Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5632, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees that the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill be passed.
It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, but the past four years seem to have flown by as we have worked on comprehensively reforming our criminal justice system. That has not been change for the sake of it, but change that has been needed to reflect the times in which we live.
The public rightly expect their elected politicians to tackle crime and create safer communities. To do that, we need a criminal justice system that is fit for the 21st century. That is what we are delivering, and the bill that we have considered today will add to the reforms that are already in place.
Our reforms have had one clear and overriding objective: to reduce the number of victims of crime. The best way to do that is to tackle reoffending. Too many offenders are caught up in a cycle of reoffending, and the current system of automatic unconditional release, under which the vast majority of offenders are released at the halfway point of their sentence without any restrictions or support, does nothing to tackle the problem. It does not serve the public well, which is why we committed ourselves to putting an end to the present discredited system.
Under our proposals, all offenders sentenced to 15 days or more will be managed for their entire sentence, through a combination of custody and community. The new regime takes account of their crime, the risks that they pose and, crucially, their needs, in a way that also takes proper account of public protection. We believe that the regime will achieve the right balance between punishment and deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation.
The custody part—the punishment element—will be a minimum of 50 per cent of the sentence. However, if the court feels that a longer punishment is right, it will be able to increase the custody part to 75 per cent of the sentence. Critically, the remainder of the sentence will be spent on licence in the community. Licence conditions will both test and support offenders, giving them the chance to change their lives if they are prepared to take it, but equally making it clear that any breach of the conditions will be dealt with and taken seriously.
The new system is not a soft option or an option to empty our prisons, as some people have tried to characterise it. It is a smart option to tackle the underlying causes of criminality. As the First Minister said earlier today, it is prison plus: prison plus restrictions, prison plus supervision and, if the offender does not co-operate while on licence, prison plus more prison.
Will the minister give way?
Indeed.
I thank the minister for giving way with her usual courtesy, but how on earth can she guarantee that the licence conditions will be met in full? Bail conditions, for example, are already breached across the country with no apparent penalties applied.
Mr Gallie always raises questions about bail and people's responsibility to comply with conditions. The onus is absolutely on the offender: if conditions are put on the licence, the offender has a responsibility to comply with them. Offenders will get support that is proportionate to the nature of the risk that they pose, and if they need assistance in dealing with housing or access to employment, for example, that might be factored into the licence conditions. However, let us be clear: it will be made plain to the offender that they are expected to comply with the licence conditions. They will get help and support, but the responsibility is ultimately on them to comply. If they do not comply, they could find themselves back in prison, which does not happen in all circumstances at the moment.
We have not pressed ahead with these changes without having regard to the key interests who will be responsible for putting the measures into practice—it is important to recognise that in response to what Mr Gallie said. The support and the conditions will be proportionate.
The changes that we made at stage 2 clearly demonstrate our willingness to listen, make changes where necessary and work with our partners to improve bills. We have done that all the way through our extensive programme of justice reforms. We have listened and as a result we have made changes.
I know that people have raised concerns about resources, the viability of custody and community structures and the impact on the Scottish Prison Service and on community supports. Some people have suggested that we have been too adventurous in trying to do more for all offenders who receive sentences of 15 days or more. Let us be clear: the bill will have an impact on prisoner numbers and more resources will be needed, but we have been open about that and the costs are reflected in the financial memorandum.
We face an enormous challenge to build an operational structure that will deliver the new measures effectively, efficiently and proportionately. The fact that what we seek to do is difficult is not a reason for not making changes. The public expect us to make changes and it is our responsibility to proceed with them.
We must break away from the artificial restrictions of the established processes and respond imaginatively to the challenge of dealing with those offenders who, for the first time, will get real help to address—and, ultimately, to change—their offending behaviour. We are right to continue to consider ways of better protecting the public from high-risk offenders and we are right to put in place programmes to deal with the causes of offending and to focus on reoffending.
The vast majority of offenders will be less likely to reoffend when they have a home and a job or training to go to and when their addiction problems are addressed. One of the greatest strengths of the new system is that it will cater for the full spectrum of risk and needs. That is why I have set up a high-level planning group to steer the implementation work, as the deputy minister mentioned this morning. We want there to be less reoffending and fewer victims; we want offenders to make something of their lives; and, ultimately, we want safer communities.
The bill also puts in place the final elements of the First Minister's five-point plan on knife crime. I know that the reasons for those changes are well understood, as we heard this morning. I welcome the support of members of all parties for our proposals, which will add to the tough measures that we have already taken by placing further restrictions on the sale of dangerous weapons.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Although there are aspects of the bill that we fully support, there are parts of it that still cause us significant concern. We are grateful to the minister for the many changes that have been made to ameliorate some of the problems that were flagged up at stage 2 and for the meetings that the Executive offered to hold to identify whether an accommodation could be reached. However, some difficulties remain, and we should bear in mind the maxim, "legislate in haste, repent at leisure."
I turn first to the aspect of the bill that deals with weapons, which the minister mentioned at the end of her speech. In her comments this morning, Ms Lamont made the valid point that although that aspect of the bill has been ignored, it is of fundamental importance, in that it addresses the supply and availability of weapons such as swords, which are of great significance to our communities and to society as a whole. The sale of swords is a social problem, but we must ensure that the response is proportionate and that people who have a legitimate need to access them—because, for example, they are involved in thespian activities, highland dancing or historical societies—are covered. I believe that the bill addresses such issues and, to that extent, we fully support it, just as we fully support all the measures that the Executive and the Parliament have taken to address the knife culture that exists in Scotland. The problem cannot be tackled solely through legislation, but legislation is necessary and the Executive has our full backing for the provisions.
However, the sentencing aspect of the bill gives us greater cause for concern. We are aware that the present system is in disrepute, but the Conservatives' constant mantra about ending early release is unhelpful. The problem is that the public want a sentencing policy that they can understand. I remember being addressed by learned sheriffs who said, "What is the problem? We all know that a two-year sentence means one year." Any judicial system and any law must be understandable to ordinary men and women in the street. Aspects of law such as information technology law and media law require expert input, but if an offender is given a sentence, that sentence should be understandable to the victim and to the broader community; it should not be understandable only to those who are familiar with the lexicon and the jargon.
We believe that what the Executive seeks to do will be beneficial—a clear statement should be made in open court of what the custody period will be. As far as we are concerned, the bill makes it quite clear that the sentence that is given is the sentence that will be served. The Tories can argue about that, but ultimately the length of the sentence will be made clear to victims and communities.
There must be a community part to sentences if we are to address the fundamental problem of reoffending rates. We cannot lock people up for many years, or even just for a few months or a few years, and then simply open the door and kick them out. We must tackle reoffending not just by punishing people but by providing care, whether that is wraparound care, monitoring and assistance or supervision.
However, problems with the bill remain. The minister appears to be rather too laid back about the substantial increase in prison numbers that the bill will generate. It is manifestly wrong that prison numbers should increase by the figures that have been bandied about, when there will have been no increase in criminality to justify that. Prisoner numbers will increase by approximately a seventh without there being an increase in offending, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. That will not necessarily tackle the root problems.
We need fundamentally to consider what our prisons are for. The Scottish National Party thinks that prisons are for ensuring that dangerous people are taken away for the protection of communities and for formally punishing people who have committed serious offences, the opprobrium of society for which can be demonstrated only by a custodial sentence.
We must ensure that people who are flotsam and jetsam and have problems to do with drink, drugs or deprivation—whether or not their inadequacies are of their own doing—are taken out of the judicial system. If we do not ensure that people at the lower end of the scale are taken out of the system before the new arrangements kick in, we will simply increase the number of prisoners, with no benefit. We must also ensure that the consequential requirements for the provision of social work services, care and other services are met. The Parliament has produced too much legislation that has introduced requirements for local authorities, social work departments, police services or prisons without putting in place the necessary resources. We must ensure that prison numbers are static, if not reduced, by keeping out of prison people who should not be there because they are not a danger to communities and have not committed criminal offences. We must ensure that the resources are in place before the bill is implemented.
I apologise for being slightly late for the minister's speech. I was debating the matter on television with Bill Butler.
During this morning's stage 3 proceedings, the Deputy Minister for Justice seemed extremely upset—with some justification—that people have completely lost sight of part 3 of the bill, which addresses knife crime. As I said, there is no difference between our parties in that regard. We have to do something about knife crime. I do not seek to downgrade the proposals in the bill when I say that they will certainly do no harm. It is worth implementing them, but we will have to wait and see how much good they do. We support that aspect of the bill.
A general point about resources emerged from this morning's proceedings. During my brief lunch break, I looked again at the letter from Sacro that expresses that respected body's serious concerns about the availability of resources. Those concerns are shared by local authorities. Despite what both ministers have said, I am not satisfied that the Executive has given sufficient credence to the potential difficulties.
Will Mr Aitken enlighten members on the cost of the proposals in the amendments that he moved this morning, which were unsuccessful? What impact would those proposals have had on the issue that Sacro and others raised?
The minister will appreciate that if the amendments in my name had been agreed to they would have had an impact on the prison estate and another prison would have been required. She will shortly find out the precise costings of the policy, when we publish our election manifesto.
I return to the need for clarity in sentencing. Let us consider the matter from the victim's point of view. In the current system, when the court imposes a sentence of four years for assault, the victim is less than delighted to be confronted some two years later by the person who assaulted them. Under the hotch-potch of proposals in the bill, a sentence of four years will involve two years spent in custody. That is misleading and is not the way in which the matter should have been dealt with.
Let us look again at the existing position, when people are released on licence with part of the sentence unserved. There is a facility, under the existing legislation, for a person who reoffends to be brought back before the court, dealt with for the new offence and then returned to the original sentencing court so that consideration can be given to the unexpired period of the original sentence.
I hope that Bill Aitken agrees that it is important to make a distinction between prisoners who are released on licence and shorter-term prisoners who are currently released unconditionally, with no licence. The courts are not able to bring back those shorter-term prisoners as he has described. We are putting in place a fundamental change to the present system and improving it significantly.
I accept the minister's point in part, but if someone reoffends during the unexpired period of their sentence, they can be brought back to the court to be dealt with. In that respect, the bill is redundant.
Much mention has been made—Mr MacAskill mentioned the matter again today—of people at the lower end of the scale. The example that is usually given is that of shoplifters. Shoplifting is hardly a capital offence by anybody's standards, but what should we do with a person who consistently and persistently offends without the offences being dealt with? If someone is arrested five days out of seven on shoplifting charges, they will eventually have to be locked up for the protection of the shopkeepers. In one instance of which I am aware, a shopkeeper threatened, and would have carried out, physical violence against the person who was robbing his shop every day.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
Offences at the lower end of the scale are not a serious matter, but when there is an accumulation of offences, something must be done, and I do not think that such situations will be dealt with under the bill.
It is a pity that the knives element of the bill has been lost sight of, as it is fine. Basically, as I said this morning, the bill will not do what the Executive claims—it will not end early release. On that basis, I am sorry, but we cannot support it.
We will support the bill today, as we did at stage 1, although we share many of the concerns that were outlined by Kenny MacAskill.
The bill is only one part of an effective approach to cutting crime. The other part will be—as the deputy minister said this morning—the responsibility of the Parliament in the new session, after May. The bill focuses almost exclusively on sentence management rather than sentencing practice and policy. I say "almost exclusively" because there are welcome measures for restricting the sale of knives and banning swords—except for wholly justified circumstances. Those aspects of the bill, inevitably, have not been given the consideration that other parts of the bill have been given, as there has been considerable consensus on them. I think that those provisions will make a difference.
In Scotland, two thirds of offenders who are convicted of breach of the peace and just under half of those who are convicted of shoplifting go to prison for less than three months. For those offenders, we ask whether prison works. More than two thirds of them reoffend within a year of their release from prison. Prison sentences do not appear to work, either for those offenders or for our communities.
Between 50 and 80 per cent of prisoners have writing, numeracy and reading skills below the level that is expected of an 11-year-old child, and prisoners are 13 times more likely than the general population to be unemployed. In addition, between 60 and 80 per cent of prisoners were using drugs before their imprisonment. Three quarters of young people in custody in Scotland have a history of regular school truancy, less than half of them had attended school regularly, and only a third of them have any qualifications. Of course, short-term prison sentences do not work for those young people.
For adults who enter our prisons, the indicators are clear: drug or alcohol misuse; a lack of stable employment; and literacy and numeracy skills below the level expected of an 11-year-old child. For youth offenders, the indicators are just as clear: a history of contact with social work services—and, frequently, with the police and the reporter for their local authority—and no qualifications.
According to the Conservatives and others, putting adults and young people with very short sentences in jail with offenders of the same social make-up will reduce reoffending. Such a claim shows complete ignorance of the evidence, which was certainly clear when it was presented to the committee.
I do not doubt the integrity or sincerity of the Minister for Justice or her deputy. Indeed, I have considerable respect for them; it is a pleasure to work with them, because they listen to suggestions and respond positively. They know that short-term prison sentences are useful only for giving communities or individuals respite from violent or dangerous people. Moreover, they welcome the fact that more community than custody disposals are being handed down, which is a major step forward.
However, there is no commitment to address the problem of very short-term sentences. By not tackling the issue head-on, we are telling communities throughout Scotland that we are happy to tolerate, for example, the fact that more than 60 per cent of offenders commit another crime on their release from jail. The Conservatives seem to be happy that their approach will make no difference to the underlying problems facing individual offenders and that, therefore, further crimes will be committed.
I felt frustrated at stage 2, because I wanted to lodge amendments that would have introduced conditional sentences for offenders who were given less than six months or which would have given a judge or justice of the peace the discretion to vary the custody part of a sentence from 0 to 100 per cent. However, those amendments were judged not to be within the scope of the bill, and the convener did not permit them to be lodged. Of course, such decisions are at his discretion. Nevertheless, if I had been allowed to lodge my amendments, we could have had a better debate on the bill.
I have not been an MSP for as long as some other members but, in my four years in the Parliament, I have not heard such sheer hypocrisy as I have heard from the Conservatives, both this morning and at lunch time, with regard to the bill. Under their policy, a person who is sentenced to two years would serve four months out of jail; indeed, Bill Aitken confirmed that someone on a four-year sentence would serve eight months in the community. The Conservatives keep telling us that people should serve their full sentence in prison, but that is not even their policy.
The Conservatives also say that they are on the side of victims. However, saying that victims want more and more punitive responses to offenders shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation. For example, victims of crime have told me that they simply want a system that ensures that the offender does not reoffend.
We are halfway towards meeting that aim with this progressive legislation; the Parliament in the next session will have to complete the other half of that work.
I thank the Justice 2 Committee clerks, our advisers, the ministers and their officials and everyone who gave evidence and helped to shape the bill.
I very much welcome the bill for two reasons. First, despite Bill Aitken's deluded attempts to rewrite history, it delivers Labour's commitment to end automatic unconditional early release, which, as we have been reminded several times today, was introduced by the Tories. Secondly—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
Where has the member been for the past 10 years? After all, the Labour Party has had that long to change the current flawed system.
The difference is that we are changing the system now. The record will show that the Tories did not do so and that, in fact, they wasted opportunities to make changes that would have benefited communities.
This bill is also important because it completes a very robust package of measures to tackle knife crime.
I want to start with sentencing, because considerable public concern has been expressed not only about the issue of early release but about the appropriateness of the sentences that are being given. The bill lays the foundations for the clear and transparent system of sentencing that we all want.
As the First Minister said earlier, with the introduction of custody and community sentences, when a judge says to an offender, "You will spend X years in jail," that is exactly what will happen. The offender will spend the whole of the custody part of the sentence in jail, with no prospect of early release. It is also worth remembering that the custody part can be increased to 75 per cent of the overall sentence.
The Executive has struck the right balance between custody and rehabilitation, because it is not enough simply to lock people up in the knowledge that, when they are released, they are likely to find themselves in a revolving-door scenario of reoffending and then being sent back to prison.
We have to ensure that the community part of the sentence works and that there are better opportunities to reintegrate people in their communities. When there is a seamless continuation of rehabilitation programmes—when programmes start in prison and then continue in the community—we know that the programmes can be successful in addressing offending behaviour and reducing the risk of reoffending.
Unlike the previous system, the community sentence will have conditions that make clear what is expected of the prisoner. For example, there might be a requirement to attend drug or alcohol counselling, a restriction on travel or movement, supervision by the police, or even tagging. I am pleased that the minister has made clear that serious breaches will be dealt with swiftly, with offenders being recalled to custody.
I want to turn quickly to part 3 of the bill, which covers the restrictions on the sale of weapons. I have had hundreds of postcards from constituents who—because of their real experiences in the constituency—asked that the Executive restrict the sale of knives and swords. That is exactly what this bill will do, so I am glad that my constituents' voices have been heard. The bill adds to the Executive's earlier actions to double the length of sentences for possession of a knife, to increase the powers available to the police and to increase the minimum age for the purchase of a knife. Today we are going further, introducing the licensing scheme for the sale of non-domestic knives and banning the sale of swords. The bill completes the work that was started with the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006.
Each year, people are injured—and some people die—at the hands of knife-wielding young men. In many cases, the attacks are not premeditated but spring from the mistaken belief that people who carry knives are somehow protecting themselves. The statistics tell us that that is an incredibly foolish view. If, through the measures in the bill and a process of education, we can help to end the needless bloodshed that is cutting short young lives, the bill will have made a considerable difference. My community welcomes the proposals and I urge members to support the bill.
This morning, Johann Lamont said that there had been attacks on the bill from both sides—from some who appear to want nobody to be sent to prison and from others whose attitude is more, "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." Any rational person would take a position somewhere between those two extremes.
The bill takes as its starting point rational principles: that prison is only one way to manage offenders, and not necessarily the best way; that people who are released from prison should be required to co-operate with some form of community supervision and should expect to receive some form of support in the community to help them to avoid reoffending; that the regime should be clear and comprehensible; and that we should focus on high-risk offenders in the interests of protecting the public. Sadly, however, I cannot agree that the bill as it stands will achieve those aims or put those principles into practice.
Prison can and must be used to protect the public from some dangerous offenders, but it can do so only if the time spent inside is used properly, by challenging behaviour, supporting recovery from addiction, teaching basic skills and encouraging better attitudes. If we do those things, we will release people who are less likely to reoffend.
We do not, however, do those things. We pack ever more offenders, including those who are not a threat to the public, into ever more overstretched and overburdened prisons, thus reducing the scope for meaningful work with offenders during their time in custody. We often release them even more damaged than when they went in. As a result, reoffending rates continue to be unacceptable. If we do not reduce prisoners' chances of reoffending, we protect nobody.
Bill Aitken gave a particular example, but I do not believe that sending even a petty repeat shoplifter to prison protects the shopkeeper unless the time the offender spends in prison reduces the likelihood of their reoffending when they come out. If that does not happen, a short prison sentence is worth little in the way of deterrence, little in the way of rehabilitation and little in the way of public protection. If a sentence is not worth those things, what is it for?
It is possible to express differences of opinion on this subject without accusing one another either of not caring about victims or of being on the side of criminals. In this morning's session, and again during First Minister's question time, there was a little too much of that uncomfortable "tough on crime" rhetoric, which helps nobody. Whoever feels that they are winning the "tough on crime" trophy always ends up accusing those who disagree of being on the side of the criminals. We can do a little better than that.
In reality, the interests of victims and criminals are not opposites. By giving offenders the best chance of changing their lives and offering them the greatest support to overcome addiction and other problems, we can prevent the creation of more victims in the future.
Despite the good principles behind much of the bill and despite my support for some of its aspects, such as those relating to the sale of weapons, I find myself struggling to justify support for it. The bill could have damaging consequences not only for the overstretched prison system but for criminal justice social work services. The Executive tells us not to worry, as it can build more prisons. That is exactly the kind of predict-and-provide mentality that still holds sway in its transport policy—"Too much congestion? We'll build more roads." I fear that custodial sentences will eventually result in filling up whatever space we make available and that we will be back in this chamber at some point asking why rehabilitation is not having the desired effect.
If we had passed amendment 44, in the name of Colin Fox, I would have found the bill more palatable. As it is, I am unable to support it. Although I do not agree with the statement of one expert that this is the worst bill that has come before us—that goes too far; I am sure that I could find even worse Executive bills—I find myself struggling to justify it as it stands.
The minister is right to say that the bill represents a fundamental—and good—change in the way in which we do things.
There was no lack of clarity before. When a sentence was passed, most people knew that the offender would not serve all of it. Indeed, in some ways, the new system has less clarity. In the past, a prisoner had a date on their door and knew what was happening, whereas that will not be the case from now on. However, the bill will establish a much better way of doing things.
The previous arrangement, whereby people served half or two thirds of their sentence before simply walking out the door, did not make sense. Bill Aitken made the valid point—the only one that he made—that that arrangement made sense only in the day when governors could take away remission. I am not sure how often they did that in practice, but at least if people misbehaved remission could be removed. However, once that power passed into history, there was no point in having that system.
My friends on the Tory benches have the sheer effrontery to condemn what we are doing and say simply, "There should be no early release. Whatever the sentence is, people should simply serve it all." One has to ask what that would mean in practice. At the moment, a judge can give someone three or four years or whatever. Do the Tories believe that, if the person had to serve all of their sentence, judges would keep giving the same length of sentence? The resource implications of that are unthinkable. It is much more likely that judges—who are not stupid—would simply halve the sentence. When a judge sentences someone to three years under the present system, they are saying that that person should be in custody for 18 months. If the offender had to serve all of their sentence, the judge would simply give them an 18-month sentence. The result would be the same: people at the end of their custody period would simply walk out the door and there would be no control, no supervision, no licence—no nothing.
However, we are bringing in a big change. It is important that people have their sentence managed throughout and that, once they are in the community, there is monitoring of how they behave. The big change, which the Tories simply have not tackled, is that we are abandoning the idea that we should lock people up, leave them alone and, at the end of their sentences, let them walk out the door to do whatever they want.
Phil Gallie asks whether we can guarantee that people will behave during that period, but no one can guarantee that someone will not reoffend once they are released from prison. However, the bill represents an attempt to make a difference.
To some degree, however, I understand what Patrick Harvie is saying, although I think that he is in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. He is saying that he cannot support a bill that has a lot of good in it simply because he has some concerns about it. I think that he is being a little overpessimistic, but I also have some concerns about the bill. There are huge resource implications in terms of social work involvement and justice involvement, which have to be worked out.
I agree with Kenny MacAskill that, if we are to produce such measures, we must consider the whole package and think about how we can drop people off the bottom, because we still send to jail people who should not be in custody at all. We should consider the argument that short sentences are not good—there is a real debate to be had on that. I am with Kenny MacAskill in saying that we must consider resources and ensure that the bill does not simply increase our prison population. However, Patrick Harvie is a little overpessimistic, because the bill is worth a try. To use a justice expression, the jury is out as to how the bill will work in practice, but it is innovative and bright and will be a fundamental change for the better, so it is worthy of support from the Parliament.
At First Minister's question time today, the First Minister said that the bill will end the Tories' provisions on the automatic early release of prisoners. Of course, it will do no such thing, because it will replace those provisions with Labour's provisions on the automatic early release of prisoners. Offenders will continue to be released early, before they have served the full period that the sentencers hand down.
The bill promises to address the public's confusion and irritation about the present situation, in which six months means three months, a year equals six months and people commit crimes while they are out on licence. However, the truth is that that situation will continue under the bill: the first 50 per cent of people's sentences will be served in custody and, unfortunately, it is likely that prisoners will commit crimes while out on licence, because the supervision will be based on no more than a promise of good behaviour. The bill will fail to deliver on the promises. Who says so? For one, the Justice 2 Committee, which stated in its stage 1 report that it
"supports the … objectives of the Bill"—
members can read those for themselves—but
"calls into question whether the measures in the Bill, as currently constituted, can achieve the stated objectives."
The members of the Justice 2 Committee are not the only ones who have criticisms and believe that the bill will fail. The Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice
"regrets very much that the Scottish Executive is choosing to follow a path that, far from achieving the above goals and intentions, would incur huge costs and have serious negative … consequences for the criminal justice system and for the safety of Scottish communities."
Time does not permit me to read out the evidence from Sacro, the community justice authorities, Professor Andrew Coyle and the Sheriffs Association, all of whom criticised the bill and suggested that it will not achieve the transparency that is sought.
It is a pity that the bill is flawed, because it has some sensible aspects, such as the restriction on knife ownership and the emphasis on community sentences. As the minister knows full well, I have commended on the record the Scottish Executive and the justice system in Scotland for the fact that, for the first time, we now dispose of most cases through non-custodial options. I welcome that. However, we are sending more people to jail for longer, which is especially curious when, by all accounts, we have a falling crime rate. I want more sentences to be served in the community, with properly supported and supervised offenders and appropriate risk management in tandem with thorough protection for the wider community. However, the bill will not provide that.
Like other members, I am staggered by the complacency of the Executive, which is prepared to see prisoner numbers—which are already at record levels—continue to rise, especially given the appalling reports of overcrowding that we receive every year. The Executive has a dead-end strategy. The minister says that nothing in the bill will require judges to change their sentencing practice, yet virtually every witness from whom the Justice 2 Committee heard suggested that judges will change their practice. The Scottish Prison Service expects the daily prisoner population to rise by 1,100. That is the reality with which we are grappling.
The bill gives the public unrealistic expectations and will result in the inappropriate use of scarce resources. In reality, much of the evidence that the committee received was that the bill will put us in danger of reducing public confidence by putting resources in all the wrong places, which will not serve the best interests of the victims of crime. The bill represents exceptionally poor value for money. About £200 million will be spent on two new prisons for 1,100 extra prisoners, more prison staff will be required and 10 per cent more criminal justice social workers will be needed—I could go on and on. The bill will result in more people going to jail for longer—precisely the opposite of the advice on what works that the committee was given repeatedly in evidence.
Any bill that could add 20 per cent to our dangerously high prison population is wrong-headed. The bill will put badly needed resources for tackling crime in the wrong place. I voiced my criticisms in the committee at stage 1 and stage 2 and I cannot support the bill at decision time.
We come to closing speeches. We are behind the clock, so I am obliged to Jeremy Purvis for waiving his second speaking slot.
It is with disappointment that I rise today. I had great hopes for the bill. Like Bill Aitken and others, including Colin Fox and Patrick Harvie, I feel that there are a number of good elements in the bill that I would have liked to go along with. The knives element has been referred to. I cast my mind back to my Carrying of Knives etc (Scotland) Act 1993, which was a first step towards protecting the public from knives. The bill builds on that, which I welcome.
A number of issues are worth picking up on. During the discussion of Bill Aitken's amendments to section 6 this morning, the minister tried to say that protection of the public is included in the custodial part of sentencing. However, section 6 includes the words
"ignoring any period of confinement which may be necessary for the protection of the public".
Why did the minister argue against amendment 20, which sought to remove those words?
The member obviously did not listen to my earlier explanation. When sentencing, judges take into account whatever they choose to take into account, including public protection. The custodial part is then established as part of sentence management. Any extension to that is determined on the basis of identified risk and is established during the period of the custodial sentence. It is simply not true to say that in establishing the sentence—the punishment for a crime—public protection cannot be taken into account.
If it is simply not true, minister, why on earth leave those words in the bill? They could have been removed. Given what the minister has said, it would not have done any harm. It is a piece of nonsense.
On automatic early release, Colin Fox commented that instead of Tory early release—which we were criticised for introducing—we have Labour's early release. Kenny MacAskill said that if we legislate in haste, we will repent at leisure. The Tories legislated in 1995, and by 1997 we had repented. We built the repeal of automatic early release into the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, but the Labour Government did not implement that element. We have had eight years of a Labour and Liberal Administration, and the Executive has failed to address that problem. When Jack McConnell stands up in the chamber, he is always pointing to the Tories and saying, "It was your fault." It was the Labour and Liberal Administration that turned its back on the problem and failed to address it.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
Patrick Harvie's points on education and addressing addiction were worth while. There is a need for longer terms in prison to allow the authorities to address those issues. To some degree, our prisons should turn into educational establishments. If we can do that, offenders will be better citizens when they are released. However, prison also exists to protect society. I disagree with what Patrick Harvie and Jeremy Purvis said about short sentences. In some cases, short sentences alleviate the effect on those in the community who are worst affected by criminal activity.
Sadly, I cannot support the bill. I welcome the fact that the Executive has gone along the right lines in part. After the May elections, when we have a stronger Tory group, I advise the Executive to listen to what the group says. The Labour group could depend upon us to give it backing for real change.
I say to Phil Gallie that, if this is legislating in haste, I would hate to see us taking our time. After 10 years, it is probably time that we got round to dealing with the issues.
Let me make a simple but important semantic point. It is a bit unhelpful to use language that talks about offenders serving at least 50 per cent of their sentence in prison. That could suggest that we are continuing early release even though, in mechanical terms, we are doing something quite different. Under the bill, offenders will be given a custodial sentence and a period of supervision afterwards. For that reason, despite our reservations about some of the details, we will support the bill at decision time. I hope that the language that sheriffs use when they impose a sentence on those who have been convicted is, "You shall go to jail for eight years"—or 10 years or four years or whatever—"and you will be subject to a period of supervision of a similar duration thereafter." There will then be no excuse for newspapers to report in terms other than that an offender was given a particular sentence that carries certainty as to when he will be released. There will be no excuse for victims who hear the sheriff's sentence to misunderstand the effect of what is said. Those language issues perhaps still need to be addressed. I hope that sheriffs will listen to today's debate and take tent.
A previous speaker said that the bill will not empty our prisons. On the face of it, that is true, which is a matter of concern. There is not, I think, a huge divide between the Executive and the SNP on the objectives for our prisons, but we still lack certainty about whether the Executive will engage in effective action to ensure that the increase in one part of the prison population that will result from the increase in the amount of time that people spend in prison is balanced by a reduction in the number of offenders for whom—to use the unique Tory phrase that I agree with—it might be said that prison is a place where the bad are sent to be made worse. That phrase certainly applies to too many short-term prisoners. Of course, it is difficult to re-engage prisoners with society by locking them up away from society, therefore any measure that requires that part of the court-imposed sentence be served in society so that offenders can re-engage and reconnect with society is helpful.
One of the archetypal offenders to which reference has been made is the shoplifter. I say to Bill Aitken that banging up shoplifters for longer periods of time simply will not work. What kind of person is the typical shoplifter? By and large, she is a female heroin addict. For the female heroin addict, the fundamental problem with which she is afflicted ain't gonna be dealt with in an effective way in prison.
What is the statistical basis for the member's assertion?
The statistical basis is that the recovery rate with heroin addiction treatment is 10 per cent worse in prison than in the community.
One minute.
The member has not answered my question.
I am in my last minute. Jackie Baillie asked a question and I answered it.
We need to ask whether the bill will address some fundamental questions. Will it make the system work better? Yes, to an extent. Will it help to rebuild public confidence in the criminal justice system? Yes, to a certain extent.
As ever, I listened with interest to Gordon Jackson, because he brings real-life experience to these matters. However, he missed an important point when he claimed that everyone knows that when a sheriff sends someone to jail for four years, they will be out in two. It might be true that professionals know that, but it is certainly not true for the public. Gordon Jackson needs to consider that.
Prison represents one key thing, which is failure: failure for the prisoner, failure for the victim who has suffered at the hands of the prisoner and failure for the system that we hold responsible. Success is when we reduce the number of people going to prison. We will never reduce it to nil, but I hope that we have started to build a new system that will send fewer people to prison and deliver increased public safety.
I thank the members of and clerks to the Justice 2 Committee for all the work that they have done to take the bill through stages 1 and 2; the Finance Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee; and the bill team and officials and Cathy Jamieson, the Minister for Justice, for their support and tolerance of me, given that I came to the bill at a much later stage than everyone else.
The First Minister made a commitment to end automatic unconditional early release and provide more clarity in sentencing. The bill will deliver exactly that.
Throughout the parliamentary process, we have listened and responded where appropriate by amending the bill. One of the key sections, which deals with the custody part of sentences, has benefited greatly from that scrutiny and I believe that the provisions are now much clearer as a result, given that they build on the core principle of transparency, which was identified at the beginning.
We listened to what people said about the different tests for recall to custody and re-release. It was argued that a revolving-door situation would be created. We amended the provisions at stage 2 to ensure that the same test—that of public interest—would be used for both levels of consideration.
The bill now makes it clear what basic conditions will be put on the community licence. Victims and communities have the right to expect that wrongdoers will be dealt with appropriately. These measures are about what happens when the court decides that prison is the right sanction.
We realise—and the financial memorandum shows—that there will be demands and new resources. It is not just about more money; we need to ensure that we are making the most effective and efficient use of the existing resources and that, from the start of the process through to the end—from the courts to the community—the process is measured and proportionate.
Today, it has been something of a challenge to address those real concerns while having to deal with some of the more grotesque elements of Tory misrepresentation of the bill. While we have been making and developing policy, the Tories have been content to make mischief. They say that it has taken eight years to get to the stage of ending automatic unconditional early release, but they would prefer to vote against the bill—which addresses that matter—and leave the situation as it is. They are content to put the scribblings from the back of an envelope on to the marshalled list, as represented by the poor-quality, inconsistent and illogical amendments from Bill Aitken, rather than do the hard work to establish a policy that can gather support. I might be wrong, but, as far as I am aware, there was no member's bill from the Tories that identified another approach to early release at any stage in the past eight years.
We have taken on the challenge of developing policy that considers the evident tensions and conflicts around the agenda of tackling offending, keeping communities safe and addressing the issues that create offenders in the first place.
We acknowledge the point that Kenny MacAskill made about victims. I contend that not just the bill but a range of approaches that the Executive has taken have given real priority to, and understood the needs of, victims precisely because we have spoken to them. The system is giving victims unprecedented support—the court system itself has been forced to change its habits.
We acknowledge that there is an issue with short sentences, but there is an also an issue with previous convictions. We often hear about the shoplifter who refuses to change, but some people are involved in what might seem like small individual offences; such offences can have a huge impact on communities and should not be dismissed as being not worthy of challenge.
I was stunned at the suggestion this morning that I was soft on crime. Kenny MacAskill also suggested that I was laid back and complacent. Those two characteristics have never been ascribed to me before and I assure him that they do not represent my position on the bill—far from it. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said that it is important to take a measured approach to the implementation of the bill, to work closely with the professionals who have to deliver it and to ensure that there is pace around that, so that confidence can be built.
Kenny MacAskill, quite rightly, highlighted the importance of making progress on this matter. That is rather ironic, given that he is a member of a party that would spend huge amounts of time and resources on dealing with the constitutional separation of our country, rather than on focusing resources where there is need.
We were also told that the bill is about sentencing. There has been a shift towards more community disposals rather than custodial sentences, and people are beginning to have confidence in that, but the bill is about what happens when the judgment has been made that there should be a custodial sentence.
As Kenny MacAskill said, there is an issue about having to spend more money while there are not more offenders, but the current system masks the level of offending. It does not address offending behaviour or deal properly with those who leave prison and continue to offend. Under the bill, if someone is serving the supervision part in the community and there is a breach of licence, action will be taken against them. We will not reduce the numbers in prison simply by saying to people, "You're not getting to go to prison." We will reduce the numbers when we give people the opportunity to confront their offending behaviour and opportunities to participate in work and in the life of their community so that they realise that offending behaviour is inappropriate.
It is the role of the justice system to support people in addressing their underlying problems. Work to support people to do that is not separate from the justice system. We would do nobody any favours by artificially reducing the level of offending or by not being prepared to confront people who have those problems.
We recognise that there is an issue about financial resources and we have made commitments in relation to that.
I have to say to Patrick Harvie that life is tough and that we have to make hard choices. Finding it hard to justify something is not good enough for a legislature. Members have to decide to support the legislation, to oppose it, or to propose alternatives. As far as I am aware, the Green party has not engaged in the process at all.
Colin Fox said that the increase in the number of prisoners will come from changes in sentencing practice, but that is not the case. The important point is that we are willing to confront the issue of recall for those who breach their licence conditions. That is where the increase will come from. It may be that being mischievous keeps Colin Fox going. There are people who have concerns about the bill, but there is not blanket opposition to it, as he suggested. People realise that the bill represents a step forward from the existing approach.
As I have said before, there are issues about short sentences, which merit further consideration.
I will finish by commenting briefly on weapons.
Minister, you really need to sum up.
Jackie Baillie made the point that communities want the provisions on weapons and recognise that they are part of a package. The important measures in the bill will address behaviour that too often ends up with young people losing their lives.
I thank everyone in the Parliament who played their part as the bill progressed. I trust that those members who want our communities to be safer, who want us to address offending behaviour, who want clarity and who want to deal with the weapons issue will join me in supporting the bill at decision time.