 I call on name care to open our debate. Thank you. Imagine that you are sitting in the High Court in Glasgow, you spent weeks or perhaps even months sitting through a trial. A trial for the brutal, calculated and remorseless murder of someone you love. It has been emotionally draining, traumatising. It has forced you to relive every excruciating detail. Now the verdict has been returned. Guilty. The judge addresses the court. He says that he has no option but to impose a sentence of life imprisonment. But sometime later, perhaps it's 14 years, perhaps 16, perhaps 20, you receive a letter. That letter tells you that the person who murdered your loved one is now being considered for release on parole. Back on the streets, back in your community, free to offend again. That happens, Presiding Officer. Yes, Mr Finnie. John Finnie. Thank you. I'm grateful for the member taking intervention on that point. I know he doesn't like the parole board, but does he not have any confidence at all in their judgment in these matters? Liam Kerr. On the contrary, I thank Mr Finnie for the intervention. The parole board do a very, very difficult job. The point that I'm making, if you'll allow me to develop my argument, is that we need to give judges the power to put down a whole life sentence so that the parole board is not in the position where they have to consider this. As I say, Presiding Officer, this happens. Life imprisonment does not mean life imprisonment. I say that it is time to give judges the power to sentence, as they say it, to say to victims, their families and the Scottish public that when our judges hand down a sentence of whole life custody, they mean it, and to give judges the genuine, unmitigated ability, which they do not currently have, to put the very worst offenders behind bars for the rest of their lives. Very quickly, Presiding Officer. Daniel Johnson. Is that actually correct? Do judges not have the ability to request an assessment for a lifelong restriction of liberty audit? Would you do exactly that if the risk is posed by the individual? Liam Kerr. Thank you, Daniel Johnson. For the intervention, there is an awful lot of misunderstanding in this debate about whether judges in Scotland can hand down a life sentence. I have to say that it's very disappointing to see those errors creeping into both that intervention and the SNP amendment. So let's take some time to understand the reality. When a judge in Scotland hands down a so-called life sentence, this is made up of a minimum period, the offender must spend in custody before being eligible for parole. This is called the punishment part. After that, the possibility of further time if the parole board decides. There is no power to mandate that the worst criminals will never get out. We are told that the Scottish courts already have a power to set a punishment part that is longer than the rest of an offender's life. If the criminal happens to be elderly or terminally unwell, that's right, but that turns on chance. It cannot be designed, Presiding Officer. Of course, what Daniel Johnson has also missed is that judges are bound by case law. That case law says that the murderer of a child or a police officer should receive a punishment part of only 20 years. That is not a lifetime. The longest punishment part that has ever been handed out by a Scottish court is 37 years. Even that, the most extreme example is not the rest of your life if you are in your 20s. The incontestable fact is that Scottish courts cannot, by law, guarantee that the worst criminals will not be let back onto our streets. There is a persistent myth, before I get the intervention inevitably, that whole-life custody sentences are contrary to human rights. Not true. In January 2017, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that whole-life orders as they exist in England and Wales are not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Very briefly, please, Mr Finlay. Why does Mr Kerr not cut to the chase and tell us the reality that probably what he would want is to bring back the death penalty? Liam Kerr. I actually don't thank Mr Finlay for wasting my time with that intervention. Of course I don't think that, Mr Finlay. Just sit down. Presiding Officer, some people accept that we don't have whole-life custody sentences, but ask why we need them. Why bring in a sentence that would only apply to the worst criminals and give Scottish judges the same powers as they have in England and Wales? Well, one of the core functions of our justice system is punishment. The constraints on punishment part lengths that I have already set out do not allow the Scottish courts to discharge this function for the very worst criminal acts to take place. Punishment is not the only reason we send people to jail, but neither should it go ignored. The length of time for which society removes someone's liberty is measured up to the appalling consequences of their actions. We must think about the public and victims' experiences here. Too many who have never had that experience directly or indirectly ignore the strength of public feeling on this and elevate their concerns for the offender. I say to them simply this. Linda MacDonald, the family of Paige Doherty and others are completely right to demand that life means life. Let me address the public safety point. Some offenders commit crimes that are so appalling that the risk of re-offending should be removed altogether. There is a justified public outcry when a violent criminal is released only to re-offend and inflict further devastation on yet more lives. Yes, releasing an offender comes with risks, and it is right that society takes that collective risk for most prisoners in the pursuit of rehabilitation. For the most despicable offenders, this is a fruitless effort. It is time to protect Scotland's communities by removing the worst criminals from society for good. Presiding Officer, our proposal for whole-life custody also ensures that those who protect us from danger have the full weight of the justice system behind them. Police officers are among the most selfless in our communities. They put themselves in harm's way every day to keep us safe. Prison officers manage difficult and high-risk offenders in an environment that is increasingly plagued by the threat of dangerous substances and weapons, but tragically, some officers' lives are taken while carrying out those duties on our behalf. That is not especially appalling crime because it is not just an attack on an individual, it is an attack on society itself. Those officers can be distinguished from other public servants by the role that they perform and their routine contact with dangerous offenders. Their duties and the risks that they face mean that they stand apart from others. That is why we propose that whole-life custody should be the starting point for the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of their duty. Presiding Officer, I have launched a consultation on a member's bill to give our judges the ability to set a genuine whole-life sentence for the worst offenders in society. The SNP has an opportunity to demonstrate that they are not a soft touch on criminals. My consultation clearly sets out the facts and the plan for how to go about that. The only question left is whether the SNP agrees with the principle that the very worst criminals deserve a lifetime behind bars. They can work with us to make this law or they can confirm what the public already suspects. Whatever they do, the Scottish public will know that a Scottish Conservative Government led by Ruth Davidson will put victims first, punish the crime and keep Scotland's communities safe. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call on Ash Denham to open for the Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the most difficult and important decisions that can face anyone working in our criminal justice system is that which faces high court judges who are tasked with sentencing, those convicted of the most appalling crimes, serial murder, the murder of police officers who are tasked with protecting the public, or horrific sexual crimes often committed against our most vulnerable citizens. It is, of course, vital that the public have confidence in our justice system's ability to deal effectively with those convicted of the most terrible crimes and that judges have the powers they need to appropriately sentence the most serious offenders that come before the high court. The local court has confirmed that Scottish courts can impose a punishment part that exceeds the rest of an offender's life. In 2009, in the case of HMA vs Boyle, the court stated that while the statute does not empower judges to specify a whole life period, in an appropriate case, a prisoner in Scotland may be sentenced to a period which, in practical terms, will extend until his or her death. For example, Angus Sinclair, who was convicted of the world end murders in 2014, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a punishment part of 37 years. That meant that he would not have been able to apply for parole until he was 106 years old. There are other examples of people convicted for the very worst crimes being given punishment parts of 30 years or more. For example, Thomas Smith, who was convicted of the murder and sexual abuse of a woman and her 10-year-old daughter, was sentenced in 2010 to a life sentence with a punishment part of 32 years. James McDonald and Raymond Anderson, who were convicted of murder, received life sentences with a punishment part of 30 years. It is important to remember that the punishment part of a life sentence is the minimum period in which the convicted person must spend in prison before being able to apply for parole. Whatever the punishment part of their sentence, someone given a life sentence will remain in prison for as long as they are considered a risk to the public. It is for the independent parole board to consider whether a prisoner no longer represents a risk to public safety. It is worth noting here, I think, that of the 342 life sentence prisoners referred to the parole board in 2017-18, only in 35 cases did the parole board direct their release. Of the 67 prisoners serving an order for lifelong restriction considered by the board that year, none were directed to be released. Any life sentence prisoner approved for release by the parole board is subject to a life licence and continuing supervision in the community. If they breach the terms of that licence, they can be recalled to custody. As such, the courts already have the power to impose very long punishment parts on people convicted of the most serious crimes. When a life sentence prisoner has served that punishment part, they can only be released if they are not considered to pose an unacceptable risk to public safety. For those reasons, I am not persuaded that Liam Kerr's proposal for whole life sentences would add to the extensive powers that Scotland's courts already have to deal with the most serious cases before them. I am not alone. On 29 May, Mike Nellis, a Professor of Criminal and Community Justice at Strathclyde University, was interviewed on Good Morning Scotland. He said that Mr Kerr's proposal exaggerates the importance of creating whole life sentences. I hope that Parliament agreed that it is important that we take an evidence-based approach to criminal law reform and prevention and that any changes that we make to the sentences and powers of our courts make a real difference. We will, of course, carefully consider any proposals for reform of our sentencing law that are put forward. I am not persuaded that whole life sentences would make a real and practical difference to the ability of the courts and the justice system to deal with the most serious offenders. I move the amendment in Humza Yousaf's name. I call on Pauline McNeill to speak to and move the amendment in her name. The bill is a meaningless stunt. The Tories argue that it is another tool in the sentencing box for judges, but the fact is that it is an attempt to make those who do not support this proposal look weak. It is a cynical attempt, as admitted by Liam Kerr when he mentioned that only Ruth Davidson can make justice actually work. Judges already impose a no-limitation punishment element. Judges can extend the punishment beyond the likely remainder of a prisoner's life. It is happening on numerous occasions. Judges use their discretion on a daily basis. The most notable case is Anglis Sinclair, who was sent to 37 years and died in jail. Liam Kerr says, but judges will be bound by case law unless he is mistaken. Judges will still be bound by case law even if you pass a whole sentence into law. The parole board has a difficult job to do and it is made up of experienced people. The release prisoners remain in the second, they remain on licence, and they will obviously be recalled for small offences. However, there is one bit in the proposal that gives me real cause for concern. I will read it. However, as long as the board has the power to release offenders, who the public feel should never leave prison, our system cannot ensure proper punishment or public safety. Perhaps in summing up, the Tories can explain what they mean by that. Either they believe in a criminal justice system where judges make decisions or they believe that the public should make those decisions. It is incompatible with the sentiment about how you think the parole board is doing a good job based on that statement. As the minister said, the order for life wrong restriction is another sentence open to judges. I do not think that the Tories have trust in the parole board. Liam Kerr. I have no doubt that it will be picked up in closing, but we are not compromising the independence of the judiciary at all, not one bit. The point about Angus Sinclair, which the minister refused to take, the point is being made for me. Angus Sinclair was 69. The fact that he died behind bars was an accident, not by design, and our criminal justice system should simply not be counternancing that. Polly McNeill. Later on I will deal with your point of view in the guidelines and sentencing. The proposed bill also states that if a trial judge hands down a sentence deliberately long with a view to outlasting a criminal's natural life, the sentence is likely to be overturned. It is just as likely to be overturned if we pass this into law. All judgments by judges face being overturned in an appeal court. In relation to the European Court of Human Rights, my understanding is that the European Court of Rights convention says that you cannot have whole-life sentences at least without a periodic review of prisoners in that situation. Who decides the most serious murders and the most serious sexual offences? Judges decide this every single day of their lives. It is not clear to me in the proposal whether or not there is going to be further guidelines given to judges on what would be regarded as the most perhaps that could be clarified. You are saying that it would be murder of police officers. I think that you need to make that clear. The only element of the proposed bill that attempts me to further investigate the need for improvement to sentence and guidelines is the statistic which quotes the parole board that 70 per cent of life are served a 14-year sentence. I would admit that that gives me no review of the guidelines that would be sufficient to rectify any perceived leniency in cases because sentences are actually going up, not down, and that is despite a drive to short-term sentencing and figures released today show that serious assaults are coming down. Sentences are certainly going up, but the bill is raising the expectations of the public that a whole-scale application of whole-life sentences is actually going to solve the problem and I do not believe that it will. To introduce the concept of a whole-life prison sentence also has implications for the management of prisons which I hope the member will attempt to draw out in the consultation period. It does mean that if you believe in a whole-life sentence then you believe that there is no possibility or rehabilitation of prisoners. I think that consideration needs to be given to a prison system and how a prison system would be run if there are a number of offenders who will never ever be released from jail. It has to be consideration given to safety inside the prison as well as outside in terms of public safety. In conclusion, Scottish Labour fully understands the need for constant review of the criminal justice system which is what we say in our amendment which was written before we saw the Government amendment and that includes sentencing powers for the judiciary. We believe that safety of the public is paramount and the criminal justice system must punish offenders severely in some cases life will effectively or should be life if the judges have that option to them already. The way forward is to review sentencing guidelines and also wait the outcome of the law commission's review of the definition of murder. Thank you, Presiding Officer. John Finnie, to open for the Green Party. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Mr Kerr was present with me this morning when we considered matters at the Justice Committee a presumption against sort sentences and one of the most compelling contributions that we had in relation to that and we're still deliberating on that matter was from Professor Tartar who said that if we're going to move to that system of a presumption against short sentences and I'm certainly in my party a supporter of that then we need to think of the longer term implications of that, the demands in the prison and estate and also what the wider implications are because we heard a number of very compelling things this morning and I'll just repeat them and I'm sure Mr Kerr will acknowledge that these were said. Colin McConnell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service told us that prison was about deterrence, rehabilitation and punishment. I don't know if there was a particular order given there but rehabilitation I think is important. James, maybe from the social work representative said in recognition of some of the challenges that might be associated, as there always is and Mr Kerr had the good grace to acknowledge that indeed he said, it's right that society takes a collective risk, I agree with him on that and if we're risk averse we'll bring about the situation that's happened with home detention curfew that we've seen a plumeting of the use of one of the facilities so it has to be and I commend Mr Kerr and this approach he takes to his duties he's always saying we need an evidence base the Labour amendment talks about that let's have evidence decisions so James maybe talked about assessing risk and need and we also heard from Dr Katrina Morrison from the Howard league and she said this morning we really need a conversation about what punishment is and what it isn't so I fear that and I would align myself with the comments of my colleague Pauline McNeill when she talks about a stunt this is pandering to a certain audience and I have to say it's very unhelpful and it's completely out of culture with the direction of travel that the criminal justice system is yes I'll certainly take an intervention I'm very grateful just very briefly to answer both of those points I can tell you this isn't a stunt because I've been working on it for the guts of the last two years a stunt is not something you pull out after two years of very difficult work John Finnie I acknowledge the work that does go into a member's bill of course I do I think you had the good grace again Mr Kerr about one of the examples that you cited just the one and you said 37 years the most extreme example I happen to think that confining someone in a room for 37 years is an extreme measure absolutely an extreme measure and if you do have them confined for that length of time then you should be taking every opportunity to ensure that they don't repeat the conduct to put them there in the first place so I think that conversation needs to be had in front of us yes indeed Margaret Mitchell Is it then your view Mr Finnie that there are people in society who will always be or that the vast prison population will always be subject to rehabilitation and will never present a danger to the public because these are the people we are targeting those who cannot for whatever reason they don't have empathy and the values of other people in society that very small number who will always pose a danger John Finnie Well I think Mrs Mitchell identifies a group of individuals a fortunately small group of individuals for whom there are provisions already in place that can deal with this both in terms of they are unlikely to be given parole in the life long restriction provisions another thing that Mr Kerr will have picked up on this morning was from the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Doctor Sarah Armstrong who said that Scotland's prison population the largest in Europe Scotland's prison population akin to Texas and Louisiana Texas and Louisiana these are not models that I think we should be proud of when we are trying to go forward not models at all there is an opportunity to take a different approach here Doctor Hannah Graham I noted her saying that populism is the wrong direction for Scottish justice I agree with that I'm sure Mr Kerr will tell us he's not politicising sentencing but I lost track of the number of times he used the word SNP in his submission this is about making an evidence case this is very important matters we cannot have a situation where the significant work that already takes place with risk management with the parole board to keep the public safe that you create unwarranted fears that that isn't the well you shake your head Mr Kerr but that's exactly what you're doing there is ample evidence in the minister's cited many evidences where robust sentencing can take place so very briefly I had an amendment put in respect commending the continuing role for rehabilitation we know some of the people who find themselves involved in the criminal justice system people with addiction who caught the crime clearly there's an opportunity to sort them the criminal justice system should fundamentally be about prevention that's the main role the police should use to prevent crime, protect life and property and we prevent crime and I commend the role taken for instance by the violence reduction unit and the holistic reproach that's taken in regard to that and this is way way way out of culture with any of this I have to say it's very unfortunate that we have lively debates but as Mr Kerr always wants when we talk in the justice committee he always wants as evidence led debates the evidence wouldn't lead you to the position you've come to thank you Liam McArthur for the Liberal Democrats thank you very much even after his performance this afternoon I firmly believe that Liam Kerr's instincts when it comes to justice policy are broadly liberal I see him more in the mould than a latter-day Michael Howard and far less a ready-made solution to the unwedicum-sized hole in the Tory party at the moment I say this despite much of the poorly evidence nonsense stuck out in his name denouncing soft touch justice and alleging that Scotland's prisons are being emptied this at a time which we heard again this morning when our prison population stands at 8,242 and rising when we have more people under penal measures than any other country in Europe, save Russia and Turkey how Liam Kerr squares all of this with what appears to me to be a genuine concern for restorative justice and demands on ministers to better resource diversionary and rehabilitation programmes is not at all clear Scottish Liberal Democrats like others will of course consider the detail of the member's bill however today's debate and the rhetoric surrounding it bear all the hallmarks of political posturing rather than a serious attempt to reform sentencing to better meet the needs of victims and their families those in our prison system or indeed communities across Scotland in playing to the gallery Mr Kerr either chooses to ignore or is unaware of the options already available to judges Liam Kerr I look at the motion that I've made very tight and very short and to the point should Scotland's judges have the power to impose whole life custody sentences it's a very simple motion does the Liberal Democrat agree or not Liam Kerr sir I think that I've made abundantly clear I do not in sentencing of course a judge will set a punishment part which is the minimum term that must be spent in prison after that they will be considered based on an assessment of risk and which should be explained even if a person is given a life sentence is then released into the community they'll be on licence for the rest of their life and recalled to prison in the event of a breach under these provision world's end murder as we've heard Angus Sinclair was given a sentence that would have prevented him even seeking parole until he was 106 as Lord Matthews explained with little room for ambiguity Mr Kerr that was intended to quote make matters easier for the parole board but let's not forget under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights prisoners need to be sentenced in a way that allows them a realistic prospect of release even if for reasons to do with on-going risk that release does not happen and the same officer happens south of the border in England whole life orders are only compatible with ECHR because the justice secretary has a statutory duty to review these cases and to exercise the power of release for life prisoners in such a way as to ensure compatibility with the convention moreover the secretary of state's decisions on possible release are subject to review by the domestic courts which are also bound to act within convention rights the high court would have the power to directly order the release of a prisoner if it considered this to be necessary in order to comply with article 3 however much Liam Kerr wishes to portray this as lock him up and throw away the key justice the facts say otherwise of course some individuals guilty of the most serious violent crimes who continue to present an unacceptable risk to their victims and or the public the wider public will need to remain in prison we also need to keep on the review no thank you the sentencing options available to our courts though the process for doing that is the one set out in Pauline McNeill's amendment rather than the dog whistle groundstanding of Liam Kerr's approach as Fergus McNeill professor of criminology at Glasgow University points out legislating for whole life tariffs is regressive and unnecessary it also communicates the troubling message about giving up on the possibility of human development turning imprisonment into warehousing Jamie Buckin, lecturer in criminology at Napier University adds that the likely longer term effects if introduced are either judges don't use this which in a case begs the question of it being a waste of time or the definition of more serious creeps outward to encompass more and more cases as we are seeing in England and Wales Presiding Officer neither of those outcomes represent progress or would lead to a more effective justice system I support the amendment in the minister's name Thank you, we move to the open part of the debate, I call Rona Mackay to be followed by Maurice Corry Rona Mackay I'm going to give today's conservative motion the benefit of the doubt and say that I think it probably is well intentioned Liam Kerr's proposal reflects the anguish the victims and their families go through after experiencing the worst of crimes as he vividly described it would allow Scottish courts to impose a whole life sentence for the most serious offenders that would see them remain in custody for the rest of their life with no possibility of parole however it's not clear what this proposal would add to the existing extensive power that Scotland's courts already have because courts already have the power to impose what is the equivalent of a whole life sentence in the most serious cases if they see fit they can impose an order for lifelong restriction which is dependent on risk as we know currently in Scotland those sentences must be given for murder but they can also be imposed for other extremely serious offenses such as repeated rape if a person's sentence to life imprisonment the judge must by law set a punishment part of the sentence which can extend beyond the remainder of a prisoner's life which means that an offender can never be considered for parole so that is in effect a whole life sentence Liam Kerr just purely I'm afraid the member is completely missing that this proposition at the moment judges cannot set a whole life sentence they can in England and Wales but they cannot do it in Scotland as the member has just conceded would you not at least concede that point to me Rona Mackay would you not concede that they have the equivalent the powers to do exactly that in a different way so they have the powers to impose an order of restriction so if a person's sentence for imprisonment is released into the community they'll be on licence under orders for lifelong restriction and can be recalled to prison if they breach the terms of their licence I think it's right that the courts have far reaching powers for the worst offenders and it's right that sentencing in any given case is a matter for the courts every case must be considered on its own and in my opinion a blanket policy would not work criminal law experts are sceptical about this proposal and believe this type of punitive populism is the wrong direction for Scottish justice I agree with her sentencing policy cannot be made on the extremely tragic but thankfully rare cases that hit the headlines each case must be considered individually and if we adopt a lock them up and throw away the key attitude it really does question the meaning of our entire justice system and the purpose and practice of rehabilitation the SNP has always been clear that prison will always be the right place for the most serious and dangerous offenders life sentence prisoners will remain in prison for as long as they are considered a risk to the public and it's for the independent parole board to consider whether a prisoner no longer presents a risk to public safety any life sentence prisoner approved by the board for release is subject to a life licence and continuing supervision in the community so the judiciary are not calling for more powers to impose whole life sentences because they already have them the sentencing council have also confirmed that no issues or concerns in relation to the law and sentencing of serious offenders has been raised with them and as the minister said the Scottish Government will of course consider the detail of a draft bill once it's available to understand its purpose and effect I'd like to conclude in an optimistic note crime today is at a record 42 per cent low and people feel safer in their communities the vast majority of people in Scotland 87.5 per cent experience no crime and my own constituency of eastern bartender is down by 44 per cent only 2.3 per cent of adults were victims of violent crime in 2017-18 which of course doesn't diminish the trauma those adults suffered but those who commit the most serious crimes are receiving longer sentences and spending longer in prison before release under the SNP so as I said at the start of my speech while this motion and bill may be well intentioned I don't believe it's necessary for our justice system to go down this path when the powers being called for already exist I call Maurice Corry to be followed by Jenny Gilruth I welcome this debate to the chamber today and I thank my colleague Liam Kerr for putting forward his proposal the idea of whole life custody for some but this bill is not unfounded vignitiveness it is not suggesting over bearing constraint over Scotland's judges instead it is putting a reasonable already trialled and tested proposal forward currently we have a system that allows the most violent perpetrators to evade a punishment that they justly deserve and when we look closely at the way our system currently stands it seems justice is often slipping through the cracks surely there is an argument that the most serious crimes should be met with the most serious punishment life imprisonment we have to be clear here a whole life custody sentence would be the starting point when sentencing an individual who has been found guilty of specific crimes and solely for those cases where there is sufficient justification to do so this bill would be a benchmark only for those most serious crimes from which a judge can consider factors that may reduce the length of the sentence it would ensure that we see more sentencing being accurately fitting to the crime while removing a constraint on the agency of Scotland's judges and of course for the majority of prisoners rehabilitation is the right course of action when there is a chance of a perpetrator of a low level crime to turn their lives around and reintegrate well into society this should be supported and rightfully so but sadly we cannot deny that in some cases perpetrators have shown through horrendous crimes that they can genuinely never be rehabilitated in these circumstances the seriousness of their crime should not be ignored and victims and their local communities deserve that much when there is a high risk of a re-offence in the worst crimes imaginable then a whole life custody sentence is the safest route this bill is a sure way for victims in Scotland first for those who have experienced the worst level of crime this proposal would protect their safety as well as their mental health and not one of us here today would want to see victims re-traumatise with the dread of knowing their perpetrator could be granted an early release in a matter of years surely then this bill would give these victims a much long fall feeling for security and with the knowledge that their perpetrator would not enjoy a freedom their crime certainly did not call for linked with this, this bill would significantly reduce the likelihood of potential victims in the future is it not in everyone's best interests therefore that we as parliamentarians limit the chances of what's happening in our law and we can see that this proposal is workable and for instance England and Wales have the option of dispensing whole life orders this is reserved for only the most exceptional crimes as it should be and only in cases where the perpetrator is over 21 years of age of course we must recognise that these whole life orders are not handed out generously but only for certain especially grievous crimes as a starting point for further deliberation in connection with this these whole life orders also respect the European convention on human rights and our equivalent would of course do the same we must enterprise the safety of our communities this is paramount and under whole life custody sentencing and therefore with less chance of re-offending our local streets and homes can be made safer and currently a prisoner released on so-called life license is of course supervised by justice social workers for the remainder of their lives yet the varying effectiveness and scrutiny of this supervision can be called into question as long restriction while stipulating more risk assessment requirements cannot guarantee that the prisoner will not be released at some point in the future even in the last five years two prisoners with these orders have been released and I think it is safe to say that in some instances concerning these most serious crimes these measures are incapable of going far enough I know that we are all united in this chamber in the belief that public confidence in Scotland's justice system is important the ability to rely on our sentencing process is critical for enabling trust but this public confidence is not each time when the perpetrator re-offends so yes I will the fact that only 38 per cent of Scottish people believe that the current scunting system fits the crime shows this disillusionment in abundance and to conclude I hope this bill will not be swept under the carpet it proposes a sensible and justifiable change that would give some much-needed security security not only to our victims and their communities but the justice system that serves them thank you Jenny Gilruth followed by Daniel Johnson thank you sentencing is a hugely emotive issue for victims it can mean justice for our families it can allow for closure for politicians it is an area into which we rarely stray because as Mr Kerr knows of the independence of the judiciary but that is not to say that we should not hold opinions on sentencing or perhaps the chief executive of Scotland's prison service put it best when he told the justice committee this morning it is right that sheriffs are left unfettered but guided I am sure that we have all had constituency cases whereby the justice system has let victims and witnesses of crime down on this I hope that Mr Kerr welcomes the cabinet secretary's establishment of the victims task force a direct response to making the justice system yesterday I was pleased to meet victims for England not this to discuss their vital work across communities in Fife and in our courts of course there is still a role for our prisons in Scotland's justice system in 2019 but we should be careful to focus our attention solely not to focus rather our attention solely on life sentences as today's motion invites 80% of all jail terms imposed in 2017-18 were for less than 12 months indeed as we've heard today Scotland's imprisonment rate remains one of the highest in western Europe and as professor Cyrus Tata told the justice committee this morning prison never has to prove itself everything else does I am therefore disappointed not to see any consideration in Mr Kerr's motion today of the causes of crime of poverty, inequality, poor educational opportunities geography, social class in fact I still have a few modern studies lessons on this exact topic should he wish to expand his horizons because to exclusively focus on the end result of the criminal justice system through sentencing is to ignore the bigger picture or maybe if he doesn't like to hear it from the SNP Mr Kerr should listen to the Conservative Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor David Goll MP who stated just four months ago we should be extremely cautious about continuing to increase sentences as a routine response to concerns over crime no thank you we have to recognise that such an approach would lead us to becoming even more of an international and historical outlier in terms of our prison population or maybe he might care to listen to the other Liam on the justice committee indeed in December last year Liam McArthur said we know that 60% of people given ineffective and difficult time point of order Liam Kerr Liam Kerr I apologise to the member for making a point of order but my motion is very specific and so is the SNP amendment this is not addressing either the amendment or my motion Mr Kerr that's for me to decide thank you very much Jenny Goruth continue in terms of the approaches to short term sentences which is exactly what we were looking at this morning on the justice committee that's exactly why the government has brought forward proposals on this issue and as we heard this morning from the Howard League despite the recommendations of the Scottish prisons commission over a decade ago we still rely on imprisonment to do too much with too many and we have done for too long or what about Dr Sarah Armstrong who told us as John Finnie has previously mentioned that if Scotland were an American state it would be on a par with Texas or Louisiana in terms of our imprisonment rate or what about Laura Hoskins who told us earlier that sending people to prisons for short term periods is creating social problems or Dr Cyrus Tata who told us that prisons are still used in 2019 as a form of penal welfare. The conservative motion today is solely and narrowly focused on life sentences but as we have heard today judges and sheriffs already have the power to impose a lifelong restriction order and indeed of the 67 prisoners in Scotland with a lifelong restriction none work directed due to be released and if judges see fit they can sentence quite deliberately according to the age of the accused as members will be aware happened in the case of Angus Sinclair as we've previously heard. Our problems in Scotland's prisons is not that we have a soft touch sentence it is the other extreme we are locking up far more people than ever before and to what end we want to move to a country which is set out by the Scottish Government's aspirations a modern and progressive nation in which imprisonment is used less frequently and the solution is through a presumption against short-term sentences part of the solution is about ensuring a greater range of alternatives are readily available and that they have been risk assessed accordingly but a huge part is about a cultural shift in terms of how we deal with punishment in Scotland and that is exactly what the Justice Committee heard in evidence this morning what a pity that Liam Kerr is more interested in headline hunting. Daniel Johnson followed by Fulton MacGregor Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer Maybe it's like the incongruous note following the previous speakers I welcome this debate genuinely I do I welcome it but not because I agree with it but because I completely disagree with it the Conservatives are wrong in fact you're wrong in law and above all else they're wrong in terms of the impact that this debate will have but why do welcome it because it does give us an opportunity to discuss what is undoubtedly a hugely important issue and that is that is of prison prison is the default option in our justice system but it is simply a Victorian inheritance and it's flawed it doesn't work our rates of recidivism should surely after this time teach us something that something is not right with the way our prison system work and that something needs to be put right and above all else there could be no room for complacency in Scotland because the Scottish record on incarceration is appalling we have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world as others have mentioned we are on a par with Texas or Louisiana and quite simply our rate of incarceration is ahead of that of England Wales that should give us pause for thought but let me give Liam Kerr the benefit of the doubt because in my time working on the justice breach I've always found him to be thoughtful somebody who does want to engage in evidence and also in principle and in a sense it is a shame that it takes an opposition debate for us to be able to talk about incarceration and the principles of recarceration this is a debate perhaps not necessarily in terms of the letter of what has been tabled there should be happening on government time the government is serious about reform of the prison system reform of the justice system we should be discussing about the role of prison and the alternatives to prison on their time not opposition time but it comes to the conservative opposition to bring forward a motion such as this on prison sentences or more recently one of our talking about the sentencing council is time for the government to use its time in this chamber properly but let me come to the Tories motion because they are wrong they're wrong in fact because the reality is as others have pointed out there is the possibility of keeping people in prison when they pose such a risk now that might not be able to be absolutely determined by the judge at the point of sentencing but the order for lifelong restriction of liberty makes that absolutely that reality possible and indeed the parole board I don't really have very much time Mr Kerr the parole board likewise is a responsibility and a duty to make sure that people pose no further risk they're also wrong in law because while their whole life sentences may have that name in England the reality is they are no such thing because the European Court in 2012 determined that there has to be the prospect of rehabilitating oneself and that has to be realistic so the reality is as the Home Secretary the Justice Secretary has to review those cases and give those people the possibility of being released it is no such thing it's bogus and that is where the final part of where the Conservatives are wrong comes into being because they are wrong both in terms of fact and in law the effect of this is appalling because they are in a sense creating a straw man to whip up sentiment because fundamentally they are representing the situation that exists in Scotland because if people remain a danger and a risk society they will stay in prison it's as simple as that and furthermore no I have no time the reality is in the final if you really wish this intervention Mr Johnson I can give you time thank you Deputy Presiding Officer does the member know that over 70% of supposed life prisoners released since 1971 have spent 15 years in prison Daniel Johnson if the member has a problem with the terminology I agree with him we need greater transparency and sentencing but what they have not done is actually made the case for the fundamental point of why life is necessary and as an arbitrary rather than a risk based assessment based on the individual but fundamentally they have misrepresented the situation and it's as a simple bit of parliamentary timetabling and Mr Kerr knows he has no realistic possibility of passing this bill at all it is utter grandstanding I started my bill process in the very first year and I'm not even tabled the final draft he knows this is nothing more than parliamentary grandstanding and that is why it is so irresponsible but ultimately that comes down to this is that if our incarceration system is to have any validity there must be a hope to release fundamentally justice must give people the possibility of repentance, reform and rehabilitation because if it does not have those components it's nothing more than a blunt, barbarous system and one that certainly has no justification thank you Fulton MacGregor followed by Gordon Linter thank you I have to say that I find this motion brought forward today to be quite shameful of the situations that should unite all of us in this chamber to attempt political gain is just not good politics at all and to think that any of us here do not have empathy for the families that Liam Kerr mentioned I find absolutely disgusting and Mr Kerr knows that I respect him and I've learned to respect him and I can't believe that he's heading this motion today and perhaps is the exchange there with our other colleague in committee Daniel Johnson as an example of that the exchange of record but he did give it away during his opening speech and when he said to who he hopes will form the next Government Presiding Officer was there an election a couple of weeks ago did the result not quite go the Tory's way that's to me when I've first seen this what it looks like at its heart what Mr Kerr proposes is a step backward for what's increasingly a progressive country and as a member of the Justice Committee like others have said I failed to see how imposing whole life custody sentences would benefit the already extensive powers of the Scottish courts I do not believe that judicial discretion in Scotland is currently limited by mandatory sentences and the Tories should know as Maurice Corry does clearly that a life sentence prisoner approved for release is subject to a life licence and also this proposal feels to grasp that Scotland's judges already have the power to impose a sentence that exceeds a prisoner's life a point well made countless times today and it's dependent on the severity of the crimes committed this is in effect a whole life sentence and it's been confirmed by the Scottish appeal court and the Sentencing Council where by the long standing powers of the Scottish courts the sentence murderers and the more serious offenders remain in place along with independent to appropriately assess the risk of the individual to the public the real terms outcomes for serious offenders under the current legislation is that only 10% of life sentence prisoners referred to the pro-bord were released last year and as the minister said earlier none were considered under the order of lifelong restriction the reality is that those who pose a serious risk to society will indefinitely remain in prison so I don't think anybody can say that the SNP Government or indeed any other party Labour, Greens, Lib Dems in this chamber is a soft justice on serious offending and in the last 10 years I'm not going to have any time in the last 10 years serious crimes across Scotland have declined by 42% as Rona Mackay pointed out which validates the considerable progress made by the Scottish Government in tackling serious crime where we should be early intervention and this is nothing but a political stunt by the Tory party and I think we do need to look at rehabilitation as a whole I think that John Finnie, Jenny Gilruth and others have already made the point that earlier in committee today we sat with Liam Kerr and we talked about and we heard the evidence for the presumption against short term sentences and how that might impact the system where there's debate around how much impact it'll have I think there was general agreement by most sitting this they're the only folks against it what a surprise so they're not into rehabilitation they want to play the card that people are a soft touch agenda and it's completely and utterly a political stunt as you can probably tell I think the rest of the chamber can as well I'm pretty disappointed in the motion I'm disappointed that Liam Kerr's brought it forward I think he's misjudged the mood of the chamber and he's misjudged the mood of the country on this and I hope the chamber at voting time realises what it is it's a shameful political stunt that half of the benches probably don't even agree with and it's following the EU election results a couple of weeks ago Gordon Lindhurst followed by Ruth Maguire Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I speak in support of Liam Kerr's members bill proposal as a qualified advocate who has dealt with these sorts of cases indeed on both sides of the courtroom it appears to me that a move towards ensuring whole life custody sentences can be handed down by Scottish judges could be a part of a positive way to restore confidence in our justice system in Scotland as the consultation continues on this bill the question that will probably be raised time and again is why is this not the case already Certainly Liam McArthur I'm very grateful to Gordon Lindhurst for that intervention and certainly respect the hinterland he has in this area when he was that advocate was he making the case for whole life sentences in the bill of this kind Gordon Lindhurst When I was an advocate I was acting in the courts on either side either prosecution or defence and I was not involved here in the political process in this chamber as I am now I'm sure the member will agree with the law in terms of revising it improving it and addressing gaps and things that are missing in it and that's what this is so not at this point I need to make some progress we read and hear regularly in the media of life sentences being handed down for the worst criminals but we have seen some criminals being released after having served as little as 14 years how is that justice for the victims families over 70 per cent of lifers have been released after fewer than 15 years in prison with over 800 sentenced to life since 1971 being released within 14 years the Scottish crime and justice survey of 2017-18 highlights the low confidence the public have in the justice system and its ability to ensure that the punishment fits the crime apparently only 38 per cent of adults were confident that the system does that the option of whole life custodial sentences is not a solution to fix every problem but it can be a start in restoring confidence predicting our communities should be at the forefront of everyone's mind across this chamber unfortunately we do too often hear of criminals who have been behind bars but re-offend on release to communities and families keeping the worst offenders off our streets is a part of the solution to the issue of public safety and this bill would send a powerful message John Finnie I'm grateful for the member taking intervention to accept that whilst he was operating as an advocate he wouldn't have been able to take an individual position but of course the Parliament is lobbied by the faculty advocates on issues that the faculty advocates position on Mr Kerr's proposal please The faculty's position Mr Finnie presumably will refer to when he speaks on this matter again I'm not here speaking on behalf of the faculty advocates I'm speaking respect of the specific bill and the proposal by the member that I am supporting and of course I think the member would also accept that he himself does not always accept the faculty's position or the law society's position on any specific issue I think we'll have enough shouting across the chamber please carry on Mr Lindhurst I could go into the faculty's position in detail but I don't have the time to do that so I have to now conclude and I will conclude by saying this a message must be sent that the worst criminals will not be released back into society and we will guarantee that for the most heinous crimes the punishment really can fit the crime and the person who knows that detail is the trial judge and the one who passes the sentence and that is what this bill seeks to provide for The last of the open debate contributions is from Ruth Maguire This type of punitive populism is the wrong direction for Scottish justice Words that have been shared by many colleagues this afternoon They are the words of Hannah Grahame, criminologist and senior law lecturer at Stirling University Presiding Officer, I have to say that I agree It's not clear at all even after all the speeches what this Tory proposal would add to the existing extensive powers Scotland's courts already have They can of course already decide to impose what's the equivalent of a whole life sentence in the most serious cases as Minister Ash Denham set out in opening Currently in Scotland life sentences must be given for murder but they can also be given for extremely serious offences such as repeated rape If sentence to life imprisonment the judge must by law set the punishment part of the sentence This can extend beyond the remainder of a prisoner's life which means that an offender can never be considered for parole This in effect is a whole life sentence Life sentence prisoners will remain in prison for as long as they are considered a risk for the public Rehabilitation is important and sending a message that there is never any hope of release is regressive and it's unnecessary Sentencing is a matter for the judiciary Liam Kerr I'll just make this a very brief question Does the member believe that someone convicted of murdering a police officer should be released from prison? Yes or no? Ruth Maguire Based on evidence and the risk to the public that's what I believe Mr Kerr Sentencing is a matter for the judiciary and my understanding is that there have been no calls from the judiciary at any time in the recent past suggesting that they lack the necessary sentencing powers to deal with the most serious offenders The European Court of Human Rights say that it's up to states to decide how to punish people for committing crimes Provided that states do not do so in a way which violates human rights and states can't impose whole-life sentences However, sentences have to be reducible in order to be compatible with human rights In other words, people who are given whole-life sentences have to be given a meaningful chance of review of their detention to ensure that there continues to be a justification for that detention Life prisoners I will Maurice Corry Does the member recognise that some crimes are so appalling that there should never be any option of any release at all? Ruth Maguire What I recognise is that in justice we have to deal with things on a case-by-case basis based on evidence based on risk to the public What I also recognise is that what you're doing is a cheap political stunt and it is disgusting The state can impose whole-life sentences Life prisoners will have to remain in prison for as long as they are considered to be a risk to the public Having the chance of review means that life sentences do not constitute a form of inhumane or degrading punishment Freedom from inhumane or degrading punishment is a human right under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that possibility of review is important to ensure that we don't have a situation where states are free to lock up people and throw away the key That would be unacceptable I said at the beginning of my remarks that it wasn't clear what this Tory proposal would add to the extensive powers Scotland's courts already have Listening to the speeches today will have done little to reassure those concerned that this is anything more than headline grabbing from the Tories We now move to the closing speeches and I call James Kelly for four minutes please Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer The proposal has been put forward by Liam Kerr in his member's bill and also by the Tories in their business today is to change the law to introduce whole life sentences Listening to the contributions across the chamber it's clear that everyone agrees that anyone who has committed a serious crime and continues to be a threat to public safety should be retained in prison The debate has centered around whether the current law allows that to happen and I think from the contributions we've had that it's quite clear that it does because judges do have the power to set a life sentence and it's part of that to set a minimum term and as Ash Denham pointed out in the case of Angus Sinclair that allows a position to be set so that the person will spend the rest of their life behind bars if the courts feel that that is justified Even if that term runs its course within the position of the parole board anyone who is going to be released has to be authorised by the parole board I haven't heard any contributions across the chamber questioning the authority the expertise of the parole board so it would seem to me that Parliament has confidence in the job of the parole board to make judgements in those cases In addition to that there's also the ability to bring in to effect orders of life long restriction which in effect can continue to retain prisoners behind bars if they are a threat to public safety The debate has shown as Daniel Johnson said is that the Conservatives are wrong both in fact and in law I think we should always continue to review sentence and guidelines and there needs to be a constructive debate on that there needs to be evidence led and take account of views of the the parole board as various groups that feed into justice policy I think one of the things that we need to consider is the point that Pauline McNeill made that although there's been an introduction of short sentences the reality is that the time being spent in prison is actually going up and I think there needs to be a greater understanding of that we've got some of the causes of that explained by the contribution of Jenny Gilruth and I think anyone who's close to their community where you see poverty going up and being quite frank when you see the effect of some Tory policies like universal credit that can result in moving people towards a life of crime and we need to understand that we need a proper debate about that and we also need to look at the whole issue around rehabilitation and why that is not properly working because we've got sentences going up so I would agree with those that say that the proposal being put forward by the conservators and Mr Kerr this afternoon is headline grabbing we need a constructive debate going forward on all justice issues and I don't think the proposal brought forward this afternoon helps in that so in summing up the Labour Party will be opposing the conservative motion and supporting the Government amendment Ashten, five minutes please Thank you I think that this has been a useful debate highlighting the importance of ensuring that our sentencing law provides our courts with the powers to sentence offenders appropriately and meeting the three objectives of deterrence retribution with informative speeches from Jenny Gilruth and Fulton MacGregor and there was quite a consensus that emerged across the chamber today from all parties except the Conservatives I've heard concerns expressed by members about sentences imposed in individual cases but I trust that members will understand that as a Government minister it would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual sentencing decisions of our courts I recognise that people, especially victims of crime and their friends and family will of course have strong views on individual sentencing decisions especially in the most serious cases before our court and I consider that such decisions are best made by an independent judiciary taking account of all the facts and circumstances of each case before them However, looking at the bigger picture it's worth noting that operational data from the Scottish courts and tribunal service shows that an average minimum tariff for life prisoners and this is an important context this afternoon increased significantly from less than 14 years in 2007-8 to over 17 years in 17-18 and this has occurred at a time when we have been making real progress in tackling crime in Scotland The Crime and Justice Survey published in March 2019 shows that crime has fallen by 42 per cent since 2008-9 and by 16 per cent since 2016-17 to the lowest level ever estimated The proportion of adults experiencing crime has fallen from 20.4 per cent in 2008-9 to 12.5 per cent in 2017-18 and that is compared to an equivalent victimisation rate in England and Wales by 17.4 per cent in 2017-18 Research published this morning into non sexual violent crime in Scotland finds that fewer cases of violence between males in the west of Scotland often involving relatively younger people up to the age of 29 and the use of a weapon have driven the 35 per cent reduction in attempted murder and serious assault since 2008-9 As I said earlier considering suggestions as to how the sentencing powers of our courts can be improved in 2015 the Scottish Sentencing Council was established with the aim of promoting consistency in sentencing assisting the development of sentencing policy and promoting greater awareness and understanding of sentencing When the issue of whole life sentences was first raised in Parliament by the Public Petitions Committee and by Ruth Davidson MSP my predecessor wrote to Lady Dorian the chair of the Scottish Sentencing Council highlighted the concerns that had been expressed by Parliamentarians about the consistency and the comparability of sentencing in murder cases and whether the judiciary have the necessary powers to deal with the most serious cases and asked if the council was aware of any issues or concerns having been raised about the current operation of the existing law with reference to mandatory life sentences for murder Lady Dorian noted that while consideration of the introduction of whole life sentences was a policy matter for Parliament she confirmed that other than the exchanges that the council had had with the Public Petitions Committee no issues or concerns in relation to the operation of the current law on life sentences had been raised with the council Equally the cabinet secretary as you would expect meets regularly with the Lord President of the Council and at no point has he or other members of the judiciary expressed concern that their existing powers to sentence our most serious offenders are not sufficient and that was a point that was well made by both Rona Mackay and Ruth Maguire in their thoughtful speeches what is important in our sentencing law that it works to ensure that the public is protected from those who pose a serious risk to their safety while working to reintegrate offenders into society and to reduce re-offending Prison is still the right place for the most serious offenders and that is why we have ended the previous system of automatic early release for serious offenders that was introduced of course by the Conservative Government in the 1990s The average length of prison sentences has increased by 21% over the last decade I am not persuaded that introducing whole life sentences for a small minority of the most serious cases would make a practical difference to our justice system and as of March 2019 of the 7,038 prisoners currently serving life sentences in England and Wales I understand that just 63 are serving a whole life sentence assuming that the Scottish judiciary took the same approach to the use of such sentences as the courts in England and Wales I would expect that very few such sentences would ever be imposed considerably fewer than one a year and that in the small number of cases where the judiciary might consider it it would be cases like those of Angus Sinclair or Peter Tobin which we have discussed this afternoon where the offender would be highly unlikely to ever be released in any event Margaret Mitchell 6 minutes please Thank you, Presiding Officer This important debate has attracted many differing views and comments such as political posturing stunts, headline thumping and a lack and a lock them up and throw away the key justice I want to put our proposal in context and I genuinely hope that having done so members will reflect on what I consider those comments Our criminal justice system has a huge spectrum of criminal offences for which perpetrators are convicted at the lower end of the spectrum the disposal for a conviction may be a deferred sentence of fine or a community payback order or service order at the higher end are crimes which attract a prison service within this huge spectrum of offences are individuals from all walks of life who for various reasons fall fall of the law many of these offenders have underlying issues which contribute to their offending behaviour others commit offences for reasons difficult to understand but who as a result of appropriate early intervention measures and effective rehabilitation programmes and through care support will never re-offend again for the avoidance of doubt the whole life custody Scotland bill is not targeted at any individuals who fall within the category of perpetrators I have just described Instead it targets those thankfully small number of individuals who commit the most horrendous depraved and heinous crimes and who it must never be possible to safely release into society very briefly John Finnie John Finnie I know that the member has for Lady Dorian Having heard the minister's comments about Lady Dorian does she not believe that if Lady Dorian had concerns she would have articulated them before now Margaret Mitchell Not up to the judiciary to influence policy that's the whole point it's the discretion of the judiciary these perpetrators fall within the wide category of criminals who receive a so-called life sentence which is mandatory for anyone convicted of murder but which by no stretch of the imagination means they'll spend the rest of their life behind bars because when imposing this mandatory sentence judges in Scotland are required to set the punishment part of this sentence which equates to a minimum period of time they will actually spend in prison and in fact as many people have said the longest punishment part ever handed down in Scotland is the minimum period with most murderers serving between 12 and 20 years before becoming eligible for release then having served the minimum number of years set by the judge there is the option for the parole board to consider them for release back into society on licence with conditions and supervised by criminal justice social workers for the rest of their lives the intensity and supervision varies and a breach of those conditions depending on the circumstances may and only may result in a return to custody and can I say to Daniel Johnson an order for lifelong restriction makes it slightly more difficult with extra risk assessment requirements but still does not guarantee no release and that's the point that so many people today including the minister have failed to understand and accept because a whole life custody sentence would therefore address the unacceptable situation in Scots law whereby the most serious and vile offences involving for example brutal murders and vicious serious sexual offences at present there is currently no guarantee that these dangerous offenders will never be released but with the power to hand down a whole life custody sentence the judiciary here in Scotland would have the same discretion as their counterparts in England and Wales where judges are able to give whole life orders for offenders over the age of 21 who have committed an extremely serious offence and the definition of that is in Liam's consultation significantly those orders have been held to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights more importantly still our judges will be able to decide for themselves whether crime committed is of such an abhorrent, violent and odious nature then life should mean life and communities will be safer as a consequence and to address John Finnie's point about pressure on the prison estate there are currently 63 whole life prisoners in England and Wales given the prison population here is 10.8 times less than south of the border on a pro rata basis there would be approximately 6 whole life prisoners in Scotland in addition to this giving the judges the power to hand down a whole life custody would being trust in the justice system for victims and help restore honesty in sentences in conclusion contrary to Mr McArthur's assertion if a judge has good reason not to impose a whole life custody they will never be compelled to do so but when the victims family and society at large hear a judge say a murder will be going down going to prison for life they will mean it because this bill gives them the discretion and the power to ensure the most deadly dangerous perpetrators literally spend the rest of their lives in custody to ensure they will never pose a threat to the public that concludes the debate on whole life custody sentences and it's time to move on to the next item of business if members would sort out their seating quickly please