Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Official Report 946KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Shipyards (BAE Systems)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will make representations to BAE Systems on behalf of the Scottish shipyard sector. (S4T-00144)

BAE Systems is a hugely important employer in Scotland and we want to ensure that the strongest possible case for the retention of the Scottish yards is made and acted upon. We have to remember that Scotland’s yards are in a strong position—a point that union officials are rightly stressing—based on their excellent industrial and engineering capability. The Scottish Government will work with BAE, the United Kingdom Government and Opposition parties in Scotland, with the clear aim of ensuring that any future plans protect Scotland’s shipbuilding yards and the people with highly skilled jobs who depend upon them.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and for the efforts that the Scottish Government and others are making to retain those yards and the thousands of jobs that are associated with them. Scotland’s defence industry and its engineering capability are second to none and the Clyde shipyards are therefore in a strong position going into the review.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the greatest threat to the shipyards may indeed be needless political point scoring and that all politicians, no matter their political party, should put aside their differences and show a united front in the battle to save threatened shipyard jobs on the Clyde?

I welcome Mr Doris’s comments. Over recent years, despite the political differences of opinion that exist, there has been an ability within Scotland for us to cooperate on many of the issues around the changes to defence infrastructure in this country, particularly those around the most recent strategic defence review. The review acknowledged that there was a significant impact on Scotland, and we were able to present a clearly marshalled and unified position across the political spectrum. The Scottish Government will be a willing participant in work with other parties to try to create such unity of purpose to protect the employment opportunities and circumstances of the employees of BAE Systems in Scotland.

Shipbuilding is very much in the DNA of communities in west central Scotland and I have met many people who live in areas such as Inverclyde but work in the yards up in Glasgow. Therefore, any closures will have a negative effect on the whole west central Scotland area. With that in mind, will the cabinet secretary undertake an economic assessment of the implications of the potential closure of one of the yards and the subsequent job losses that that would create?

The Government engages in a clear measure of dialogue with BAE Systems in understanding the work of the yards and the economic implications of the activity that they support. On a practical level, our principal channel for that dialogue is Scottish Enterprise, and I will consider the suggestion that Mr McMillan has made in relation to the economic impact of the yards. BAE Systems is one of the account managed companies in Scotland and is able to call on a very focused amount of input from the Scottish Government and from Scottish Enterprise. I assure him that, through the channel of dialogue that we have with Scottish Enterprise, we will work to identify ways in which we can strengthen and support that to maximise the security of the opportunities that exist within the BAE Systems operations on the Clyde.

---

Prison Sentences (Early Release)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what changes it will make in relation to people who have been released from prison early and then reoffend before the end of their original sentence. (S4T-00146)

The Scottish Government intends to legislate through the criminal justice bill that will be introduced to Parliament next year to simplify the law relating to the powers of the court to impose consecutive sentences on offenders who are still serving sentences for previous offences. Under the current law, the courts have a power to impose an order under section 16 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which provides the court with the discretionary power to return an offender to custody as a punitive measure. In addition, the court has discretion to decide whether the sentence for the new offence should run consecutively to any section 16 order that has been imposed. That means that the court is able to impose a section 16 order and a sentence for the new offence that run consecutively.

However, although those powers are already available to the court, we have looked at how the law in this area operates and have concluded that it is not as clear as it could be. Our proposed changes will ensure that the courts are clear that they can impose a punishment so that the offender completes their previous sentence before the sentence for the new crime starts. Parliament will be given the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the provisions when the bill is introduced.

Is the cabinet secretary’s intention simply to amend the 1993 act, which he mentioned in his reply, or does he believe that other statute requires to be amended? Can he tell us why he believes that the existing statute does not provide guidance that is clear enough for the judiciary? Can he offer examples and point to cases in which it is clear that the existing provision has not been properly understood or has not been acted upon according to the intention of Parliament? Can he tell us whether he was asked to produce reform in this area by the Lord President or others who are involved in our criminal justice system and what the genesis of the proposal might be?

The law is clear, and we have stated what the 1993 act prescribes. It is a rather complex area of law that has caused difficulties for some on the bench. We believe that the law would be enhanced by being simpler and more understandable not simply to those with legal qualifications, but to laypeople who have commented. We believe that the current law is adequate but is unclear and would benefit from being clearer.

We have discussed these matters with others in the legal family, if I can put it that way. The issue has also been driven by people who have been the victims of crime who have discussed it. We believe that, although some aspects of law are, by their very nature, complex and require those with specialism to understand them, it is in the best interests of our society that the law should be as clear as possible and, preferably, understandable to all. The bill will clarify the law to make it more understandable and clearer not simply for the judiciary, who are required to implement and act on it, but for the man or woman in the street, who sometimes has to look to the law for comfort and solace.

I share the cabinet secretary’s hope that we will see clarity and transparency. What is his response to the victims of crime who say that the existence of concurrent sentences is an obstacle to justice in their circumstances? Given its nature, is not the matter the sort of thing that the Scottish sentencing council might be able to address? If he agrees with that, when does he intend to implement the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, which allows such a council to be established?

The member raises two matters. Concurrent sentences have formed part of the law of Scotland for many a year—centuries, I presume. I do not know whether Mr Macdonald is suggesting that concurrent sentences should not be allowed in any circumstance, but it appears to us that such matters are best dealt with by the judiciary. In our society, it is the judiciary who impose the appropriate sentence, having heard the facts or, indeed, the case. We will retain that, but where complexities exist to do with concurrent and consecutive sentences, and where the 1993 act appears to be rather complex and difficult to read, our law will be enhanced by making the position clearer.

We remain committed to setting up the Scottish sentencing council, on which the Parliament has legislated. I spoke to the Lord President just last week about on-going work on the council’s establishment. Options and costs for the council are under consideration and a decision will be made in due course, in dialogue—of course—with the judiciary, who have a fundamental part to play in the council.

I agree with the cabinet secretary when he says that the law needs to be clear and understandable to all. Would we not get that clarity if we ended automatic early release? If we did so, we would not need to have all the elaborate provisions that the cabinet secretary has just outlined to Mr Macdonald.

How did I know that Mr McLetchie was going to ask that? I never tire of him asking the question or of me responding that unconditional automatic early release was brought in by a Conservative Government many years ago. He will be glad to know that, thankfully, this Government has taken steps to ensure that such release is not unconditional. Equally, we remain committed to following the quite sage advice of the McLeish commission, which indicated that it was of the view that automatic early release should go, but that various triggers and criteria would have to be met, such as giving consideration to the impact on the judiciary, the Scottish Prison Service and—not least—social work departments. Those criteria and conditions have not been met. On that basis, despite the fact that there has been appropriate tinkering to ensure that matters are improved, we must live with what a Conservative Government imposed on us many years ago.

As one of the laypeople the cabinet secretary mentioned, I was very interested in his answers.

What is the average length of custodial sentence for those who are convicted of serious crimes such as handling offensive weapons?

We should put it on record that progress is being made. Statistics have shown that violent crime is at a 30-year low. Yesterday, when I announced the increase in the maximum sentence for possession of an offensive weapon from four years to five years, I indicated that the average sentence for knife crime and handling of weapons was nine months. At 9.30 this morning, we published statistics that show that the average sentence for such crimes is now 10 months.

Despite the progress that has been made, we still face problems with a minority who seem to think that they can carry weapons with impunity. They should realise that we have tough laws, which are getting tougher. Our visible police presence will enforce the law through stop and search. The courts are taking the appropriate action to implement what we, as a Parliament, believe is necessary to target the misuse of weapons that damages many communities.