much interest and comment during the bill's parliamentary progress. We are grateful for those comments, which helped us to develop a package of change, as accepted at stage 2, that was designed to clarify and improve the process. Those changes clarified what the judge may take into account when considering whether to increase the custody part beyond the 50 per cent minimum. We put beyond doubt the fact that these measures are about sentence management, not sentencing, and that they do not affect the matters, including public protection, that the judge quite properly takes into account when deciding what the appropriate overall sentence should be in every case. The changes mean that judges will be required to give reasons when they decide to extend the custody part of any sentence. We also made provision requiring the court to prepare reports for every case involving a custody and community sentence of 15 days or more.
The provisions in section 6 are key to the new regime. They set out what the court must do once a custodial sentence has been imposed. What happens at that point impacts on how long the offender will be in custody before being considered for release on community licence and that is also the point at which the offender, the public and the victim will know the minimum time that the offender should expect to spend in prison.
Section 6 prompted substantial debate during stage 1. We are grateful for that and for the Justice 2 Committee's helpful comments in its stage 1 report. In response to those comments, we said that we would present changes at stage 2 that we believed would further clarify the purpose of section 6 and put it beyond doubt that it is about sentence management and not sentencing. We did that and the committee accepted our amendments. One of those amendments inserted section 6C, which puts a requirement on the courts to provide the Scottish ministers with reports that the SPS and, potentially, the Parole Board for Scotland will require to carry out their business.
Although the committee agreed to our amendments, representatives of the judiciary continued to have concerns about the best way in which the information can be provided. Following further discussion, particularly with the Sheriffs Association, we are persuaded that the present requirement in section 6C to produce reports does not quite provide the degree of flexibility that is needed to enable the courts to deal appropriately with the different types of cases. Section 6C may not enable the courts to provide in the reports—which will often be produced at very short notice—the level of information that is proportionate to the offence and the length of sentence that has been imposed. As well as placing an unintended burden on court resources, the practical effect could be to delay the transfer of information to the SPS, thus depriving it of information that would be valuable at the early screening stage. We are grateful to the Sheriffs Association for highlighting the inadvertent effects of the current provisions.
Amendment 5 will replace the current requirement in section 6C(2) with provisions that will require the court to provide relevant information to the SPS in a way that allows the court to respond appropriately and proportionately in each case. That enabling provision will allow an operational framework to be put in place that will support the transfer of information. Development work is already in hand through the custodial sentences planning group. The provision of more flexibility will not, of course, prevent the preparation of detailed reports by judges in cases in which such reports are required. However, it will mean that the process can be tailored to respond effectively and quickly to the varying demands that will arise from the different types of sentences. The prompt transfer of the right kind of information is vital, particularly in cases in which offenders are given very short sentences. The more flexible approach will allow for that.
I move amendment 5.
I simply comment that amendment 5 is acceptable and that the Executive, in this instance, genuinely has listened—it is just a pity that it did not listen earlier and more comprehensively.
I doubt that you need to respond to that, minister, but I am always willing to put temptation in your way.
With Bill Aitken, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. He makes a rather grudging comment about the fact that the Executive took seriously the committee's views and addressed issues that were raised by those who will have to implement the legislation. I would have thought that, rather than make such a grudging comment, Bill Aitken would have welcomed the amendment.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Section 8—Review by Scottish Ministers
Amendment 49 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Consequences of review
Amendment 50 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 11—Release on community licence following review by Parole Board
Amendment 51 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 12—Determination that section 8(2) applicable: consequences
Amendment 52 moved—[Bill Aitken].
The question is, that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 13, Against 86, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 52 disagreed to.
Amendment 53 not moved.
Amendment 54 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Amendments 55 to 59 not moved.
Amendments 60 and 61 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Amendment 62 not moved.
Section 12B—Referral to Parole Board for the purposes of specifying conditions
Amendment 63 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 13—Further referral to Parole Board
Amendment 64 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
After section 13
Amendment 26 not moved.
Section 13A—Cases where custody part specified as three-quarters of prisoner's sentence
Amendments 65 and 66 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Amendment 27 not moved.
Section 14—Release after three-quarters of sentence served
Amendment 28 not moved.
If amendment 67 is agreed to, amendments 29 and 30 are pre-empted.
Amendment 67 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 15—Setting of punishment part
Amendments 31 and 32 not moved.
Amendment 68 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 16—Referral to Parole Board
Amendments 69 and 70 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 17—Review by Parole Board
Amendment 71 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 20—Further referral to Parole Board
Amendment 72 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 22—Effect of multiple sentences
Amendment 33 not moved.
Amendment 73 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 27—Release on licence of certain prisoners: supervision
Amendment 34 not moved.
Amendment 74 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 24—Release on community licence on Parole Board's direction
Amendment 6 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 25—Community licences in which Scottish Ministers may specify conditions
Amendment 7 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 29—Prisoner to comply with licence conditions
Amendment 8 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 31—Revocation of licence
Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 32—Referral to Parole Board following revocation of licence
Amendment 75 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 33A—Determination that section 33(3) applicable: consequence for custody and community prisoners
Amendment 76 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 36—Curfew licences
Amendment 35 not moved.
Amendment 11 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
After section 39
Amendments 77 to 79 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
After section 42
Group 9 is on the cross-border transfer of prisoners. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 14.
Amendment 12 inserts into part 2 a new section that provides Scottish ministers with an order-making power, subject to affirmative procedure, to deal both with the transfer of prisoners from Scotland and other jurisdictions, and the transfer of a prisoner serving a sentence in another jurisdiction to Scotland.
Amendment 14 adds a new cross-border transfers order-making power to section 48(4) to ensure that any order made is subject to the Scottish Parliament's affirmative procedure. There are arrangements in place at the moment that deal with the cross-border transfer of prisoners in and out of Scotland. Under the terms of schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, prisoners in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands may request a transfer to another United Kingdom jurisdiction or one of the islands. Under the provisions, prisoners may be transferred to another jurisdiction on either a restricted or an unrestricted basis. Transfer on a restricted basis means that the prisoner remains subject to the law regarding release from prison as it applies in the sending jurisdiction. If a prisoner is transferred on an unrestricted basis, he or she falls under the provisions of the regime in force in the receiving jurisdiction. We anticipate that the vast majority of prisoners will continue, as at present, to be transferred on a restricted basis.
Sections 10 and 10A of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 make provision for the transfer of live prisoners and transfer of supervision for live prisoners respectively. There are also provisions dealing with the repatriation of prisoners to and from the UK to jurisdictions with which the UK has a repatriation agreement. Those are as contained in the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 and schedule 2 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
For information, can the minister indicate the number of such transfers that take place?
I do not have the exact numbers, but I will ensure that the member is provided with that information. I would imagine that not terribly many transfers take place.
The new order-making power that will be inserted by amendment 12 will enable the Scottish ministers to continue to make suitable provision to facilitate the transfer of prisoners to and from Scotland. Subsection (1) of the new section allows the provisions in part 2 of the bill to be modified in relation to transferred prisoners. That might be necessary, for example, to impose certain licence conditions on an offender who is transferred on a restricted basis and who is subject to supervision conditions that were imposed by the transferring jurisdiction. New subsection (2)(b) will allow the Scottish ministers to amend other enactments if necessary; for example, to ensure that provisions for cross-border transfers remain operational.
I move amendment 12.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Section 43—Licensing of knife dealers
Group 10 is on offences in relation to knife dealers' licences. Amendment 36, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 37.
Amendments 36 and 37 will amend new section 27Q that will be inserted into the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 by section 43 of the bill. Section 27Q will allow ministers to make exceptions to offences under the knife dealers licensing scheme. The amendments, which will ensure that any orders providing for such exceptions will be subject to affirmative procedure, respond to a concern that was raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee during its consideration of the bill as amended at stage 2. The Executive agrees with the committee that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate for any order that makes exceptions to offences under the knife dealers licensing scheme. I am happy to have lodged the appropriate amendments to the bill to make the change desired by the committee and I trust that the amendments will have the support of Parliament.
I move amendment 36.
We welcome amendments 36 and 37 and, indeed, the bill's ethos on knives. It is uniformly accepted by all parties in the chamber that Scotland has a problem with knife crime that is not simply restricted to Friday and Saturday nights nor, sadly, to one geographical area. Although knife crime was once perceived as a west of Scotland problem, it is now uniform across Scotland and requires to be tackled. In that respect, we will give the Executive our full support on amendments 36 and 37.
Obviously, legislation is not the only solution. The minister has correctly tried amnesties, which have only sometimes been successful. However, these issues need to be worked through to effect the cultural change that is required. We fully support the minister's attempts and efforts to address the issue, such as by supporting the establishment of a violence reduction unit. Action needs to be taken.
Access to weapons is obviously a problematic matter that needs to be addressed. Although not all weapons that are used by those who are out for malevolent purposes are displayed in army and navy stores—a bread knife can be used with equally calamitous consequences—action needs to be taken to restrict the availability of such weapons. Obviously, as all members will know from the communications that they have received, some people use such weapons for perfectly legitimate and innocent purposes. We need to strike the correct balance with sensible policing and sensible interpretation. Undertakings to that effect were given by both the current Lord Advocate and the previous Lord Advocate, so we can trust that good judgment will be used.
Action has to be taken. We welcome the Executive's proposals. They have our full support.
We should recognise the significance of part 3 of the bill. Sadly, it has been almost entirely disregarded due to the debate on the other issues. However, part 3 should also be placed in the context of our broader approach. Part 3 will ban swords, license the sale of non-domestic knives, double the sentence for carrying a knife in public, remove the restriction on the police's power of arrest and raise the minimum age for purchasing knives from 16 to 18. All those provisions should be seen in the context of our general approach to antisocial behaviour that recognises that when gatherings of young people become involved in low-level disorder they can quickly move towards becoming part of a gang culture in which, sadly, carrying a knife is regarded far too much as a prize.
I recognise the support that exists for part 3 of the bill. It is important that we send out a strong message on weapons generally.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendment 37 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 45—Sale etc of weapons
Group 11 is on amendment of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Amendment 38, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 39 to 43.
Amendments 38 to 43 amend sections 44 and 45 of the bill, which both amend section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I will go on to explain the effect of the amendments, but it is useful to start by saying something about section 141 of the 1988 act.
Under section 141, it is an offence to manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, or lend or give to another person an offensive weapon specified in an order made under that section.
Section 141 also provides for defences for the purposes of functions carried out on behalf of the Crown or a visiting force, for making the weapon available to a museum or gallery; or, where the weapon is lent or hired by the museum or gallery, that it is intended for cultural, artistic or educational purposes.
Amendments 38 and 39, which will insert into section 141 of the 1988 act new subsection (11ZF), will alter the burden of proof that applies where an accused seeks to make use of the defences provided to offences under that section.
The amendments mean that it will be incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a weapon was not sold for use by a museum or gallery, rather than requiring the accused to prove that it was. Amendment 39 will also amend section 141 of the 1988 act by inserting into it new subsections (11ZA) to (11ZE). Subsections (11ZA) and (11ZB) provide further statutory defences to an offence under section 141(1). The amendments to insert new subsections (11ZC) to (11ZE) are technical amendments, which will ensure that the new defences interface effectively with the import regime.
The new defences make provision for the use of otherwise banned weapons for theatrical, film and television purposes. That makes similar provision for Scotland to that introduced for England and Wales by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.
Amendment 41 will specify that the defences will apply only to conduct taking place after the defences have come into effect.
Amendment 40 provides a broader and more flexible version of the power to amend the application of section 141 of the1988 act than that provided in the bill as introduced. That will enable additional defences to be introduced in the light of experience of operation of the provision. It will also ensure that the application of section 141 in Scotland can interface effectively with the UK import regime.
Amendment 42 will widen the effect of section 141ZA(3)(a), which establishes that the Scottish ministers, when making an order banning the sale of swords, may provide for defences for religious, cultural and sporting purposes. The amendment will ensure that defences can be put in place in respect of offences relating to manufacture and sale and offences relating to importation.
Amendment 43 is consequential to amendments 40 and 42. It will ensure that the powers to modify the application of section 141 of the 1988 act provided by the amendments work together properly.
I move amendment 38.
Amendment 38 agreed to.
Amendments 39 to 41 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 46—Sale etc of swords
Amendments 42 and 43 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 48—Rules, regulations and orders
Amendments 13, 14, 80 and 15 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Section 50—Short title and commencement
Group 12 is on the commencement of part 2. Amendment 44, in the name of Colin Fox, is the only amendment in the group. I invite Colin Fox to move and speak to amendment 14.
It is amendment 44, Presiding Officer.
In the course of the evidence taking, it became clear to the Justice 2 Committee that there could be serious consequences for the criminal justice system from the implementation of the bill, such as: the possible addition of 1,100 prisoners, which would increase our record prison population by another 20 per cent; the need for 100 additional prison officers to cope with risk assessment programmes, on top of those needed to staff two new prisons; and a 10 per cent increase in social workers to supervise and support the community part of all sentences at a time when the committee and Parliament recognise that we cannot fill the current vacancies for criminal justice social workers—in any event, it takes four to five years to train them. According to the evidence that the committee took, the costs of that and of implementing the other measures in the bill could be around £250 million.
The evidence of many of our expert and informative witnesses from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice, academics, the criminal justice authorities and many more suggested that if there was a willingness to spend that kind of money, there were far more effective ways of reducing reoffending and better serving the public.
Sacro, which I notice has contacted MSPs recently, fears that the bill will lead to an unworkable risk assessment programme, put an entirely unrealistic burden of expectation on the Scottish Prison Service and criminal justice system, reduce the community supervision of some of the most serious offenders, lead to an unmanageable increase in the prison population and worsen the already intolerable overcrowding in our prisons.
With that in mind, I lodged amendment 44, which seeks to put on hold the implementation of part 2 of the bill, on the confinement and release of prisoners, until a full and thorough independent report is drawn up and presented to the Parliament. The report would analyse the costs and benefits of the bill's provisions against levels of reoffending and the impact on the prison population, and it would compare the bill's approach with other approaches.
At stage 2, the minister did not dispute the figures that I mentioned or the bill's cost implications. Rather, she sought to suggest that the provisions would hardly be used by sentencers. I am bound to say that the weight of the evidence that the committee received is against her.
My amendment 44 provides a sensible approach to the bill's objectives. It seriously addresses the issue of reducing reoffending and it would increase rather than reduce public confidence in the criminal justice system.
I move amendment 44.
If amendment 44 is agreed to, we might, at best, save the public purse £150 million in capital spending. The additional prison places that will be required as a consequence of the bill will take the number of prisoners in Scotland to 8,100 or thereabouts. That raises a financial issue in favour of Mr Fox's amendment, but there is a more important issue.
Examining how we deal with locking people up gives us an opportunity to reform the way in which we deal with low-level offenders. There is widespread support—certainly in the SNP—for ensuring that there is proportionate and proper locking up of the most serious offenders. Earlier this morning, we discussed public safety, which is at the heart of locking people up and locking them away from society. However, too many of the flotsam and jetsam—victims of social deprivation, drink and drugs—end up in prison. They come out with their problems unresolved and, frankly, communities are little safer.
Members of various parties want work to be undertaken to redirect low-level offenders away from incarceration and towards rehabilitation and the serving of sentences in the community. Amendment 44 raises the prospect of synchronising such work with the increase in the number of serious offenders in prison that will occur. We are therefore minded to support the amendment, unless someone can persuade us otherwise.
Colin Fox raises an interesting point. The Minister for Parliamentary Business has heard me waxing eloquent, long and often on the fact that the Parliament legislates far too much. Indeed, other members have also heard me speak on that theme.
To be serious, one of the failings in the parliamentary system is that, because of the volume of legislation that is passed, committees and others do not get the opportunity to consider its effectiveness further down the road. The Parliament should set up its own audit system for considering the effectiveness of legislation. However, I have some doubts about whether the approach in amendment 44 is the right way to do that. It proposes that a report be laid before the Parliament within 12 months. No matter how good a piece of legislation is, I do not think that anybody could determine its effectiveness or otherwise in such a short period, so the approach in proposed section 50(2B) is unacceptable.
However, there is a lesson to be learned from amendment 44. We are told that, under the bill, there will be a greatly increased supervision element and there will need to be a corresponding increase in the amount of social work input. Whether provision for that is in place is a separate argument that we might explore this afternoon. It is important for the effect of legislation to be examined once it has operated for some time, but to do that after 12 months is far too early.
If I have learned one lesson as an elected member of the Parliament, it is that I do not require an audit committee to tell me whether problems exist with the law; my community and my constituents will tell me about the problems and demand change. If we track the significant legislation that the Parliament has passed, we can identify problems that constituents raised and on which they brought pressure to bear on the process. That is how democracy works and it is all the better for it.
To be frank, Colin Fox outlines through his approach his opposition to the bill, or at least to one part of it. A member who opposes the bill should vote against it. A member who supports the balance of the bill's approach should vote for it. There is no way of saying that we will maybe have provisions and that we will think about it—that would be a maybes aye approach to legislation. Members must decide whether they support the bill, act accordingly and ensure that the legislation is monitored.
We are aware of the concerns of the voluntary sector and of the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice, members of which I have met. I disagree with their conclusions, but I acknowledge their concerns. We must also acknowledge the concerns of people in our communities, who feel that the current system is inadequate and that we must address the lack of supervision when people leave prison and the fact that we have a sentencing regime that people do not understand.
Colin Fox recognised that we have acknowledged that prisoner numbers will increase—we put that in the financial memorandum. We have also said that support must be provided for offenders and that resources need to follow that. We are serious about both parts of custody and community sentences. Colin Fox's proposal gained no support at stage 2, and I hope that members will not support it now.
The custodial sentence measures in the bill deliver the Executive's commitment to end automatic and unconditional early release, and do so in a way that injects into sentence management a structure that provides for punishment and rehabilitation. The proposals are not just about sending people to prison, but about getting offenders to turn their lives around. As we have said, stopping offending is the best way to protect the public. We intend the criminal justice reforms that are in hand and the measures in the bill to make significant inroads into tackling reoffending.
Amendment 44 would require the Scottish ministers to commission an independent report before they made any commencement order for provisions in part 2. I am intrigued by the notion of outsourcing our thinking on such matters. The Scottish Executive—whoever forms the Administration—and the Parliament are in as good a position as others to consider the effectiveness of legislation, particularly if they are open to elected members' representations. The independent report would be expected to consider the custodial sentence measures in isolation and to comment on their impact on offending and reoffending and on the prison population's size. The effectiveness of short-term sentences is recognised as an issue. Considering and addressing that problem are matters for a future Administration.
Does the minister concede that some benefit would be obtained for the public purse and more generally from synchronising the addressing of short-term sentences with the increase in the population with longer-term sentences that will derive from the bill, which we support?
I do not concede whatever the member really says or what I understand him to say. I do not concede that the report that amendment 44 proposes should be made. I am saying that an issue with short-term sentences has been highlighted and any Parliament worth its salt will address it.
Amendment 44 would require the Scottish ministers to publish the report and lay it before Parliament within 12 months of the passing of the bill. That is an arbitrary date. We have experience that having arbitrary dates for such reports has hampered them.
What could such a narrowly prescribed report tell us? It could not reveal the benefits of the structure that was established through the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 or the other recent criminal justice system reforms. It could not reflect the fact that the measures in the bill will build on the strong existing structures. It could merely speculate on the likely impact of the bill's measures.
I repeat what I said at stage 2: effective monitoring arrangements are already in place. The SPS board agrees its business plan with ministers. The plan for 2006 to 2008 included, for the first time, an indication of the prison population that might have to be accommodated. The figure is not a target figure, but its use shows the importance that ministers and the SPS attach to considering the level of the prison population and to planning the business to provide for that population. The increases that have recently been reported have been mainly in the remand population, prisoners on short sentences and young offenders, and are completely in line with what the SPS has said publicly for some time.
The SPS keeps a close eye on the prison population, and ministers included full consideration of that population in the financial memorandum's consideration of the bill's impact. The population level is half the story, and the Executive has shared with all relevant parliamentary committees full information about the relationship between population levels and capacity. The capacity levels as indicated by the SPS take account of the current plans for development and redevelopment of the prison estate.
The financial memorandum makes it clear that the Scottish ministers fully accept that adequate and proper resources must be in place before the system commences. The Justice 2 Committee is aware that a high-level group involving all the stakeholders—the very people who will make the bill's provisions work—is working on the detailed implementation plan.
Of course, once the new provisions are in place, it is only right that we evaluate them. Evaluation will be part of the process. In addition to the monitoring plans that I have mentioned, statistics that are produced by the courts, the SPS and local authority criminal justice social work departments will reflect developments once the new system is up and running.
In the meantime, the custodial sentences planning group continues to work on the detailed implementation strategy. It is right that that strategy should be developed by the people who will need to make it work. We aim to implement the measures as soon as is practicable. We are talking about big changes—root-and-branch reform—and it is essential that we take the appropriate time to ensure that the preparation is right and that the proper infrastructure is in place.
The minister is talking about implementing the legislation. When will implementing the measures in the community be practicable, given the shortage of people with the right training and experience to implement them? Does the minister have a date in mind for when the system will go fully live?
We have said that the custodial sentences planning group is charged with implementing the provisions and giving timescales and clarity to the process. We are clearly committed to such an approach, and we want it to be developed as soon as possible.
Amendment 44 would not add to the scrutiny and monitoring that will be done; rather, it seeks to second-guess significant parts of the legislation. If members support the bill's approach, they should vote for it; if they do not support that approach, they should not vote for it. I urge members to reject amendment 44.
I am struck by the fact that the minister has not disputed any of the possible consequences or costs that I outlined in my initial remarks. She rightly talks about listening to the many people in our constituencies who suffer daily as a result of the current system. I advise her to listen to the many experts who appeared in front of the Justice 2 Committee, many of whom work with her constituents in Glasgow Pollok and with constituents throughout the country every day.
Before I deal with the substance of the minister's objections to amendment 44, I should say that I always feel slightly unnerved when receiving Stewart Stevenson's support. That said, I am absolutely unnerved by receiving Bill Aitken's support. I was glad that he dived for cover on the 12-month rule and got the hell out of it, and that he does not support my amendment.
I trust that Mr Fox recognises that my support for his amendment was highly qualified. Indeed, I said that we could not possibly support it because of the time constraints that would be involved.
I am grateful for the support that a hanging man gets from a rope.
The minister's fundamental objection to an independent report was the same as Bill Aitken's caveat, which is interesting. I was struck by the minister's sanguine attitude to the potential expenditure of £250 million on questionable costs for questionable value. Is she saying that she has something to fear from an independent report, from independent scrutiny by experts and from the evidence being put in front of the Parliament by the Executive? She has not answered that question. Spending £250 million on highly disputed areas is a relatively new phenomenon for the Executive.
The minister was caught out by David Davidson's question. She is unable to tell the Parliament when the bill will be implemented. That is understandable if it is going to take five years to train criminal justice social workers and eight years to build two new prisons.
Amendment 44 is an entirely reasonable and fair amendment for the Parliament to consider. An independent report would consider the cost benefit analysis of the bill and compare it with other strategies that many experts feel are far more likely to work because they will give the public greater confidence and reduce the appalling levels of reoffending in Scotland.
I am not satisfied—I hope that no one in the chamber is satisfied—with the fact that in every year of the Parliament's existence, Scotland's prison population has broken records. The bill suggests that, willy-nilly, we should add another 1,100 people to that population, which is unacceptable. I press amendment 44.
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Petrie, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 27, Against 74, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 44 disagreed to.
After schedule 1
Amendments 81 and 82 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendment 83 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
Schedule 3
Repeals
Amendment 84 moved—[Johann Lamont]—and agreed to.
That concludes consideration of amendments.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—