Justice 1 Committee, 25 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Official Report 256KB pdf

---

Alternatives to Custody Inquiry

We will now take evidence from Jim Wallace, who is the minister on our inquiry into legal aid—[Interruption.] Sorry, I have been advised that we are talking about alternatives to custody—for a moment the minister's heart must have gone for a hop, skip and a jump.

I refer members to papers J1/03/5/2 and J1/03/5/3. Minister, witnesses have told the committee that, despite the fact that a wide range of community disposals is available to courts, programmes are often not available for those disposals. We have heard that from a variety of sources. How is the Executive addressing that?

First and foremost, we have been making the range of non-custodial sentences—alternatives to custody—available throughout Scotland. With the exception of the drug treatment and testing order, all alternatives are available throughout Scotland. It is important that work is done to ensure that programmes can run. The committee recognised in its budget report the substantial additional resources that have gone into funding community disposals. During the three years up to this financial year, funding has increased by 52 per cent to £67 million. By 2005-06, there will have been an increase of 100 per cent over a five-year period. That shows the Executive's commitment to making funding available to ensure that programmes are available.

I am aware that members have heard evidence to suggest that specific programmes at specific times, or places on those programmes, have not been available. Inevitably, that will happen from time to time, but there has not been a consistent pattern in one specific area over any length of time. I hope that sheriffs are discovering where the bottlenecks are and that they liaise with the criminal justice social work services in the area to resolve the problem. For example, in Glasgow there is good liaison between the sheriffs and the social work department. If problems are identified, I hope that sheriffs will similarly engage with the local social work departments to resolve them.

According to evidence from the sheriffs, they have a good relationship with criminal justice social work services—they have a lot of time for the social workers with whom they are in contact and understand the pressures under which they work. Do the criminal justice social work departments get back to you about problems? You are the pilot who can direct matters and who should be made aware of the overall picture.

From time to time, specific matters are raised, but I cannot say that there is any great pattern emerging. Occasionally, specific items are raised, but the Executive has put so much money into community disposals that that should help.

Criminal justice social work is now divided into 11 groupings, plus those for the three islands areas. One of the reasons for that arrangement is to ensure the better development and greater consistency of programmes over a wider area. The groupings took effect only on 1 April last year, but we hope that they will provide a critical mass, which should also help with the provision of programmes.

Do you consider that there would be merit in meetings between the criminal justice social work departments from those 11 areas and your officials, so that the Executive can be kept informed of any patchiness or lack of information? Information is scattered at the moment, so holding more regular meetings could have merit.

Such an approach would certainly have merit. Indeed, if any particular problem should arise, the criminal justice social work departments should not wait to raise it at a routine meeting. In any case, the officials in my department who deal with the matter meet the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities every two to three months. As a result, if certain trends are emerging, we should be able to identify and address them. Obviously, if there are specific problems in specific areas, the criminal justice social work departments should flag them up. However, on your general question, I certainly think that it is a good idea to have exchange and dialogue.

We feel that that does not happen all the time. There are many concerned people in different areas and they do not seem able to have their views co-ordinated, as it were, in one centre to ensure that there is a comprehensive picture. I appreciate that the situation fluctuates—even the sheriffs admitted as much. However, the great problem for the committee is that there is a lack of awareness in certain areas about whether a programme is working well. I know that other members might want to take up that matter.

My question concerns evidence that we received from Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending, which provides programmes that run in parallel with criminal justice social work. The organisation gave us some examples of good programmes that are totally oversubscribed and cannot be rolled out because of a lack of resources. For example, SACRO's Edinburgh adult mediation and reparation service has had to turn away 170 people a year due to a lack of resources. Some of its group work services, which are based in Falkirk, have received many more referrals than they can manage. The waiting list for its Glasgow supported accommodation service can become so large that individual social workers decide not to make a referral. Finally, Midlothian adult mediation and reparation and supported accommodation service has a waiting list. Because of a lack of resources, even excellent programmes can be halted. I was wondering how the good programmes could be expanded.

The programmes that you have described are contracted with the local authorities, which, as I have indicated, are being given substantial new resources. If the authorities are experiencing difficulties, they should raise them with us in the way that the convener has suggested. It might be more appropriate for the local authorities, rather than SACRO, to do that, although it is useful that the organisation has flagged up those examples. However, the local authorities have contracted for the places. If they have found that bottlenecks are occurring, they should raise the matter with us.

I reiterate that, as far as the additional resources are concerned, no one can gainsay the amount by which funding has increased. I also point out that officials in the department meet the voluntary sector, including SACRO, every six months, which provides an opportunity for exchanges. In some respects, the fact that particular programmes are working well is itself an encouragement to local authorities to take cognisance of them, although perhaps that is a back-handed compliment.

The Sheriffs Association believes that the over-enthusiastic use of pilot schemes might lead to postcode justice, which would result in some offenders not being able to benefit from programmes such as those connected with drug testing and treatment orders because those programmes were deprived of resources. What is your response to that assertion?

I am certainly aware that sheriffs have expressed that view. As I indicated yesterday at the conference that SACRO and Amnesty International co-sponsored, we would have had a real postcode lottery in sentencing if we had not piloted schemes or evaluated sentences before rolling them out. If we are trying to draw a parallel with postcode prescribing, I should point out that postcode prescribing does not usually happen in relation to the testing of a particular drug. Instead, it has more to do with whether a drug that has been accepted as good is available. Simply to roll out every programme and sentence without evaluation would be to take a hit-and-miss approach and would not command the necessary confidence of sheriffs and the public.

Consider the restriction of liberty orders, which were piloted in Aberdeen, Peterhead and Hamilton. The pilots were important not only in determining whether the orders addressed the particular sentencing and justice requirements, but in testing the technical capability of the measure. If we had rolled out restriction of liberty orders across Scotland without testing their practical capability and then found that they did not work, there would have been legitimate grounds for criticism. Having piloted and evaluated them, we were able to roll them out across Scotland with confidence.

The same applies to supervised attendance orders. Indeed, the only sentence that is not currently available throughout Scotland is the drug testing and treatment order, although by the end of this year it should be available in sheriff courts for 70 per cent of Scotland's population. However, as the committee is well aware, DTTOs involve quite a lot of multi-agency support and involvement. We cannot just suddenly turn on the tap and allow sentences to be passed that cannot be implemented locally.

I am sorry to interrupt, minister, but the issue at the heart of the Sheriffs Association's concerns is that pilot schemes will draw resources from other areas of the criminal justice system and deprive them of resources. Although drugs courts, for example, are very worthy, they are social-work intensive and draw criminal justice social workers from other areas. Moreover, a young person who is in an area in which there is a youth court will be treated differently from a person who is in an area in which there is not a youth court—they will be better off. The Sheriffs Association raised those two issues with us and I would be pleased if you addressed them.

I understand where the Sheriffs Association is coming from, but we have made additional resources available for drugs courts and additional resources will be made available for the youth court pilot. Therefore, resources will not be drawn away. Additional resources have been made available.

So there will be no impact on delivery elsewhere.

I believe that that is right. On the other issue, one might think that drugs courts are worth while—indeed, the Parliament has agreed that they are—but that does not mean that they can suddenly be introduced in every sheriff court in Scotland. The fact that they are a new departure in the treatment of drug offenders means that careful planning is required—the committee will recall the amount of planning that there has been, which is the proper way of proceeding. In general, members from all parties in the Parliament saw the proposal as a good idea, but it could have got a bad name if things were done in a half-hearted way—or in a not even half-hearted way—as that would have made the scheme impossible to sustain in some places.

I still think that there is an issue to be addressed. I understand what you are saying and that there must be pilots, but justice will be uneven throughout the country. To some people, it seems that pilots continue for too long and that schemes are rolled out very slowly across the country. For example, DTTOs might be available to people in one part of the country and not to people in another part of the country, which means that the people for whom they are not available are disadvantaged. The same applies to youth courts. We should try to achieve the right balance between having pilot schemes—and therefore finding out about glitches and whether the schemes work—and rolling out schemes quickly across the country.

To be fair, the restriction of liberty orders were piloted and evaluated and then extended across the country at once—that was on 1 May last year. Likewise, having been evaluated, supervised attendance orders were extended across the country at once. Diversion from prosecution was also evaluated. Having learned from the evaluation of the pilots, we tried to make the disposal more focused as we rolled it out across the country. There were different emphases and priorities according to the lessons that had been learned. I believe that diversion from prosecution is a more effective alternative disposal route as a result of that process.

The disposal that you are right in saying has not been rolled out at once is the DTTO. In Greenock, for example, it took some time to put in place the infrastructure to support it—it was probably implemented later than we had originally hoped. The committee would rightly be critical of the Executive if we had tried to roll out a sentence in a place where it might theoretically have been possible for the sheriff to impose it but to all intents and purposes there was not the resource—often the human resource—to support it. There is no point in our doing that.

Are you not able to recruit the personnel that you need for the programmes? Alternatively, is the problem money, or is it a combination of both factors?

The issue is not solely about money. Multi-agency work is required, as different agencies are involved. There are protocols. DTTOs involve bringing social work departments and health services together and there must be drug treatment facilities. All those services must be in place. That often involves the availability of people who have the adequate and proper training. Therefore, I do not believe that we should rush into DTTOs. However, we are steadily extending the disposal. We started using it in Glasgow and Fife and it has now substantially been rolled out. As I said, by the end of the year we will cover 70 per cent of the population.

It is important to pilot various systems to allow time for evaluation and to ensure that the Executive does not introduce something that, as you said, could create confusion in the system. As the committee heard last week, the Sheriffs Association also recognises that. Once the pilot has taken place and been evaluated, the next step is to decide to roll it out across all sheriffdoms in Scotland. It would be helpful if you published a list of the sheriffdoms where DTTOs will be introduced, the time frame for doing so and the additional resources that will be required in each area to provide the service. You may already do that, but I have not seen such a list.

As I indicated, restriction of liberty orders, supervised attendance orders and diversions from prosecution were not extended gradually; we took the big-bang approach, if that is not an inappropriate phrase. It was agreed to roll those orders out across Scotland on a given date after they had been piloted and evaluated. It was not a question of having certain sheriff courts becoming involved on certain dates. The difference comes with DTTOs, for the reasons that I gave to Maureen Macmillan.

The sheriffs ought to be well aware of what is about to happen, not least because of the protocols that have to be agreed. The orders do not just happen by themselves; a lot of preparatory work has to be done before they can be rolled out. Plenty of advertisement and notice is given at the time and local steering groups are involved. Sheriffs should certainly know when DTTOs become available to their sheriff courts.

However, there is no comprehensive list detailing a time frame for the introduction of the orders in individual sheriffdoms and the resources that will be required to accompany them.

We have indicated the next clutch of sheriff courts to which we want DTTOs to be extended. The sheriff courts must then liaise with local authorities and health authorities to ensure that the appropriate facilities and back-up are in place. In Greenock, although there had been an indication of the time needed for the orders to be made available, implementation had to be postponed because the back-up and facilities were not adequate at the intended date of introduction. We have indicated which sheriff courts are in the next tranche, but that is dependent on work being done on the ground. We clearly want the orders to be introduced and every effort is being made to achieve that, but we recognise that there will be times when they are not introduced when envisaged.

I am sorry, Michael. I know that you wish to pursue that point further, but we have a lot to deal with. We have touched on some reasons for delays in rolling out the orders, but we can deal further with that issue later. Maureen Macmillan has the next question.

When the committee met in Inverness, we took evidence from Highland Council. Service providers told us that funding for programmes to support community disposals is awarded following a bidding process. We were told that, when Highland Council had to bid for packages, it often got money to fund schemes that were not its priorities. Therefore, the strategy that it had worked out had to be readjusted in accordance with the outcome of the bidding process. The committee was also told that funding is often short term and project based and that the bidding process is time consuming, which makes it difficult for programme providers to plan strategically. Will the Executive consider changing the funding process to address those problems?

That observation might be fair as far as some of the funding for youth justice programmes is concerned, but the core work on non-custodial sentences has substantially been done. We invite the groupings that I mentioned earlier to put forward three-year strategic plans. A grouping might not get everything that it wants with respect to those plans, but that is a far cry from the more ad hoc applications and refusals that the question perhaps suggested. The groupings are meant to reflect and identify national priorities. A three-year strategic plan is what most local authorities have been looking for in a range of funding areas, not just in this one.

One of the youth diversion projects that we heard evidence about in Inverness had eight funding streams, which all finished at different times.

I think that you are talking about youth justice as opposed to—

Yes, but that is within our scope. As well as dealing with alternatives to custody, we want to ensure that youngsters are diverted from getting into the system in the first place.

Indeed.

The example with the eight funding streams that all finished at different times gave us concern. The process was described to us as being something of a jigsaw. What is being done about that?

I will not dispute the point about Highland Council having eight funding streams, if that is what its representatives said. The officials accompanying me are not aware that Highland Council has ever made a complaint about that to them.

The example was raised not by Highland Council, but by representatives of a project and it is detailed in the evidence that the committee took in Inverness. That evidence was available for your team to look at.

The example may be a responsibility of the education department, but if the committee is prepared to give us chapter and verse, we will certainly look into the matter. However, I repeat that it has not been flagged up with us.

We will write to you on that.

Thank you for that, minister.

I have a more general point about the funding of projects. We frequently hear complaints that some projects that are doing visibly good work—the Freagarrach project is often quoted as an example, but there are many others—still live on a day-to-day basis for their funding. It is argued that it is in everyone's interest for such projects to get continuity of funding and for them to be replicated in other parts of the country. The complaint is that there is too much funding for new projects and that existing projects do not get continuing funding and are not copied.

That is why we are keen to move to the three-year strategic plans. The knowledge that funding will increase between now and 2005-06 should help with the kind of long-term planning that we all agree is better than the uncertainty that comes with year-to-year funding. With the move to the groupings and three-year strategic planning, I hope that what has not been possible up to now will be possible, as the groupings will be more certain about their funding streams in the years ahead.

The Freagarrach project is widely acknowledged as a good scheme. The difficulty of rolling it out across Scotland is that it is specific to one place and the people who do it. I have asked about spreading the project further and I understand that the process is not as simple as just replanting the project elsewhere. The project is specific to those who are involved in delivering the programme. Undoubtedly, however, there will be lessons and features of the project that can be used elsewhere.

Donald Gorrie has also taken an interest in the Airborne Initiative, which makes a valuable contribution. It is a national programme and I think that I am right in saying that it has places vacant. It would not necessarily make sense to replicate that project elsewhere while it still has vacancies.

There are other projects, such as the intensive probation project in Glasgow, from which we can take good ideas and try to ensure that good practice is disseminated. When there is proper accreditation, that will assist considerably with the dissemination of good practice.

Witnesses have spoken about the shortage of social workers, which leads to delays in the production of reports and so on. It has also been said that the work load in courts is increasing and that the resources to deal with that are not available. What proposals do you have to remedy such serious shortages?

The lack of social workers has been identified and acknowledged. Colleagues will recall that Cathy Jamieson made an announcement last month about measures that have been taken to increase the number of social workers. It is also fair to say that, although the problem is general, the shortages have not been so marked in criminal justice social work. I am advised that there has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of criminal justice social workers in the past five years.

Is there a shortfall?

I am sure that—

What is the shortfall?

I am sure that there will be a shortfall in some areas. However, a 25 per cent increase shows that the issue is being addressed. It is also fair to point out that the Auditor General's report on youth justice, which was critical in a number of respects, found that approximately 96.5 per cent of social work reports were submitted to the court on time. Clearly, the rate should be 100 per cent but, to be fair, 96.5 per cent is not an unreasonable achievement.

Will you provide the figures for the shortfall in criminal justice social workers in the 11 designated areas? Sheriffs told us that the social workers not only do the reports, but appear in court for breaches of orders and do other tasks. It would be useful for the committee to know the exact shortfall throughout Scotland and in the 11 designated areas.

We will try to give as good a picture as we can. I am sure—

As good a picture? No, we want the picture.

That depends. If the question is what is the ideal—

I just want to know the number of vacancies, the numbers that are required in the various areas and the shortfall, rather than being told about a 25 per cent increase—an increase from what?

It is over five years.

We need to know what is out there.

We will give you the number of vacancies. That should not be too difficult.

The matter is serious.

I hope that the committee acknowledges what I said about the Audit Scotland report, which found that 96.5 per cent of social work inquiry reports were delivered to the court on time. That is easy to knock, but it is appropriate to give credit where it is due.

The point is that sometimes parties are in custody because no social worker would be available if they were on bail, so there is a knock-on effect. The reports might be there, but criminal justice social workers are required to do other things, which is what we require to know about.

One of the issues that is flagged up in the minister's evidence is the tension between trying to provide sufficient community disposals to reflect the progression of crime, and not having so many community disposals that sheriffs or anyone else who wants to know their way round the system is confused. In the light of that, is the Executive considering any new community disposals for Scotland? In particular, is night and weekend prison under consideration?

The answer to the latter question is no. We are looking at structured deferred sentences. Some of the work that was done on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill related to supervised attendance orders. Such orders are not a new disposal, but they could become a sentence of first instance, rather than an alternative to imprisonment for fine default. Glasgow stipendiary magistrates court and another sheriff court could pilot the mandatory use of supervised attendance orders where there has been fine default. The sentence is not new; we are applying an existing sentence in different circumstances.

In that light, I flag up the fact that we share the desire for existing disposals to have comprehensive coverage and for all parties to have a deeper understanding of those disposals. In our report, we will probably at least touch on night and weekend prison and how that might play a role for those for whom custodial options remain the way forward. I will leave it there at this stage.

I will read the report with interest.

I ask the minister to comment on the effectiveness of alternatives to custody programmes. We have received evidence that many individual programmes have been evaluated, but one concern is that it is difficult to establish an overall picture of effectiveness. Does the Executive propose to undertake a comprehensive assessment of community disposals?

I have an evaluation of community-based disposals, from February 2003, which Monica Barry of our research unit prepared. I am happy to make that available to the committee. Paul Martin is right to highlight the fact that the situation is often difficult because there are so many factors and variables. For example, an event might have happened in a person's life that means that they would have changed their ways anyway. Sometimes what can appear technically to be a breach of a community service order might relate to a conviction for an offence that took place before the community service order was imposed. It is important to tease out all the variables that can come into play.

One study describes the 100 per cent funding policy and the national standards. It says:

"A major review of this policy was published in 1998 and a longer-term follow-up study was published in 2000."

The study gives an indication of the evaluation of community-based disposals. I will make the study available to the committee. It is a useful document.

We would like to circulate it as soon as possible.

If disposals and resources are being made available, people want to know that the Executive is also considering effective means of evaluating its policies. I appreciate that research is being carried out, but people in the community want to know whether the programmes are effective. Significant sums are being allocated to community disposals, which raises the issue of accountability. Surely the Executive has to ensure that resources are being put to good use.

I entirely accept that point. Over the past few hours, as I was preparing for the meeting, I looked at some of the figures. Reconviction rates could be taken as one measure of effectiveness. The reconviction rate within two years for custody is 67 per cent, for probation is 63 per cent, and for community service orders is 50 per cent.

I think that the figures are in paper J1/03/5/2, submitted by the minister.

I think that that is correct, but the figures appear in a number of places.

I want to follow up on how the data on clients are configured. A number of organisations that have given evidence have advised us of how successful they are—some of them claim to be remarkably successful in leading their clients to a new type of life. How is it possible for them to say that if there is no tracking of clients because the system does not allow them to be tracked? What does the Executive propose to do to ensure that it is informed about schemes that it invests in? How does it know that the schemes are effective? Will it track at least a cross-section of clients to ensure that the programmes are effective?

We are improving the information technology based on which we can undertake such tracking. The question is a fair one. Up until now, much of that work has been possible only on a patchy basis, although the situation is improving. I have a briefing note with me on the tracking of offenders, which gives statistical information on reconviction. Rather than read it out to put all that on the record, it might be helpful if I gave it to the committee.

The papers should be lodged as public papers.

The paper reports some of the figures that I have just given and indicates that

"More detailed analyses of reconviction rates based on the SOI"—

Scottish offenders index—

"data have been carried out from time to time to inform various research and other ad hoc requests for information. It would be feasible to develop further this type of bespoke analysis … to meet other emerging specific needs for information, subject to the available analytical resources".

I am not blaming you, minister, but it would have been useful if your department had put the papers into our hands before today's meeting. That would have allowed us to address the issues.

I think that it has just been done.

Has it?

We have been trying to follow the evidence and pick up some of the points.

If a public limited company was selling a product, it would want to detail its results to ensure that the product was successful. I am sure that a number of tracking mechanisms would be used to ensure that the company's clients were happy with the product.

Do you agree that tracking to evaluate the projects is an issue? There appears to be a lethargic and almost casual approach to their evaluation. We pour money into them, but leave the evaluation to be carried out by academic studies. There should be a more comprehensive, standardised and efficient mechanism to track alternatives to custody programmes that we put money into. A major company would do that to ensure that the product was a success.

As I indicated, some of the variables make it difficult to track the success of alternatives to custody with any accuracy. Also, we are only now getting improvements in the electronic recording of information to make such tracking more possible. I share your view that it ought to have been done better in the past. That, along with reconviction rates for those in custody, is one of the issues that I have been trying to pursue so that I can get a better handle on it. There is scope for improvement. I assure the committee that we are on to that.

To reinforce that point, it would be helpful for the committee to have that information, so that our report might be helpful to the minister when it appears.

In the latter stages of our inquiry into the prison estates review, it became apparent that a comprehensive information-gathering exercise was about to be embarked upon, so that, from November 2004, for every prisoner in a Scottish prison, now and for ever after, we will have a record of what their prison experience was like and what opportunities they had to participate in programmes such as education. Within a short period of time, we will have comprehensive information about those who are in the custodial system, but that is stewarded by an executive agency—the Scottish Prison Service. Is it possible for the minister to compel the Scottish Prison Service at the highest level to work closely with 11 different criminal justice groupings, which essentially work with the same client groups?

I do not need an answer to that, but we must say that we need an integrated IT management system for those who are sent down the non-custodial and the custodial routes, so that we can provide the definitive evidence that Paul Martin is looking for. The committee was astonished to have the official police bodies come before it and say that there is no evidence that non-custodial sentences work or are more effective than custodial sentences.

We need to consider the entire population that comes through the criminal justice system, irrespective of whether people receive a custodial sentence. I do not minimise the difficulties of co-ordinating an IT system among 11 criminal justice social work consortia and the Scottish Prison Service, but we might helpfully mention the need for such a system in our report and leave the matter with the minister.

We will leave the topic at that. The minister does not need to answer Wendy Alexander's question. We are asking for long-term evaluation. We have heard what the minister has to say. Once we have the other papers that the minister has cited, we will consider them. Alternatives to custody cannot be sold to the public, let alone sheriffs, if they have not been evaluated.

Wendy Alexander put her finger on the issue. There are 11 different criminal justice social work groupings and possibly 32 different IT systems—perhaps that is an exaggeration. We seek standardisation of the software.

There is clearly a need to evaluate programmes effectively. Part of the reason why we need to do that is to gain public confidence in the systems that we operate and to ensure that those on the bench are confident that the various schemes that we operate are effective. There seems to be a gulf. It is clear from your evidence that you acknowledge that public confidence and the courts' confidence in the various schemes that operate are issues. What action is the Executive taking to ensure that we address those issues and bridge the gap?

There are a number of things. To go back to what I said earlier, the fact that programmes are rolled out only when they have been piloted and evaluated is an important point. That was one of the driving considerations in pulling together the 11 groupings. The experience was that criminal justice social work in individual authorities was sometimes almost a cinderella service. By bringing the groupings together and trying to get a critical mass, the importance of criminal justice social work has been elevated. More emphasis has been given to the work, which has achieved greater consistency and an improvement in the programmes.

As the committee is well aware, we are establishing an accreditation panel. The ultimate aim of the panel is to reduce reoffending by promoting excellence in programmes in the community, and it will accredit and encourage effective approaches. The tasks will be to approve the criteria for accreditation; to invite and consider applications for accreditation; and to determine whether the criteria are met, whether more needs to be done or whether the programmes are deemed to be unsuccessful. The panel will give feedback to applicants, with guidance on how they can improve if they have been unsuccessful, and it will review and modify the accreditation criteria. Your point has been taken on board and we have now established the panel, which will have its first meeting in April.

Will the reports that the panel compiles be public documents?

Yes.

Some of the evidence that we received suggested that there is little value in short-term custodial sentences, particularly sentences of six months and under. When someone goes into prison for six months, they may be released after three months. It could be argued that the community has been protected from them for that three-month or six-month period, but it could also be argued that, if they went on a two-year community disposal programme, they would be under even greater scrutiny, which would provide greater security for the community, because they would be observed and monitored.

Is the Executive taking action to promote the use of alternatives to custody, particularly for those who may receive a short-term sentence? I would very much prefer someone to be on a two-year probation programme than to receive a six-month sentence, when they could get out in three months and be back at large in the community causing the difficulties that they caused before they went into prison. The prison system is not able to address offending behaviour in such a short period of time.

I understand the basis of Michael Matheson's question. For the record, when I opened the Iona block at Polmont young offenders institution, the governor, Dan Gunn, quoted from the 1949 Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Offenders, saying:

"We wish to be equally emphatic in expressing our opinion about the ineffectiveness of short-term prison sentences—the short-term sentence is harmful to the offender and a waste of public money."

I am afraid that, 54 years on, Michael Matheson has expressed the same sentiment.

I would like to think that we are trying to move on and change. Yesterday, the Executive published the report of the November 2001 criminal justice forum on short-term prison sentences. I entirely agree that community disposals can be far more effective, particularly in dealing with people who would otherwise get short-term prison sentences, but who do not have to be imprisoned to protect the public, who do not have a disposition to violence, or who have not committed a crime of such a nature that it would appropriately attract a prison sentence.

If the objective is to break cycles of reoffending, the intensive supervision that can accompany some alternatives to custody is likely to have a more lasting benefit, because there is a period during which offenders can receive help and have their offending behaviour addressed. That must be what we aim to achieve.

I emphasise that the role of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive is to make the sentences available. In a country in which we uphold the independence of the judiciary—as we rightly should—the sentence will always be a decision for a sheriff who is faced with the full facts of a particular case. We have to try to ensure that a range of appropriate sentences and programmes is available and that sheriffs and the public have confidence in them.

Do your projected prison numbers take into account the route of promoting community disposals?

From memory, I think that that was taken into account as an element of the prison estates review. I think that the committee saw that evidence in the context of the estates review.

I declare an interest as a non-practising Queen's counsel.

An interest that I share.

Some witnesses have suggested the introduction of statutory limitations on the use of short-term sentences. Further, it has been suggested that, because there is no rehabilitative element in short sentences, there is a case for more non-custodial options or for longer sentences. What is your reaction to those suggestions?

We have no plans to impose statutory limitations on short-term sentences. We would be going in the wrong direction if, to achieve in-prison rehabilitative work, longer sentences were imposed than would have been the case if the sheriff were thinking only about justice. That would be approaching the matter the wrong way round. We must try to ensure that all non-custodial sentences, such as community service orders, supervised attendance orders and probation, have the components that allow proper rehabilitation to take place.

The committee will be aware that we want to establish a time-out centre in Glasgow for women offenders as an alternative to custody. That is an important development.

Some witnesses have told the committee that a lack of judicial confidence in the provision of alternatives to custody has increased the use of custody as opposed to community disposals. Do you accept the suggestion that, if programmes that deliver community disposals were adequately resourced, they would be more fully used?

Is it a source of concern to you that many of the community disposals display a high rate of recidivism? One of our documents indicated that the rate was 56 per cent for probation and 40 per cent for community service and that 61 per cent of those discharged from custody were reconvicted. What might be the best way of dealing with that problem?

I would not accept that community sentences lack credibility. For example, in 2001-02, there was a 19 per cent increase in probation orders, and more sheriffs have been using community sentences.

The committee has reflected before on whether more community sentences are being imposed instead of fines or other alternatives to custody. Obviously, the number of people being committed to custody has also been increasing, but the number of community service orders and probation orders has started to increase again, after stalling for a while.

What was the second part of your question?

I asked about recidivism.

To some extent, I have already addressed that issue. We have figures that show that some forms of non-custodial sentence are less likely than custodial sentences to result in repeat offending. As I said to Paul Martin, we need better information on that. I return to the point that Michael Matheson made. I hope that we all share the objective of breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending. Because of their intensity and duration, some of the programmes that can be and are being delivered are more likely than prison to have a lasting effect. A non-custodial sentence may last longer than a prison sentence. There is precious little that one can do with an offender during a short period in prison.

The convener has already indicated that fines are outside the scope of this inquiry. However, I understood the minister to say that there is a move away from fines towards more community disposals.

It appears that there has been a reduction in the number of fines that are imposed. I wondered whether the committee had been able to take evidence on that.

At our previous meeting, when I put a question on the issue to the witnesses from the Sheriffs Association, the convener ruled that fines were outwith the scope of our inquiry.

I do not think so. I was concerned about whom you were asking, rather than what you were asking about.

I see.

You may put any question you like to a minister, but not to a sheriff.

The statistical bulletin that was published in December 2002 on penalties imposed in Scottish courts showed that, whereas in 1991 fines were imposed in 75.7 per cent of cases, in 2001 the figure was down to 63 per cent. Over the same period, the figure for custodial sentences increased from 7.6 per cent to 13.7 per cent, the figure for community service orders increased from 2.9 per cent to 4.1 per cent and the figure for probation orders increased from 2.7 per cent to 6.8 per cent.

The point that James Douglas-Hamilton is getting at and that I was about to make is that although the number of community disposals is increasing, that has not impacted on the number of custodial sentences. Custody is also on the increase, because it relates to an entirely different area.

I agree that that appears to be the case. Non-custodial disposals of the type that we are discussing may be being used instead of fines.

Is the minister minded to make a recommendation or to offer guidance in that area?

It would be inappropriate for ministers to offer any recommendation or guidance to sheriffs. Sheriffs would give short shrift to such a recommendation.

James Douglas-Hamilton is determined.

It is our role as parliamentarians to make sentences available. It is the role of the judiciary to impose them. That is an important principle.

You mentioned the time-out centre for women. Is that up and running?

It should be available in the summer.

When will the centre open?

The latest estimate is August.

When it opens, how many women will it serve?

Eight in detox, eight in supported accommodation and 400 in day programmes.

I have a brief initial question and a more substantive supplementary. When representatives of the Sheriffs Association gave evidence to the committee, they told us that, a number of years ago, the Executive considered producing a directory for each sheriff court area that would provide a full specification of the disposals that are available. The sheriffs were very favourably disposed towards such a directory. Are there still plans to produce one? If so, what is the time scale for that?

June is the answer to the second part of the question. I think that Lothian and Borders—

The answer to the first part must be yes.

That is right. A model for Lothian and Borders sheriff court area is being piloted that will be available in June.

I have a slightly more substantive question that relates to the point that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and the convener made. In principle, we want community disposals to be used more extensively. The empirical evidence shows that a very high level of crime is committed by 18 to 24-year-old young men who will be repeat offenders. Just as a custodial sentence will not fix them overnight, nor will a community disposal. We must deal with a period of offending.

It is important that a directory does not just say, "Here is the programme for a first-time offender," but provides clarity about the sanctions that are available when there is a breach of such a disposal. The directory should also indicate the progression, given that we have a menu of six progressive options. The directory needs to touch on those two issues. I am sure that the pilot stage will allow for that. We know the likely character of the client group that we are dealing with. Sheriffs should be aware of the progression and the sanctions in circumstances of breach. That will be helpful in avoiding jumping quickly from a community disposal to the custodial option.

I share that view.

Does the Executive have a strategy on the repeated use of community sentences? Some people believe that, if a person has failed in the community sentence, he or she should go to jail. There is a desire to have the facility for repeated community sentences. What is your position on that? Will you develop policy along those lines?

In response to Wendy Alexander, I indicated that there is progression, subject to the overriding caveat that sheriffs must decide what is appropriate in each case. A breach of a non-custodial sentence should not automatically trigger imprisonment. The nature of the breach should be taken into account. That is especially true of someone whose offending might be drug related. It is naive to assume that they can kick a deeply ingrained habit overnight. A considerable degree of perseverance is necessary.

Donald Gorrie might recall that that is why we resisted an amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill last week. In certain circumstances, the amendment in question would have automatically triggered the ultimate disposal for the original offence, rather than allowing for the use of some of the other options that the bill proposed. It would be a mistake to go straight to custody. There ought to be scope for discretion by the bench, to take account of particular circumstances.

Thank you very much, minister. We have almost stuck to our timetable.

I was asked whether I could give another 10 minutes; I would be willing to do so.

You have 10—or rather, eight—minutes to yourself, which I am sure you will cherish.

Are we having a break now?

No, the break is at 4 o'clock.