After section 69

Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 – in the Scottish Parliament at 10:15 am on 25 May 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 10:15, 25 May 2006

Group 11 is on knife crime. Amendment 159, in the name of Charlie Gordon, is grouped with amendment 160.

Photo of Charlie Gordon Charlie Gordon Labour

Knife crime is a major public health hazard in our country. The extent of the crime of possession of knives or similar offensive weapons is reflected in a complex series of tables contained in answers to parliamentary questions in recent years, but what they add up to is a major culture of young men in Scotland carrying blades. It is a complex cultural phenomenon, requiring a multi-agency response, as exemplified by Strathclyde police's violence reduction unit. One cannot have led Glasgow City council for six years, as I did, without being painfully confronted by the evidence of the blade culture that is prevalent in my beloved home town.

Glasgow has had similar challenges in the past. In the 1950s, it took exemplary sentences issued by Lord Carmont to stop a razor-slashing culture that was growing in the city. In the 1960s, when I was a teenager in Glasgow, I remember the sporadic terror wreaked in the city centre's dance halls by gangs intent on recreational violence. Today's challenge is a much larger one. Every weekend, hundreds of young Scottish men dress to go out and carry a blade as if it were a fashion item. We have an average of one knife homicide a week: the tragic apex of hundreds of stabbings a year and thousands of cases of carrying blades. Two years ago, in Glasgow, I suggested that we might end up with so-called mandatory custodial sentences for possessing blades unless we could reverse that blade culture by other means. Last autumn, in the Cathcart by-election, I called for stiffer sentences for knife crime, more police powers to arrest suspected blade carriers and for a raised age limit for knife purchasing. I congratulate the Executive on the fact that all three issues are reflected in the bill. I am also delighted by the knife amnesty and by the deployment of 1,000 new metal detectors, purchased by the Executive for the police.

Amendment 159 reflects firearms legislation, in that it would provide for custodial sentences for possession of a blade unless there were exceptional circumstances. I note that the Justice 2 Committee does not support so-called mandatory sentences, although I note also that the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents advocated such sentences in its evidence. Subsequent to my lodging amendment 159, the Lord Advocate has issued new guidelines to courts and fiscals on knife crime. It did my heart good to read them.

Anyone caught with a knife will be arrested and held in custody. Bail will be opposed where there are previous knife or violence-related convictions. Cases will be referred to higher courts if there are similar previous convictions, which means that tougher sentences are likely. Prosecutors will seek curfew and exclusion-zone type conditions to be attached to sentences.

The Edinburgh Evening News—not a newspaper that I normally read, I confess—headlined the Lord Advocate's new guidelines:

"Jail term for anyone caught carrying knife in new blitz".

I would like to make that headline a reality, if we believe that that is what it will take to reverse this appalling blade culture. However, I do not want to cut across the unity—perhaps the near unanimity—in this chamber on the measures that are proposed in the bill, along with the measures taken by the Lord Advocate and the Justice Department to assist the operational deployment of the police in dealing with knife crime. However, the issue of mandatory sentences is not necessarily going to go away, and I will be interested to hear the minister's response.

I move amendment 159.

Photo of Colin Fox Colin Fox SSP

As Charlie Gordon and others have said in this chamber on many occasions, the horrific and shameful record of knife crime and the possession and use of knives in Scotland today is a serious and on-going debate. I commend all the efforts of those throughout Scotland and in the chamber to engage with the issues that confront us in dealing with this scar—no pun intended—on our society. I am happy to put on the record my support for the amnesty that was launched this week throughout Britain. I believe that it has a role to play. It encourages people to bin the knife and save a life—probably their own.

Of course, we all have to be sombre and serious and recognise that our record is poor and that the progress that we are making is nowhere near good enough in dealing with the problems of young men who go out carrying. Despite the best intentions and efforts of many of the professionals—I pay tribute to them—in recent months and years in trying their best to deal with the problem, we are not making sufficient progress.

I believe that those members who argue for longer sentences for the possession and use of a blade are well intentioned, but I do not share their faith in that approach. We have seen it fail again and again. Sentencing policy will not make the difference and bring about the changes that those members seek. I understand and share their frustrations, but I do not believe that the necessary change in young men's beliefs and attitudes will be achieved via that route.

We all know that most of the young men who carry knives are inured to the threat of this or that sentence. They know that it is illegal to carry a knife and still they do it. Amendment 160 seeks to turn our attention in another direction that will have better prospects of success in the long run. It involves defeating the problem at its roots rather than dealing with the outcomes.

As Charlie Gordon and others have said, when we look at the facts and figures, we begin to appreciate the signals that are being sent. Why is the problem so much more embedded in Glasgow and the west of Scotland? Why is it that the young men who go out determined to get steaming drunk on Lothian Road in Edinburgh, or in so many other parts of Scotland on a Friday and Saturday night, and who end up in a fight at the taxi rank do not resort to pulling blades on one another to anywhere near the same degree as is done in Glasgow?

We know—the police would back this up—that we are dealing with a problem that is about more than just sentencing policy. We are dealing with a societal problem of culture and behaviour. We need to get inside the heads of young laddies who think that it is cool to carry a blade. They think that it is hard. They think that it makes them big. However, it does not. It makes them wee and timid. Their inadequacies are exposed to every last one of us by the fact that they need to hide behind a 5in steel blade because they do not have the life skills and ability that the rest of us have to avoid getting into such senseless, stupid and dangerous positions in the first place.

As the minister knows, I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I accept that I presented the amendment at stage 2 in opposition to the Executive's proposals to double the length of sentences for possession and use of a knife. I still have no faith in sentencing, but I present amendment 160 today not in opposition to sentencing policy—despite my qualifications about it—but as a way of allowing the courts another option that gets inside the head of teenage laddies. We all know that such teenagers will not get any better if they are locked up in Barlinnie, where they tell stories and pass time with other knifers. Amendment 160 offers the court the opportunity, where appropriate, to use probation to send the offender for counselling to persuade him to break the cycle and drop the knife. I commend amendment 160 in my name.

Photo of Jeremy Purvis Jeremy Purvis Liberal Democrat

During stage 1, the Justice 2 Committee heard depressing evidence about the scale and consequences of violence with knives in Glasgow. Charlie Gordon has repeated that evidence eloquently and members have heard the dreadful statistics. In 2005, there were 72 murders with a knife in Scotland and, in 2003, there were 193 attempted murders with a knife in Strathclyde alone. We are already seeing the impact of John Carnochan's violence reduction unit, which is doing an excellent job, but our task as a Parliament is to respond to the issue and to lead to the solutions.

The two options that we are being given are the mandatory prison route and, it would seem, the almost mandatory non-prison route. Amendment 159, in the name of Charlie Gordon, is wrong because it does not allow flexibility for a first-time offender or someone who has simply been stupid in carrying a knife but would not do it again if they were cautioned by the police or given some other type of disposal. However, there will be occasions when custody is absolutely the right approach. For the serial offender and for those who pose a real threat to society by their conduct in carrying a knife, prison is the route. Colin Fox is absolutely right to say that we need to address the underlying issues, but the option in many cases must be a mix of custody, community sentencing and counselling as well as programmes to address the offending behaviour of the individual. Like other Liberal Democrats, I do not support making mandatory sentences for knife offences equal to those that are imposed for firearms offences, but I am persuaded of the need to have sentencing for such offences more aligned with sentencing for firearms offences.

On 8 December, I asked the First Minister whether he would support amendments to the bill at stage 2 to make sentences for possession of a knife tougher and more on a par with those for gun crime and also to address the underlying reasons why too many young men, as Charlie Gordon said, go out on a Friday or Saturday night carrying a dangerous weapon. His reply at that time was encouraging:

"I will be interested to see those amendments. The approach to tackling knife crime, gun crime and violence in Scotland needs to be comprehensive. It needs to cover tougher sentencing and higher-profile policing, particularly on the streets of our city centres at night. It must also ensure that we change the culture, particularly among young people. ... That will need to be backed up by higher-profile policing and by tougher sentences through the courts."—[Official Report, 8 December 2005; c 21600.]

I lodged an amendment at stage 2 that would have introduced a new type of disposal called a custody and behavioural order, which would have allowed courts to be flexible in sentencing by allowing a mix of custody, community and rehabilitative programmes within a window of 18 months for offences that are tried in the summary courts and for a maximum of seven years for sentences in the sheriff court or High Court. I had thought that the custody and behavioural order was entirely consistent with what the First Minister said, but Labour MSPs voted against my amendment.

Despite the figures on gun crime—in 2005, there were 72 murders with a knife in Scotland whereas Executive figures show that the number of murders with firearms during 2004-05 was eight—Jackie Baillie spoke against my amendment at stage 2. She said:

"it might have the ... effect of causing young men to decide to run around with guns instead of knives because the penalty is identical."

Hugh Henry said:

"I worry that we might send out a message that those carrying a gun will be dealt with in the same way as those carrying a knife."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 28 March 2006; c 2149-50.]

He felt that much tougher sentencing for knife crime would mean more gun crime. I simply do not agree.

The forthcoming sentencing bill will, I hope, allow us an opportunity to revisit this very important issue. I hope that, in proposing tougher but better sentences for knife crime, we will get the support of the Scottish National Party, who voted against it, the Conservatives, who voted against it, and Labour, who voted against it. After all, as the Executive's own consultation paper on knife crime said:

"These continuing high levels of knife crime represent an ugly and destructive aspect of our society and are totally unacceptable."

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party 10:30, 25 May 2006

As Charlie Gordon said, mandatory sentencing was considered by the Justice 2 Committee at stage 2. It was not supported.

Mr Purvis is right to talk about the flexibility of the courts in choosing the appropriate sentence on a case-by-case basis. If an individual—mistakenly, of course—puts a knife in their back pocket and goes out with it on a Saturday night, and is then approached by the police and found to have a knife, they should be dealt with appropriately, but not necessarily placed in custody for a substantial period of time. That would be the wrong thing to do; the right thing to do would be to give an appropriate sentence, not a mandatory custodial sentence.

Photo of Jeremy Purvis Jeremy Purvis Liberal Democrat

Can Mr Maxwell foresee a situation in which someone, on their third offence of carrying a knife, could be given an appropriate disposal of four years in prison and three years of community sentence?

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

The sentence for a repeat offender should be different from the sentence for somebody who has been caught for the first time—that is a normal part of sentencing procedure. However, it is not for me to say what the appropriate sentence is; that is up to the sheriff or the judge. They can put people behind bars, or they can give out community sentences, as appropriate. That is their role and responsibility.

As he mentioned, Jeremy Purvis's amendments were rejected at stage 2. It was quite right that they were rejected; seven years was far too long a sentence. This is not about the length of the sentence but about the appropriateness of the sentence. If Mr Purvis's amendments had been successful, people could have gone to prison for longer for carrying a knife in public than for raping somebody. The sentence has to be appropriate. This is not about being tougher and tougher on one particular crime, while ignoring the fact that each crime has to be considered relative to all other crimes. Jeremy Purvis's amendments were quite rightly rejected at stage 2.

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

Not at this stage.

I was glad that the Justice 2 Committee supported my amendments on summary justice; a doubling of the sentence from six months to one year was agreed. I know that the Executive intended to introduce that change in a summary justice bill, but it was appropriate—given that we were doubling the sentence on indictment cases—that we should deal with summary cases at the same time. I was glad that that happened.

The bill contains a number of welcome changes, including the raising of the age and the doubling of the sentences. However, as many have said, there is the question of culture—the fact that it has become the norm for young men to go into town on a Saturday night while carrying a weapon. Once those young men have had one or two drinks, it is all too easy for them to get into trouble and use that weapon. If they were not carrying a knife, there would be a fist fight. That is bad enough, but knives lead to serious assaults and, in many cases, fatalities.

The knife amnesty is to be welcomed, as are the reporting system pilots in Glasgow and Paisley. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment seeking to make it mandatory that hospitals reported to the police. There is evidence of a clear break between what doctors in hospitals know about the level of knife carrying and what the police know. The deputy minister accepted that point and talked about the pilots that were then just starting up. I hope that those pilots are successful and that they are spread across the whole of Scotland. The police will have to have full information if they are to be allowed to do their job properly.

I welcome the work of the violence reduction unit, which is doing a marvellous job, and I am glad that its work will be rolled out further. In addition, I welcome the Executive's conversion to the use of metal detectors. As the Evening Times has reported, I have campaigned for the use of hand-held metal detectors in Glasgow.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

You should be thinking about winding up.

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

It is important that a range of measures are used to tackle knife crime. That is the appropriate way to go, rather than to make custodial sentences mandatory.

Given that the courts already have the flexibility to do what Colin Fox proposes in amendment 160 that they be enabled to do, frankly I do not think that it is necessary to amend the bill in that way. We will not support amendment 159 or amendment 160.

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

Charlie Gordon highlighted the problems of knife crime extremely well—especially those that are faced in Glasgow—and raised a number of important points. Although the purchase of knives from legitimate outlets obviously needs to be tackled, back-street transactions are a bigger problem. The amnesty is to be welcomed. The pilot use of metal detectors that has been going on in some cities for some time has been extremely successful.

There will be a sentencing bill and, in the view of the Conservatives, it is not for us to fiddle with the courts' discretion. It is important that the courts understand what is going on, but I am sure that the Lord Advocate gives guidance to which the courts—and those who work in them—pay attention. It is up to them to decide which of the various available disposals is appropriate.

In Aberdeen, there has been a successful trial involving taxi rank wardens, the deployment of which has almost eliminated any kind of disturbance, never mind a fight that escalates to the point at which someone takes out a knife, which tends to happen on bank holidays and at Christmas, for example. That has been a good trial.

Amendments 159 and 160 are misplaced. We need to consider proper proposals in the sentencing bill. The issue must be examined thoroughly; we should not just take a pot shot at the problem by bolting on a few provisions to the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. We must recognise that knife crime is a major problem that must be dealt with by handing out very stiff sentences that are appropriate to the circumstances in which a knife has been used or possessed—even possession entails a risk. We believe that the courts must keep their discretion, so we will not support amendment 159 or amendment 160.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

I say to Colin Fox that I believe that sentencing policy matters. I accept that knife carrying is a cultural malaise in Scotland, but it would be remiss of us if we did not use all the powers that are available to us to send out a message that it is unacceptable—not just to politicians, but to the people of Scotland—to carry a knife and that someone who does so is likely to face a jail term.

Charlie Gordon was correct to point out the cultural problems that exist. I accept that, under the proposal in amendment 159, custodial sentences would not be mandatory, but would be handed out except in exceptional circumstances. Although I oppose mandatory custodial sentences—I will explain why—I think that it is unnecessary to legislate for the imposition of custodial sentences except in exceptional circumstances because, frankly, that is how we should expect our courts to deal with the matter. As Charlie Gordon said, the Lord Advocate has handled the issue correctly.

Sentencing matters. Charlie Gordon highlighted its effectiveness in dealing with razor gangs. It was also effective in the 1980s when there was a specific problem with armed robberies of bank vehicles. Quite draconian sentences were suddenly brought in, which caused a disparity between the sentences that people would have received in 1979 and those that they received for the same crime in 1980. That was a necessary measure to address a specific problem in society.

I do not believe that mandatory custodial sentences are necessary. Such an approach is wrong. We have the right to expect that custodial sentences should be rule rather than the exception because we have a problem and stiffer sentences are necessary to resolve it. However, that does not mean that custodial sentences should be mandatory. We should expect more from our judiciary and our sheriffs, who we are paying more and training better than ever before. They should reflect what is wanted not simply by MSPs, but by the people of Scotland. However, the older I get, the more I believe that we are well served by the judiciary—although perhaps that is just part of the aging process and a result of the fact that friends with whom I used to practice are now on the bench.

The final reason why I think that custodial sentences should not be mandatory is that the Lord Advocate has emphasised that discretion will be used. Most members will have been contacted by constituents who have been worried about wearing a sgian-dubh at weddings or carrying a Swiss army knife for occupational purposes. The police will use their common sense. However, we all know of instances when common sense goes out of the window. We cannot have here the United States of America's "three strikes and you're out" policy, which means that someone could go to prison for life for stealing a piece of pizza. We cannot have the situation where somebody who should have known better but, for whatever reason—an act of stupidity, perhaps—ends up in court and a mandatory sentence is imposed by the sheriff.

We should have a greater trust in our judiciary. We should accept that the Lord Advocate has expressed the desire to tackle this through the forces and systems that we have available and that there is a general consensus in Scottish society on the issue. Those words and that consensus should mean that the end result of carrying a knife will be that the person will face a custodial sentence as the rule rather than the exception. It is unnecessary to state that in the bill, as Charlie Gordon proposes.

Photo of Bill Aitken Bill Aitken Conservative

I listened carefully to what Charlie Gordon said and I agree entirely with 95 per cent of it. However, the fact is, as David Davidson said, the Conservatives cannot support the principle of mandatory sentencing. Speaking personally, I find it surprising when someone with a previous and analogous conviction is not sentenced to detention. Indeed, in many instances, a custodial sentence is appropriate even for the first offence, although that is a matter for the presiding sheriff.

Of course, in Glasgow, the history of knife crime is one of a move towards more realistic sentencing. At one stage, all such cases were sent to the district court. The consequence of that was that everybody pled not guilty and it often took some nine months for the case to come to trial. What happens now—and I am greatly reassured by a number of the Lord Advocate's recent comments—is that these cases are fast tracked. The person should be kept in custody, appear in the custody court and a trial diet should be set for the earliest possible date.

Young people have short memories. The vast majority of those who offend in this type of case are young. There is therefore no point in proceeding with a prosecution nine months after the alleged incident. It should also be remembered that these trials should be kept fairly simple: in most cases, we should be talking about two Crown witnesses and one defence witness. There is no reason why such cases cannot be fast tracked.

As Kenny MacAskill rightly said, our sheriffs show a greater degree of realism nowadays. Certainly, they are very well paid and their training has improved. However, there is still a mindset among sheriffs, some of whom find it difficult to relate to those who come before them. Sheriffs from the douce terraces of the new town or Pollokshields can find it hard to imagine what Renfield Street or Union Street in Glasgow are like at one o'clock on a Saturday or Sunday morning. It would be educative for some of their lordships and ladyships to go out on those nights—not necessarily clubbing or discoing—and to walk the streets and see what happens. That might concentrate minds quite wonderfully. As Charlie Gordon says, there is a very serious problem out there.

Even if the legislation that the Executive has in the pipeline goes through—we will certainly support much of it—the impact of any sentencing will be mitigated considerably by the facts of completely unearned early release and the one third discount in respect of pleas. By my arithmetic, a sentence of 12 months is cut immediately to 8 months in respect of the plea and is then subject to 50 per cent remission, which takes it down to 4 months. It may well be that, because the Minister for Justice's view is that part of a sentence should be served in the community, the sentence will be reduced to two months. That is hardly a deterrent.

However, I am greatly encouraged by what the Lord Advocate has said recently. We should wait and see what the effect of that will be. Charlie Gordon's amendment 159, well intentioned as it undoubtedly is, should not obtain the support of the Parliament today.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

I heard earlier in the debate—it was said sotto voce—a scary suggestion of how to deal with these offenders. It appears that Karen Gillon is volunteering to gie them a cuddle.

Photo of Karen Gillon Karen Gillon Labour 10:45, 25 May 2006

I was suggesting that that was in line with Mr Fox's solution.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

I think that Ms Gillon's solution might be extremely appropriate.

Times change—Charlie Gordon referred to the culture of the razor in Glasgow in the 1950s. I used to go out every Friday night with a 9in blade, but I was a boy scout and that was the night when I went to the boy scouts with my dagger on my belt for gutting a rabbit or cutting a piece of wood from a tree as a walking stick. However, we must abjure such behaviour in today's culture.

Many people still legitimately carry blades of one sort or another. People who work in a factory gutting fish have the sharpest blades—they wear chain-mail gloves to ensure that they do not cut off more than a couple of fingers in a shift. Fish workers personally own their blades and might pop into the pub on the way home while carrying a blade. A mandatory sentence might inadvertently catch such people.

Photo of Phil Gallie Phil Gallie Conservative

Does Stewart Stevenson not realise that a safeguard exists for people who can show that carrying such blades is permissible? It is important to retain that.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

Phil Gallie is absolutely correct; I accept his point, which I was going to make. That applies equally to agricultural workers who carry a heuk or a scythe home and to butchers who carry their knives. When fishermen come off a boat, the first port of call is often the pub on the way home. Inadvertently, people may compound offences.

I am saying simply that we have a complex set of interlocking things that happen in society. For example, the problem with guns is not legally held guns but illegally held guns. That shows the limitations of legislation if we do not tackle the underlying cultural issues that cause young men—by and large, it is young men who are involved—to carry knives inappropriately. Other members have effectively made the point that if we do not tackle the culture, legislation will be of limited value.

I support what is in the bill, which moves the situation on. However well intentioned Charlie Gordon is and however well informed he is by experience in Glasgow, amendment 159 would add nothing to help the peace. As for what Colin Fox proposes, we can do it already.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I have no doubt that the amendment in the name of Charlie Gordon has provoked a stimulating and thoughtful debate. If the Parliament does not support his contention, I hope that the debate will continue, because the problem of knife carrying is endemic in Scotland.

Most members have considered the seriousness of the issue in the speeches, but there is aye one, Presiding Officer. I refer to the astonishing and illiberal speech by Jeremy Purvis, which was big on rhetoric and small on reality. He is so convinced of his approach that he evidently must have brought amendments back to the chamber, but where are they? I do not see them. No evidence on Jeremy Purvis's proposal was given at stage 1. To be frank, several committee members think that his proposal was dreamed up on the back of an envelope. Stewart Maxwell is right: Jeremy Purvis's proposed amendments would mean that we considered rape to be a lesser crime. The issue is far too serious to play politics with.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I will not give way, because Mr Purvis would not take an intervention from me. There are courtesies in the chamber.

Perhaps the Liberals' Jeremy Purvis should join the real world and consider the real experience of the communities that some of us represent.

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

The debate has been useful. It has highlighted our concern about a significant problem in many parts of Scotland and more particularly in the west of Scotland. It is clear from the measures that are proposed in the bill and from the comments that the Lord Advocate made this week that we take knife crime seriously.

It would be remiss of us—indeed, we would be failing in our duties—if we did not respond to the type of situation that Charlie Gordon has described. Amendment 159 has enabled all parties to put on the record their detestation of knife crime and their determination to ensure that those who carry knives are effectively dealt with.

Kenny MacAskill and Charlie Gordon raised important issues. In Scotland, the concept of the judiciary's independence is important—David Davidson mentioned that—but we also want judges to know what we have said in the chamber in passing legislation so that, in making independent decisions, they are aware of the context in which it has been passed and can reflect on the seriousness with which we, on behalf of the public, have reached a considered view. That is why it is right that we give out clear messages in the bill and in other measures that we are taking.

Our participation in this week's knife amnesty should be seen as a public expression of our determination to do something about the problem.

We are not pretending that the knife amnesty will be a solution by itself; we want people to have a debate and to think about and reflect on what is happening. We want them to know that the knife amnesty is a public expression and warning of what is to come. The police have made it clear that, once the knife amnesty ends, severe and significant measures will be taken against those who carry knives. We support the amnesty—there has not been, as Stewart Maxwell suggested, some kind of conversion—and we have committed resources for the purchase of 1,000 new hand-held metal detectors, which will be deployed throughout Scotland and particularly in areas with the worst problems.

We have proposed measures in the bill to double the maximum sentence for carrying a knife in public or in a school from two years to four years. The bill will also remove current restrictions on police powers of arrest for such offences. We want all such offenders to be taken directly into police custody. There are new stop-and-search measures to allow the police to tackle such problems more effectively. The Lord Advocate has announced tough new guidelines for prosecuting knife crimes under which repeat offenders will be held in custody and, where appropriate, prosecuted before a sheriff and a jury, which will enable sheriffs to impose a more severe punishment.

Photo of Phil Gallie Phil Gallie Conservative

I have a question for the minister about situations in which individuals can be held in custody. I recall that there are issues relating to bail for more serious crimes, and that courts must consider and perhaps grant it, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime. How can we ensure that individuals who have been taken into custody because they have been carrying a knife are not given bail?

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

Whether bail is granted will remain a matter for the sheriff. We are currently considering wider bail and remand issues, which we expect to debate in the Parliament. This week, the Lord Advocate made it clear that he expects procurators fiscal to oppose the granting of bail in circumstances in which a person has been convicted previously of carrying a knife or has a record of serious violent offending. The Lord Advocate's commitment to ensuring that bail is restricted is clearly on the record but, ultimately, decisions will be for sheriffs.

Photo of Jeremy Purvis Jeremy Purvis Liberal Democrat

On the theme of considering wider issues, will the minister confirm that the proposed sentencing bill will be an opportunity to reconsider the sentencing proposals? The amendments in my name were not agreed to at stage 2, but does he agree that a longer debate is needed? Bill Butler said that he welcomed my good intentions in lodging amendments and Jackie Baillie said that she acknowledged my intention to move the debate on.

Photo of Hugh Henry Hugh Henry Labour

Yes, the proposed sentencing bill will be an opportunity to reflect on the way in which sentencing in general is carried out. As I understand it, Jackie Baillie's concern was not so much about the proposals that Jeremy Purvis made as about the context in which he introduced them into the debate today. That is a matter between Jackie Baillie and Jeremy Purvis.

As Jackie Baillie outlined, the reason why the amendments in the name of Jeremy Purvis were rejected at stage 2 was not lack of determination on the part of Labour members of the committee—nor, indeed, on the part of SNP members or Conservative members. The committee clearly took the view—which is shared by the Parliament today—that something significant had to be done to tackle knife crime. I understand that those amendments were rejected because the committee did not consider their content and what they proposed to be relevant, effective or the best way forward. The issue was, therefore, one of principles rather than some members trying to be seen to be tougher than others. I have no doubt that we will return to that debate.

Amendment 159 has triggered a useful discussion and Charlie Gordon has reflected an anger that is felt by many members. Frank McAveety, for example, has highlighted the problems in Glasgow on a number of occasions. I understand the anger not just of the politicians but of the families whose lives have been turned upside down because a son or someone else in the family has been a victim. I understand the anxiety of those who fear for the safety of their sons or grandsons when they go out in our towns and cities at weekends, and it is right that we should do something about it in the bill.

Many good arguments have been advanced as to why the case has not yet been made for mandatory sentencing, given its implications and consequences. However, Charlie Gordon made an important point. When we pass legislation, we should not simply leave it and regard it as the finished product; we should continue to reflect on whether the legislation is having the desired effect. Is it making a difference on the streets of our towns and cities? If the bill, the measures from the Lord Advocate and the signal that is going out to the judiciary are not having the effect that we hope that they will have—if people are still foolishly and wantonly carrying knives—then Charlie Gordon is right: the Parliament must consider what else we need to do, even though we might, at the moment, consider further measures unpalatable. Although we are determined to return to the bill in that way if necessary, I hope that we do not have to do that. I hope that the measures that we agree today will have the effect that we think that they should have.

I will not dwell on amendment 160, in the name of Colin Fox. The same amendment was dealt with at considerable length by the committee at stage 2. The committee rejected it then and I see no reason for Parliament to return to it now. I hope that Colin Fox will not move amendment 160, but if he does, I hope that Parliament will oppose it.

Photo of Charlie Gordon Charlie Gordon Labour

It has been a good debate on an important moral issue. In my opening remarks, I said that this is a complex phenomenon that requires a multi-agency response. Colin Fox caricatured the intention behind my amendment. Colin Fox's position appears to be that the people who carry knives are mainly poor youngsters who need counselling. Well, back in the 1960s, the gang members who chased me along Sauchiehall Street were quite prosperous apprentices—as I was, back then—in a period of relatively full employment. As I said earlier, they were hell-bent on recreational violence. Plenty of middle-class schoolboys in Scotland today are walking around with blades in their pockets, so let us not be too simplistic.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour 11:00, 25 May 2006

Many members have talked about the culture of knife carrying among young men. That culture exists, but there is evidence that some girls are also carrying knives. I know that because I represent the city centre of Glasgow. We should not overlook the fact that some girls are also carrying knives.

Photo of Charlie Gordon Charlie Gordon Labour

Pauline McNeill is right about that and it has been going on for a long time. The standard operational method in the Glasgow dance halls of the 1960s was that, because the boys were searched by the bouncers, their girlfriends carried the weapons in their handbags.

Colin Fox mentions counselling. It must be part of a multi-agency response, but I say to him that if I encounter a stabbing victim who is lying on the pavement, my first thought is not that the person who did it needs my help.

I am pleased by the minister's response and the Lord Advocate's new guidelines, which were issued after I lodged amendment 159. I am also pleased that, yesterday in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, left the door open for the type of approach that I advocate to be introduced south of the border if that is what it takes to tackle a similar problem there.

After this excellent debate, the Parliament must close ranks and send out a strong message. There are strong new provisions in the bill that, along with the amnesty, the metal detectors that are being supplied to the police and the Lord Advocate's guidelines, will enable us to send the blade-and-booze boys a clear, strong message that they are drinking in the last-chance saloon.

Kenny MacAskill said that we should perhaps expect more from the judiciary. Senior colleagues have impressed on me, as a rookie parliamentarian, that I must not be too hard on the judiciary and that the legislators must never completely fetter the judiciary's discretion. That is probably true, although I note that in a completely different context—a civil context—a senior member of the judiciary seeks to lecture us through the media on how we handle other matters.

Knife carrying is too important an issue for us to nod the bill through and think that the problem will go away. We must monitor and review the effectiveness of what we do. Sheriffs too can sometimes drink in last-chance saloons.

Amendment 159, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 160 moved—[Colin Fox].

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The question is, that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

There will be a division. As this is the first division, there will be a five-minute suspension.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

Division number 1

For: Byrne, Ms Rosemary, Fox, Colin, Martin, Campbell
Against: Adam, Brian, Aitken, Bill, Arbuckle, Mr Andrew, Baillie, Jackie, Baker, Richard, Ballance, Chris, Ballard, Mark, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brocklebank, Mr Ted, Brown, Robert, Brownlee, Derek, Butler, Bill, Canavan, Dennis, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Eadie, Helen, Ewing, Fergus, Fabiani, Linda, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gibson, Rob, Gillon, Karen, Glen, Marlyn, Gordon, Mr Charlie, Gorrie, Donald, Grahame, Christine, Harper, Robin, Harvie, Patrick, Henry, Hugh, Home Robertson, John, Hughes, Janis, Ingram, Mr Adam, Jackson, Dr Sylvia, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Cathy, Jamieson, Margaret, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lochhead, Richard, Lyon, George, MacAskill, Mr Kenny, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, Maclean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, Marwick, Tricia, Mather, Jim, Matheson, Michael, Maxwell, Mr Stewart, May, Christine, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McFee, Mr Bruce, McGrigor, Mr Jamie, McMahon, Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Morgan, Alasdair, Morrison, Mr Alasdair, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Neil, Alex, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Petrie, Dave, Pringle, Mike, Purvis, Jeremy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robison, Shona, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mike, Ruskell, Mr Mark, Scott, Eleanor, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Iain, Smith, Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stevenson, Stewart, Stone, Mr Jamie, Swinburne, John, Swinney, Mr John, Tosh, Murray, Turner, Dr Jean, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watt, Ms Maureen, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 108, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 160 disagreed to.