Prison Visiting Committees
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01878, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on prison visiting committees. This debate is every bit as tight as the previous one, so I ask members to keep strictly to their times.
10:28
I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate prison visiting committees this morning. I thank Patrick Harvie for lodging a motion on 17 January that encapsulated admirably why this issue is so important. I had no hesitation in supporting the motion and I was not alone in doing so. To preserve that consensus, I have repeated the motion verbatim—I could not improve on it. I look forward to Patrick Harvie’s contribution to the debate.
I use the word “debate” advisedly. The Scottish Government’s approach to this matter is less than perfect; indeed it is manifestly flawed. However, I have noticed since last May that although the First Minister and I disagree on many things, he has not regarded his majority as a mandate to steamroller through any Scottish National Party pet project. Indeed, where reasoned argument has been deployed and the possibility has emerged that the Scottish Government might not have got something right, he has deferred to the Parliament and shown a willingness to listen. I very much hope that this debate may allow that precedent to be observed today.
I shall comment briefly on the role of our Scottish prison visiting committees and, in doing so, thank and pay tribute to the dedicated volunteers who organise and carry out those visits. They do something unique. In a captive situation, which is what a prison is, no matter how well intended the Scottish Prison Service and prison officers are, for prisoners they are part of the system—part of officialdom. Many prisoners feel unable to trust them or confide in them.
The prison visitor, on the other hand, is something very different: a person who is independent, who has no axe to grind and who is not part of the system. It is no surprise, therefore, that prison visitors can establish a positive relationship with the prisoner in a way that is impossible for many prison officers. That is not a comment on the prison officer; it is simply a consequence of what prison is.
There is ample evidence to suggest that a prisoner may speak to a prison visitor when they will speak to no one else. That is not supposition on my part: the HMP Addiewell prison visiting committee’s response to the 2011 consultation notes a variety of ways in which the prison visitor was able to intervene in important issues in an important way.
The other aspect of prison visitors is that they do not inspect; they independently monitor, and they do so consistently. It is also acknowledged that they may be far better able to identify a potential suicide risk.
It is not surprising, therefore, that prison visitors are regarded as helping and supporting the prison service in a very positive manner. That is certainly the private view of a number of governors and prison officers. Indeed, it would be bizarre for a prison officer to hold a different view, unless to such a prison officer a conscientious prison visitor was a tiresome inconvenience.
Prison visitors enjoy an attribute that I would have thought would be irresistible to any Government: they are free, because they volunteer their services. The cost of training and operating the VC scheme annually is approximately £75,000, and the services that visitors volunteer for that modest outlay are impressive.
I have mentioned the Addiewell example, but there is also the visiting committee for young offenders in Cornton Vale. According to its 2010-11 report, seven visitors made 205 visits in that period. I understand that each visit is six hours long.
Interestingly, for pretty obvious reasons, the prison visitation scheme has never needed anyone to plead its case. The virtues have been self-evident, as was recognised in the 2005 review. The “Report on the review of prison visiting committees 2005” stated:
“At the outset, the group tackled in depth the fundamental question of whether there was still a need for VCs paying particular attention to the existence of the Prisons Inspectorate and the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commissioner ... Discussions took place with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Complaints Commissioner who agreed that there was a distinctive and important albeit complementary role for visiting committees. Principally, the distinctiveness arose from VCs being representative of local communities, being independent of the prison service and in the sustaining of a continuing regular relationship with a particular prison.”
Importantly, that review group concluded that visiting committees “should be retained”.
Following that review, the then Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive accepted 32 of the 39 recommendations. In 2007, the incoming SNP Government endorsed that position.
The Scottish Government then—for reasons that were at best opaque, because it had already endorsed the 2005 report—decided to undertake a further consultation last year. I say “opaque”, because normally a consultation is instigated when something is no longer working or is no longer relevant, or when external circumstances have dictated change.
However, that was not stated to be the case in the consultation document. Tellingly, it said that the key driver for the consultation was the Scottish Government’s commitment to simplify the landscape of public sector organisations in Scotland. It was nothing to do with prisoners or prisons, with trying to replace a very good service with a better one or with the most basic of human rights. I support the principle of public sector reform, but not if that means trampling all over people’s human rights, and not if a very good service is replaced with a less good one at far greater cost to the taxpayer.
Nonetheless, the consultation proceeded, and the results are most informative. Overwhelmingly, respondents voted and believed that the visiting committees should remain, and that they should complement Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. The respondents overwhelmingly endorsed the 2005 review and overwhelmingly rejected integration of visiting committees with the Scottish Prison Service.
Any view that the work of prison visitors could be undertaken by HM inspectorate of prisons was blown out of the water by HMIP itself, whose submission recognised
“the importance of local and regular monitoring of individual prisons. The individual Visiting Committees carry out this role, which also includes dealing with complaints. HMIP does not deal with prisoners’ complaints.”
To me, the most intriguing response came from the Scottish Prison Service, which was the only organisation to oppose the continuation of visiting committees. Its response is that prisons have changed and that more people from outside enter them in a variety of capacities. Well, what has changed so dramatically since 2005? The answer is nothing. So, overwhelmingly—indeed, one might say crushingly—
Much has changed. There is more collaborative work between councils and the health service. Organisations dealing with harm reduction and with dependency and substance abuse are now present in prisons. That is certainly the case in Inverness.
I accept the point that Mr Finnie makes about the ancillary activity that takes place, but nothing has changed about the fundamental character of a captive prisoner being looked after by a prison service and the complete conflict of interest if the prisoner has an issue with the prison service.
The reek of self-interest from the Scottish Prison Service’s submission is overpowering. I do not think that the SPS likes independent prison visitors or their monitoring prisoners, establishing relationships that the SPS cannot emulate or investigating complaints, all of which are probably about as welcome to the SPS as a thistle in the backside. If I were the SPS, I probably would not like it either. But this is not about the SPS; it is about prisoners who, whatever they have done, are entitled to independent—
Will the member give way?
I am very tight for time, Mr MacAskill. Please forgive me if I continue with my argument.
The Scottish Government may be inclined towards a narrower view of the SPS and the position of prisoners within it, but my concern is that prisoners must have access to independent help, support and advice, because that may well be needed at times when they are making a complaint against the prison service or against the Scottish Government. On the whole issue of human rights, I think that everyone in the chamber will have received a letter from the Scottish Human Rights Commission in which it says explicitly that it shares my concerns and fully supports my motion. So this is not solely my interpretation of the matter.
I urge the Scottish Government to consider this very carefully. Why abolish the much admired provision of independent support to prisoners carried out by committed and able volunteers? Why replace it with a contracted service that will be liable for VAT and cost the public purse an estimated £1.2 million; will be unable to replicate the depth and extent of the service provided by prison visitors; will result in greater pressure on prison officers; will almost certainly contravene international law and invite legal challenge; and, most important, will leave that most vulnerable section of our society—a captive prison population—without resort to truly independent support and help?
I have pleasure in asking the cabinet secretary to listen carefully to the views advanced in the debate. We will not be supporting the amendment.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern the Scottish Government’s proposals to abolish prison visiting committees and replace them with a prisoner advocacy service; considers that the independent scrutiny of prison conditions through regular, unannounced inspections and the independent examination of prisoner complaints is an important check and balance for the prison system; believes that, as they provide regular external scrutiny, are appointed from the local community and are independent from the Scottish Prison Service, prison visiting committees provide a distinct but complementary role to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons; notes that the Scottish Government’s consultation on the independent monitoring of prisons, which was carried out in 2011, did not include proposals for an advocacy service to replace the committees and that 59 out of 60 respondents to the consultation wanted to retain the independent oversight role that it considers the committees fulfil; further notes that, in 2005, a review of the committees recommended that they be re-established as independent monitoring boards and that there should be changes to improve their impact and consistency; understands that, on 22 December 2011, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said that the cost of running the committees was less than that anticipated for the proposed advocacy service, and believes that prison visiting committees offer excellent value for money, that they should be retained and that the proposed prisoner advocacy service should complement, but not replace, their role.
10:38
Let me first put on record my thanks to Annabel Goldie for the constructive manner in which she has articulated her case on the radio and in the chamber. While we disagree on various matters, including the legal advice, we are more than happy to enter into discussion with her and other parties. We have already put on record the fact that we will be entering into discussions with stakeholders about how we ensure that we continue to provide the services that are necessary for prisoners and that those services are fit for purpose in the 21st century. I echo her by taking this opportunity to put on record my thanks to all those who have worked as volunteers in prison visiting committees for their service over the years. I appreciate their efforts and the dedication that led them to work in this field.
Visiting committees were first created for Scottish penal establishments in 1877. Obviously, our prisons during the Victorian age were very different places from prisons in the 21st century. Times have changed and it is right that support for prisoners also changes. Prison visiting committees were originally intended to serve two key purposes: first, to resolve complaints and issues from prisoners; and, secondly, to provide independent monitoring of prisons. We undertook a consultation exercise on the first of those purposes last year, seeking views about the current role of the prison visiting committee system.
Why were no focus groups undertaken in the women’s prison as part of that consultation? Having worked there for 19 years and having been a justice minister, I know that the visiting committee at Cornton Vale has had a profound influence on that institution and on maintaining it. Now that women are dispersed to Saughton and Greenock, it is even more necessary that women prisoners—who are different—should have their rights sustained by PVCs.
The consultation that was carried out was meant to be limited, which is why we are carrying out further consultation as we are statutorily required to do, although we also seek to do it as a virtue. I will be happy to engage with Richard Simpson on that. We recognise that there are specific problems in women’s prisons and I look forward to working with Richard Simpson and Annabel Goldie when we receive the report of the Angiolini commission. It is welcome that we are united in the chamber in ensuring that we address the difficulties that prisoners face and in looking for a solution. I look forward to a more constructive debate in Parliament in future years—I welcome the fact that Dr Simpson is nodding—to address the particular problems that afflict those who are in female prisons.
In addition to carrying out that written consultation, we met several prisoner focus groups. The majority of prisoners to whom we spoke were not aware of visiting committees and the fact that they could resolve complaints and issues.
The cabinet secretary will also know that those prisoners who had experience of visiting committees had a very positive attitude towards them.
I ask the cabinet secretary to solve a mystery for me. How can it be sensible or logical for him to introduce legislation to ensure that there is visiting of police cells to fulfil our obligations under international law while, at the same time, he is removing visits from prisons? People are genuinely puzzled by that contradiction.
That proposal is in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill because the visiting committees for police cells are not currently compliant with the optional protocol to the convention against torture—OPCAT. They are not on a statutory basis and we are putting them on a statutory basis. The same does not apply to prison visiting committees. In respect of prisoners, we have Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons for Scotland and we are subject to challenges under the European convention on human rights—a matter that sometimes vexes the Conservatives, although I welcome the transformation there—with legal aid and litigation lawyers. The difference is the statutory basis.
The recent HMP Barlinnie inspection report by HM inspectorate of prisons told us that, in 2010-11, only 14 prisoners asked to see a visiting committee member. Given the fact that, in 2011, Barlinnie had more than 6,400 admissions, that strongly supports the view that visiting committees are not well known among prisoners and that prisoners make little use of them. There is an unmet need.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I have to make some progress.
The second purpose of visiting committees—to provide independent monitoring—also needed to be revisited. Prisons today are more accountable, transparent and open than they were in 1877. Nowadays, the Scottish Prison Service, headed by the chief executive, is fully accountable for all that goes on within prison walls. HMIP carries out a full programme of routine and follow-up inspections, and a range of service providers regularly visit and work in prisons.
We know that there are two things that we need to do. First, we must independently monitor prisons. Secondly, we must provide a service that supports prisoners with complex needs, such as those who abuse alcohol or drugs or who have mental health problems. The time is right to ask some questions. Are we providing the right service to meet the complex needs of prisoners today? Are visiting committees still the best way of meeting those needs?
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I am afraid to say that I do not have the time.
Do visiting committees have the right set of skills to meet the challenges or do we instead need to develop a service that brings increased expertise?
We need to safeguard prisoners who are vulnerable and discriminated against; empower prisoners who need a stronger voice; enable prisoners to gain access to information and whatever help they need; and represent prisoners who are unable to represent themselves. I want a service that has a professional and effective approach to helping prisoners to make decisions and take control of their lives, that will modernise our approach to supporting offenders and that will complement all that we are doing.
A further public consultation will start in May. We will use that opportunity to seek a broad range of views on what a new service fit for purpose in the 21st century might look like. I am happy to engage with representatives of Opposition parties on that work and look forward to reflecting on the issues and ideas that are raised in the consultation. My officials will continue to work in collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners to help to shape thinking about how we modernise our approach and services to meet prisoners’ needs.
Please conclude, cabinet secretary.
I look forward to the consultation. I do not believe that a status quo that was established in the 1870s is credible in the 21st century. We need an advocacy service that provides for prisoners’ needs but we are happy to work with members and people elsewhere to ensure that we deal with needs and wants, that we are compliant and that we meet prisoners’ rights through independent monitoring.
I move amendment S4M-01878.1, to leave out from “notes with concern” to end and insert:
“recognises the dedication and commitment of volunteer members of prison visiting committees but considers that, since the role and remit of the committees were designed in the 19th century, it is necessary now to develop an appropriate service fit for the 21st century; further notes that complaints by prisoners are now dealt with by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in line with best practice as set out by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s Complaints Standards Authority; notes that, on monitoring, the chief executive of the SPS is accountable to the Scottish Ministers for compliance with legislation on the management and treatment of prisoners and that inspection of prisons is being delivered efficiently and effectively by HM Inspectorate of Prisons; further notes that research has identified that prisoners need a dedicated advocacy service that could provide them with independent advice and support; notes that the Scottish Government is considering how to build on the role performed presently by visiting committees by introducing a dedicated independent prisoner advocacy service to support prisoners in ways that match modern needs, and notes that the Scottish Government intends to carry out a further public consultation on these proposals in 2012 and will discuss the proposed timetable with stakeholders in developing the best way forward.”
10:46
I very much welcome today’s debate and the cross-party approach that has been taken by both Annabel Goldie and Patrick Harvie and which will attract very widespread support across this Parliament and beyond.
Equally, concern is widespread about Kenny MacAskill’s announcement in December that he favoured the abolition of visiting committees. That decision, which I hope he will genuinely review, appeared, as Annabel Goldie pointed out, to pay heed only to the views of Scottish Prison Service senior management and not to the views of the many others who responded to last year’s consultation. For example, Alec Spencer, the convener of the Scottish Consortium of Crime and Criminal Justice, which comprises many outside bodies with knowledge and experience of the prison service, spoke for many this week when he said:
“the system is in need of modernisation. But that is a different proposition to their abolition ... Visiting committees”
need
“to be made effective and relevant to the current Criminal Justice landscape.”
In 2009-10, visiting committee visits in Aberdeen totalled 20, with two applications made. Does the member acknowledge that that does not suggest any growing demand among the clientele?
Quite the contrary. I would put forward Aberdeen prison visiting committee as a model of exactly the kind of independent local voice that will speak out on behalf of those serving time in prison. Indeed, on Tuesday, Councillor Jim Kiddie, the convener of Aberdeen prison visiting committee, told the Evening Express:
“There are SNP councillors on prison visiting committees who are extremely dismayed at the Justice Secretary's decision.”
Of course, Mr Kiddie is an SNP councillor and member of Aberdeen City Council administration. I am sure that his concerns are shared by many in all parties who give time and effort to support prison visiting committees.
Annabel Goldie mentioned the SHRC, which, although it
“welcomes”
the cabinet secretary’s proposal to create
“a new advocacy service for prisons ... considers that this should run alongside the human rights protections that are currently provided by prison visiting committees.”
Moreover, the cabinet secretary did not answer at all Malcolm Chisholm’s point on the Government seeking to strengthen statutory protection for those in custody in police cells while weakening the position of those who provide such protection to people in prison.
As we know, an advocacy service will visit prisons on a very planned basis. Does Lewis Macdonald agree that one of the huge strengths of visiting committees is that their visits are frequent and unplanned?
You have two minutes left, Mr Macdonald.
That is indeed one of their many significant strengths. Indeed, it is worth emphasising that the members of visiting committees are local volunteers, often local elected representatives, who are unpaid and give freely of their time and effort.
The cabinet secretary and Mr Finnie referred to the low number of people who take matters up with visiting committees. I am sure that they both, and indeed members across the chamber, know ex-offenders who will vouch for the difference that prison visitors make to their ability to deal with and change their offending behaviour.
Is the member not aware of the support for the Government’s position of providing an advocacy service from Tom Halpin, the chief executive of Sacro, which is precisely the organisation that deals with the care and resettlement of offenders and interacts with them? Does the member agree that Mr Halpin, who was on the radio along with Ms Goldie, has knowledge and should be listened to?
Mr Macdonald, you are going into your last minute.
I heard Mr Halpin. There are now two people who support Kenny MacAskill’s position. That is clearly a lot better than one, but Mr MacAskill must listen to all the other voices and all the other people with knowledge and interest in the area, including members of his party in local government and, I suspect, on the back benches.
If the timetable is to consult on his proposals in the spring, will the cabinet secretary not merely meet the statutory requirement and the letter of the law, but consider the spirit of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, under which he seeks to take the action that he proposes? Its spirit is to challenge costly and inefficient delivery of public services. Will he recognise that the service that prison visiting committees deliver is neither costly nor inefficient but is successful because it takes the best possible advantage of the enthusiasm and commitment of prison visiting committee members? Before he seeks to pursue the abolition agenda, will he please take those concerns away and think again?
We turn to the open debate. Speeches should be a maximum of four minutes, but if members can make their points in less than that, we might fit everyone into the debate.
10:51
I, too, welcome the debate, and I welcome the amendment. Many have been concerned about what seemed—I stress the word “seemed”—to be a fait accompli on the question of the continuation of prison visiting committees. I ask Annabel Goldie to look again at the amendment, which does not use the word “abolish”, I am delighted to say. It leaves the door open by stating:
“the Scottish Government is considering how to build on the role performed presently by visiting committees”.
As we all know, the cabinet secretary is—how can I put it?—a robust reformer. That is no bad thing in itself, but he is a man in a bit of a hurry. Some of us end up saying, “Hold on a wee minute. What’s happening here? What is proposed?” He is not in reverse at the moment, but I am glad that he has put the brakes on things for the time being.
We heard a reference to the statutory process from the Labour benches. I am delighted that we are taking that route, but I should say to members that the Justice Committee has been concerned about prison visiting committees and considered the evidence that should be put before us, and it might look into the matter, perhaps in tandem with the statutory process or before it. It is up to the committee to decide on that in considering its work programme. I stress that I am not speaking as convener of that committee today, but as a back bencher.
The Parliament, and back benchers of the Government party in particular, have a duty to ensure good governance, but it is also appropriate that that duty is embodied in the committee structure. We must all remember that, regardless of whether a majority Government comes from a single party or, as we had in the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament, a coalition—that was also a majority Government. The Parliament should now be mature enough to debate matters that deliver the better governance of Scotland.
As for the substance of the issue, the process has been delineated in a letter from the deputy director of community justice to the Association of Visiting Committees. A draft order will be laid by 30 April and there will be a 60-day sitting and public consultation process. Thereafter, there can be further consultation. We at least have that as a backstop. As I said, the Justice Committee might do other things.
I want to look at the continuing role of prison visiting committees. I quote from a letter from Neil Powrie about the committees:
“Of 60 responses to the consultation, 59 wanted to retain VCs and only one, the SPS - the very body which VCs are set up to monitor - was in favour of abolition.”
The independence of the prison visiting committees is terribly important.
The issue of independent advocacy is also extremely important. The cabinet secretary is right to say that times have changed and prisoners have complex problems. Those of us who have been here for 12 years are well aware of the great difficulties: mental health problems; drug and alcohol problems; literacy problems, and so on. The move towards independent advocacy is much to be welcomed because it will give us the link to throughcare. Those of us who have been on the relevant committees in the Parliament know that, when prisoners walk out of prison, that is sometimes the end of the care.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am terribly sorry. I have exactly one minute to say the rest of what I want to say.
For me, the jury is out. I tend towards the position of supporting prison visiting committees. I see, for instance, that they have made 246 visits to Cornton Vale, and I know that Alison McInnes has drawn the Justice Committee’s attention to the real issues there. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons could not have made those 246 visits, and that point is terribly important. Perhaps the figure is not as good for other prisons, but the visits to Cornton Vale are important. However, we also require to consider independent advocacy.
I look forward to the debate opening up. I am pleased that the motion was lodged, as I know that prison visiting committees have been an issue for members across the political parties, and I am glad to see that the amendment does not use the word “abolish”. It leaves the door open to debate. I would like members to consider the terms of the amendment before they vote tonight.
10:55
I register my concern at the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s plans to abolish prison visiting committees, which have a vital role in our prison system. The service model is envied throughout the United Kingdom and Europe.
The decision to abolish the prison visiting committees seems to have been taken solely by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, with a push by the SPS. That was the only body that called for their abolition in the consultation. The voices of the majority of the other correspondents are being ignored. Fifty-nine out of 60 favour keeping the prison visiting committees. The majority of those who are in favour of keeping them are, like me, not opposed to an advocacy service, on two conditions: first, that it works in parallel with the prison visiting committees; and, secondly, that any new body is independent of the Scottish Prison Service.
The work of those who volunteer for prison visiting committees is being undermined and the removal of the statutory protection of prisoners’ human rights is further punishment for those who are serving any length of sentence. Independent inspections ensure the wellbeing of prisoners and highlight areas of concern that prisons and staff must address. Prison visiting committees have a statutory right to visit prisons at any time to address issues that affect prisoners and their wellbeing. An advocacy service would have no such role. That adds to the gap that was left by the abolition of the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission in 2010.
The proposals make no economic sense. The advocacy service would cost an extra third of the cost of the prison visiting committees. There is also the human aspect. Families of prisoners need peace of mind that their loved ones are safe and are being looked after in prison. The prison visiting committees help to give such clarity to families. They know that the prisoner can highlight any complaint and that prison visiting committees can detect any abuse in the prison system.
Prisoners can be confident that the issues that they raise with prison visiting committees, regardless of their nature, will be dealt with appropriately. Prisoners with mental health issues can speak in confidence to prison visiting committees, and their families can be assured that the support that they need is being provided. Governors regularly meet members of prison visiting committees and they give comprehensive reports on a number of issues. The independence of the prison visiting committees gives them their strength. Their loss is at odds with the Government’s commitment to fairness, compassion and social justice.
Over the past few weeks, I have received many letters of concern about the proposal to abolish the prison visiting committees not just from prisoners’ relatives, but from volunteers. Some are concerned that the proposal is being seen as an attempt to abolish public bodies. There are 16 independent prison visiting committees; there is not one umbrella organisation, as some members have suggested.
In the Hugo Young lecture last week, the First Minister emphasised his commitment to Scotland being a “beacon for progressive opinion” and a more socially just and tolerant society. In August last year, a Russian delegation came to Scotland to find out more about prison visiting committees and what they do. They found an independent service that protects prisoners’ human rights. As I stated earlier, the service is envied throughout the world, and it must be protected. If the decision is what the First Minister and his party claim to be a “beacon for progressive opinion”, they are clearly misguided.
10:59
A couple of weeks ago, I met up with three representatives from a prison visiting committee, and was greatly interested in their comments and their passion and commitment to what they do. I appreciated their honesty when they said that they knew that the prison visiting committees system needed to be updated. There was a slight—I emphasise the word “slight”—touch of, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”, but in the main there was an understanding that an organisation that was created in the 19th century should be brought into the 21st century. They were not against change and were more than happy to play their part in it.
Another point that they raised was their welcome of the introduction of an advocacy service. They said that it should have happened many years ago and they warmly welcome the cabinet secretary's determination to introduce it. They accepted that professionalising assistance in prisons can only be a positive step forward.
I do not mind saying that I was extremely heartened by the generosity of spirit and time from the individuals I met, and by their determination to provide the best possible service. As the cabinet secretary knows, as a result, I wrote to him about the issues that were raised.
I have had to consider what the right way forward is for the service and for services to prisons as a whole. I have had to ask myself whether the visiting committees should be scrapped. After all, they were established in the 19th century, and life today is different from then.
I realise that amnesia can be alluring and attractive for politicians, but I remind the member that something has happened since the 19th century, namely the intensive review of 2005, the findings of which were endorsed by the SNP.
I will come to that point later in my speech.
Life is different now from how it was in the 19th century. Prisons are different, inspection services are different, the services available to prisons are vastly improved and there is even more scrutiny of the situation for the returning prisoner.
I am not so naive as to think that we will never need prisons or that any Government of any hue will solve the problem of the revolving-door prison population—that is, repeat offenders. If we, as a society, had the answers to those problems, we would have introduced them some time ago—obviously, we have not. As a result, we need to consider the range of services that are provided and think about who receives public money.
Across the chamber this morning, we have been unanimous in our appreciation of the work that the prison visiting committees undertake. The cabinet secretary could not have been clearer in his comments or in his amendment. However, the amendment also states that there is a clear procedure for prisoners to utilise if they wish to complain—they can do so through the SPS complaints system. Further, the chief executive of the SPS is accountable to Scottish Ministers for the treatment of prisoners.
Will the member give way?
I am in the last minute of what is only a four-minute speech.
Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons also carries out inspections. I do not think that any MSP, irrespective of the side of the chamber on which they sit, could argue that the HMIP reports are a sop to the Government of the day. The independence of HMIP and the reports it publishes may not always be welcomed by the cabinet secretary or his predecessors, but that is a strength of our system.
I welcome the introduction of a further public consultation on the proposals, and discussing the timetable with the stakeholders is a positive step forward.
I acknowledge what has been said about the 2005 report. However, to be honest, if it will take only a couple of months to get a longer-term system in place, I welcome that. I do not think that a delay of a couple of months should concern the chamber.
I urge the Parliament to work to get this right for the future and I hope that there is regular scrutiny of whatever is implemented as a result of the consultation.
11:03
On 5 December last year, members of the prison visiting committees—who are unpaid volunteers—received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, informing them of the outcome of the consultation on the independent monitoring of prisons, which stated that
“the time is now right to replace the current function of the Visiting Committees”
and that, consequently,
“the current service would be replaced by a dedicated independent advocacy service.”
That is the general background to the decision.
From that, the following points are evident. First, in deciding on that course of action, the cabinet secretary dismissed the fact that a majority of respondents—98 per cent—are in favour of the retention of visiting committees. He said that that is because the majority of the respondents—55 per cent—were visiting committee members. If that approach is taken to its logical conclusion, we can confidently predict that if, in the Scottish Government’s forthcoming consultation on separation—which is more commonly referred to as the independence referendum—a majority of people decide in favour of Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom, their views will be dismissed on the basis that they are unionists. How ridiculous.
Section 259(1) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 creates a legal requirement that
“Every person with a mental disorder shall have a right of access to independent advocacy”.
That includes prisoners with mental health issues. However, despite that requirement, the evidence that the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance presented to the Equal Opportunities Committee when it carried out post-legislative scrutiny of the 2003 act confirmed that
“Access to independent advocacy by prisoners is generally non-existent”.—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 16 March 2010; c 1480.]
Independent advocacy is a legal requirement and should already be available to prisoners who have mental health issues, and to other vulnerable prisoners who have complex needs. To that extent, the new independent dedicated service is welcome. The nub of the issue is that the advocacy function—under the 2003 act, for example—is intended to provide more specialised independent support to deal with complex issues for vulnerable people who do not have the capacity to speak or advocate for themselves. That is entirely different from visiting committees’ functions and role.
Rather than duplicating services that are proposed or are in place, visiting committees provide complementary services which—crucially—include truly independent and objective monitoring of prison conditions, operations and services, and the handling of prisoner complaints, through regular unannounced visits. Visiting committees provide invaluable information—often at variance with the official SPS line—for parliamentary committees that are taking evidence on prison conditions and issues that face prisoners. That might well explain why the SPS was the only consultation respondent that is in favour of abolishing visiting committees.
Given the Scottish Government’s stated commitment to open, transparent and accountable government, it is astounding that that principle is not being applied to monitoring of the SPS, which is an agency of the Government. Visiting committees have a proven track record and are a source of unique and virtually daily in-depth, immediate and independent intelligence about prisoners and how prisons are working.
You must close, please.
Consequently, the visiting committees should be retained as an integral part of any improvements.
11:07
It is clear that members across the chamber agree about the valuable role that prison visiting committees have played over the years in monitoring and improving prisoner conditions, but we must accept that prisons today are more accountable and transparent than they were when the visiting committees scheme was established. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement that consultation will take place on how best to meet our prison population’s complex and varied needs. The focus of a modernised service must be on rehabilitation and on ending the revolving prison door.
In my previous job, I was involved in delivering an advice and information service for prisoners in HMP Kilmarnock. That started with an information day that involved prisoners, prison officers and representatives of local statutory and voluntary sector organisations. The object was to find out from prisoners what services they felt would help them to prepare to be resettled in the community. When I spoke to the prisoners, I was struck that many of their concerns were similar to those that people brought to the local citizens advice bureau, although prisoners’ problems related to the impact of their prison sentences on matters such as their bank accounts, benefits, housing and pets. Some such issues can be sorted out relatively easily by third-party intervention, but if they are left they can become a problem for the prisoner later down the line.
What Margaret Burgess says is crucial, but is not of much relevance to prison visitors. I commend the Government for having introduced a new system for dealing with complaints, concerns and comments in the national health service. Prison visitors deal with comments and concerns before they become complaints—that is the system that is being abolished.
The cabinet secretary has said that he is going to consult on the service that he feels is best for our prison population. I am saying that I think that the advocacy service is the best service.
Will the member give way?
No. I have used up half my time by giving way.
Many prisoners also have mental health issues and addiction and literacy problems. They require intensive support and mentoring to help to build confidence and skills and to develop links with the community. That does not happen through the prison visiting service.
I was also struck by the number of agencies in prisons providing services to prisoners. Lots of good work has been going on but it has not been fully co-ordinated. Any prisoner support service will undoubtedly involve a range of agencies, and it might well involve some of those who are involved with prison visiting, but the service needs to be simplified, co-ordinated and, above all, effective for prisoners and their families. We need a holistic service that is tailored to the needs of individual prisoners to ensure that every prisoner who needs it gets effective and responsive advocacy that will give them the opportunity to improve their situation and access mainstream services.
Any new service should be standardised throughout the prison estate, and should have the prisoner and their family at the centre. The same quality and depth of service should be provided in every prison, thereby allowing support to continue seamlessly should the prisoner be moved to another prison—which is not uncommon—or be released to somewhere other than their home area. It is essential that community links that are established be maintained.
I believe that this modernised approach to our penal system that focuses on breaking the cycle of reoffending is the right way forward. I encourage all interested agencies and individuals to take part in the consultation. I support the amendment in the name of Kenny MacAskill.
11:11
In the light of the Government’s consultation, any fair-minded person would question the wisdom of a Government proposal that is partly justified by the view that there are too many public bodies and a measure that would get rid of 17 of them in one go.
Prison visiting committees have more than 100 years of experience of visiting prisons and dealing with prisoners’ concerns. Staffed as they are by local, unpaid, independent-minded, concerned and motivated people, the committees are not Government-paid service providers who are mindful of the next contract round. The current proposals remind me of an earlier debate about the abolition of the police complaints commissioner—an option that was equally rushed but was, thankfully, later abandoned in the light of members’ concerns.
People in our prisons, some of whom have been convicted and some of whom are innocent but are being held on remand, are in a particularly vulnerable position. Many are weak, poorly educated, mentally ill or confused because of language difficulties. All prisoners need to know that prison visiting committees exist not because it is a paid job and the visitors are beholden to the state, but because they are locally based, fair-minded and committed to ensuring an independent assessment of prisoners’ circumstances with a view to delivering—this is the important element—fair and decent treatment.
I have no reservations about supporting SPS staff. Their efforts are there for us all to see. Long gone are the violent decades of prison disruptions. However, the high standards in our current system are in no small part due to the efforts of independent visiting committees that exist to safeguard proper treatment and humane standards. The Government’s proposals to abandon the work of those volunteers look mean spirited and short-sighted. The idea that some agency, or even the current committees, could tender and win the contracts and administer them more effectively by spending a small amount of money on training staff is perverse and without the support of evidence.
The Government should invest in the current prison visiting committees so that they can reorganise and ensure that appropriate training standards are maintained. The history and commitment of prison visiting committees, acknowledged by the minister in his “cheerio” letter of 5 December, deserve better. Prison visiting committees merit our support. Without doubt, much is still to be done to improve prison policy and service, but the proposal seems to me to be tinkering at the margins. I support Annabel Goldie’s motion.
11:15
It is important to say at the outset that, despite the concern that exists that the Government does not recognise the role of prison visiting committees, that is far from the case. In his speech, the cabinet restated his thanks to the members of prison visiting committees for their work, just as he had done in a letter to the Justice Committee. It is important to put that on the record.
As one of my colleagues said, it is a case of, “Thanks and goodbye.” Does Jamie Hepburn not realise that, although its amendment talks about building on the role of visiting committees, the Government wants to abolish that role and to create a completely different service that is highly desirable, but which will not in any way perform the role of the visiting committees?
I can only imagine that Mr Chisholm was asleep during the cabinet secretary’s opening remarks, when he said quite clearly that the process that he was talking about was one of open consultation. That process will continue, so it will be possible for such views to be heard. I do not think that the cabinet secretary has had anything but good words to say about the work that visiting committees have done in the past, and he has made the important point that the role should continue.
Will the member take an intervention?
I think not: we back benchers do not have as much time as those who sit on the front benches. I will continue, if Mr Macdonald does not mind.
It is important to recognise the reality of the situation. I understand the point that Annabel Goldie made when she said that things have not changed since the consultation that was undertaken in 2005, but I do not think that it is entirely correct. John Finnie was clear in stating that things have changed in our prisons since 2005. I will say no more than that, because his words speak for themselves.
The environment in prisons in the 21st century is dramatically different from the age when visiting committees were first established. In the modern era, we have an independent inspectorate. We have a higher standard of facilities, although there is still work to be done in that regard. In addition, we have human rights legislation that did not exist back in the 19th century. It was interesting that Annabel Goldie referred to political “amnesia” in an intervention on my colleague Stuart McMillan; I remind her that it is her party alone that wants to withdraw from the European convention on human rights and to abolish the Human Rights Act 1998. We should face the fact that, in the modern age, we are in a very different set of circumstances from the circumstances that existed when visiting committees were first established.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I will not, because I have only just over a minute left.
It has been suggested that there will be a gaping hole if the proposed changes are made. There has been a failure to recognise—although not across the board, because Margaret Mitchell recognised this—that there is, potentially, a gaping hole at the moment. The cabinet secretary’s remark that very few prisoners are aware of visiting committees or engage with them was well made. We should remember all the prisoners who have serious issues such as mental health and substance addiction issues, to which Margaret Burgess referred. Let us think about the gaping hole that exists in current arrangements for those prisoners. That must be the flipside of the argument.
It has been suggested that it is the prison establishment—prison governors—that supports the Government’s position. That is partly true, but it is also the case that Tom Halpin, the chief executive of Sacro, has said that he supports the Government’s position, so it is hardly just an establishment view.
It is correct that we examine the current arrangements to see whether they are fit for the 21st century. We should remember that we are talking about an open consultation that will continue.
11:19
These are strange days. This morning, not just one, but two Tory motions that I can whole-heartedly endorse have been brought to the chamber. Indeed, one of them is so well drafted that I could almost have written it myself. [Laughter.] Last night, a member was heard to refer to Annabel Goldie as “comradely”. These are strange days for all of us.
These are also strange days because the SNP Government, which is normally never done congratulating itself for its surefootedness, has such a confused and unclear position on the issue.
The Government’s amendment talks about building on the valuable role of visiting committees, as did the cabinet secretary in his speech, but only on Monday this week, the Government sent a letter setting out a timetable, the last line of which ends “disbandment of VCs”. If the Government wanted to begin a consultation and—as the cabinet secretary said—to ask questions about whether visiting committees are the right structure for the future, most of us would be perfectly open to that discussion and to considering the options. However, the Government has begun the process with its conclusion that prison visiting committees should be disbanded. I ask the cabinet secretary to say—if the Government is serious about having that consultation and that discussion—in his closing speech that he will withdraw the letter of Monday this week that specifies a timetable for the disbandment of visiting committees, because that is not an honest and open consultation.
The position on prison visiting committees is puzzling and unclear also when we compare it with the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, chapter 16 of which will put on a statutory footing an independent visiting service for custody. If the right approach for custody is not only to continue current practice but to put it on a statutory footing, why is it the wrong approach to endorse the independent visiting service for prisons? The Government advances a completely contradictory position. I ask the Government not only to clarify the confusion between the arrangements that it proposes for custody visiting and those for prison visiting but, if it is serious about a consultation, to withdraw Monday’s letter and the timetable that specifies the outcome of that consultation before it even gets under way.
11:21
I echo the point that my colleague Graeme Pearson made about the imperative for the reform. The cabinet secretary set out his imperative for the reform in a letter that he wrote to the convener of the Justice Committee. He said:
“We have reduced the number of public bodies ... The SNP’s election manifesto makes clear commitments in this regard.
In this context, since taking office in 2007, the current administration has been considering the role and function of prison visiting committees.”
The reduction of the number of public bodies is not really the context in which we should consider abolishing the important independent scrutiny role of prison visiting committees.
In his opening speech, the cabinet secretary pointed out that visiting committees are not well known among prisoners. Well, in that case why does he want to reinvent the wheel? It is clear from the evidence that the committees are doing an effective and invaluable job, so he should promote them more in our prisons.
The cabinet secretary said that an advocacy service has to be fit for 21st century prisons. There is a role for more advocacy in our prisons, but the cabinet secretary is not replacing like with like and the need for an advocacy service does not override the need for independent scrutiny.
The cabinet secretary also doubts the principle of visiting committees because they were established in 1877. I am of the opinion that many principles of law do not become irrelevant with the passage of time. Indeed, principles such as independent scrutiny, backed up by European law and international protocols on torture, should never become outdated just because the cabinet secretary wants to reduce the number of public bodies.
He also cites Sacro as one of the two supporters of his proposals. That comes as no surprise to me because, only last week, in answer to a question in the chamber, he cited Sacro as one of the potential contractors for his proposed new advocacy service. It is no surprise that it has joined the Scottish Prison Service to support his proposals.
Stuart McMillan said that complaints can be referred to the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. I met the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service at Polmont prison on Monday afternoon: I can assure Mr McMillan that the chief executive is a busy man. There are 8,000 prisoners in the Scottish prison estate—that is one of the highest proportions of any country in the world. The Scottish Prison Service’s chief executive cannot have eyes and ears everywhere. Indeed, even if he did have, the elephant in the room would be the inherent conflict of interests.
Stuart McMillan and Margaret Burgess talked about the revolving prison door. I do not think that any member disagrees that we must reduce reoffending in Scotland, but that is not the point. The cabinet secretary is not replacing like with like and he is not even touching on reoffending. We need more advocacy, but the independent scrutiny that visiting committees provide is a completely different function.
The cabinet secretary’s proposals are opposed by the chief inspector of prisons, the community justice authorities, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Association of Visiting Committees, 59 out of 60 consultees so far and all parties in the Parliament except the party of the Government.
11:26
Let me kill a canard that Jenny Marra and Graeme Pearson have put forward. Visiting committees are collectively treated as one, so it is not about clearing the landscape by culling numerous bodies, as has been suggested.
I welcome the tone of the debate. Members have acknowledged that there is an issue and that the Government has made a commitment to engage constructively. I look forward to hearing from Mr McLetchie, because on 4 December he said:
“It seems too many prisoners are wasting valuable staff time by making complaints about anything and everything.”
I look forward to hearing from a reconstructed Tory party and, as we move towards having Elish Angiolini’s report, I look forward to constructive commitments from members of all parties on how we will deal with the rights of the most vulnerable prisoners.
Many members, in particular Margaret Burgess, flagged up the problems that we face. Prisons have moved on—prison visiting committees were set up in 1871, not 1877, but I do not want to argue semantic points. Prisons have changed dramatically and there is unmet need. Some 50 per cent of prisoners do not even know of the existence of visiting committees and 50 per cent do not know what the committees do. As John Finnie said, there were two requests in Aberdeen and there were seven in Inverness. Out of 6,400 admissions to Barlinnie prison, 14 prisoners asked to see the visiting committee in 2010-11 and in the previous year the number was 29.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I will let the member in shortly.
There is unmet need, which we must address. That is to be welcomed. As members said, matters can be dealt with in a variety of ways, because there are two issues: monitoring and advocacy. I welcome the acknowledgement that advocacy services are required. Advocacy services cannot properly be provided by visiting committees, which do not have the resources, the knowledge, the skills or the expertise to do that. The people on visiting committees are good people who care immensely and do many good individual actions, but they are not trained or qualified, which is why we need a specialist advocacy service.
There is an argument about monitoring, which we must consider.
Will the cabinet secretary be clear? He talked about beginning a consultation, but on Monday his Government set out a timetable that leads to disbandment. Has he already decided to disband visiting committees, or has the proposal been dropped?
It is clear that under the status quo the system is not functioning properly, as the visiting committees themselves accept. We must address the matter. I have undertaken to consider not just the statutory consultation but the spirit of the debate.
We require a specialist advocacy service. I acknowledge that there are issues to do with monitoring, and I am happy to enter into not just debate but discussion with Mr Harvie and other members.
On the issue that Mr Harvie raised in his speech, police cell visiting is not on a statutory basis, which is why it is in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. The OPCAT issue is clear. We are OPCAT compliant not because we have visiting committees but because of an array of other matters. As Mr McLetchie knows, the Government is subject to the ECHR and we have an independent inspector of prisons who deals with such matters and who has staff who are not simply a secretariat, but people who carry out investigations. Not only does the inspector carry out set and routine inspections of the prison service, but he can and does make spot checks—one at Cornton Vale has been mentioned.
We also have the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which has been mentioned, and we have legal aid and lawyers. As Miss Goldie will know, challenges to this and previous Governments relating to prisoners’ rights have been of great concern. The cost to the Government in relation to slopping out and other matters did not arise because of challenges that were brought by visiting committees; it arose through challenges that were based on the ECHR and which in many instances were brought by legal-aided lawyers or by lawyers who were working speculatively. Therefore, the Government is held to account by those who pursue prisoners’ rights. As I said, that comes at great cost. On that basis, we are already OPCAT compliant.
I recognise the arguments that the role of HM inspectorate of prisons is different and distinct from that of visiting committees. On that basis, I am more than happy to enter into debate and discussion to consider how we can ensure that we are compliant on monitoring.
Given that the cabinet secretary has said that he wants to hold a consultation, debate and discussion with all interested parties, will he confirm for the benefit of local authorities that he anticipates that they will follow the usual procedures by replacing or renewing the membership of prison visiting committees following the local government elections in May?
On those matters, I will enter discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. COSLA has not expressed opposition to the proposal, but I will again discuss the issue with it. With prison visiting committees and police and fire committees, we must ensure that matters continue to run.
In summary, the status quo is not tenable, given that the system was set up in 1871 and particularly given the unmet need that Margaret Burgess, among others, mentioned. We must have an advocacy service, but there are understandable and legitimate concerns about monitoring. I give an assurance that the Government will discuss that with members of Parliament and other stakeholders. I look forward to a similar commitment across the chamber when we deal with other matters, such as the Angiolini report.
11:32
Earlier this week, we heard about the phantom support of 11 SNP back benchers for the motion that was originally lodged by Patrick Harvie and which is replicated in the motion in the name of Annabel Goldie that we are debating today. That turned out to be a human error, rather than a political conspiracy, although one wonders how it took the SNP so long to wake up to what was going on. No doubt questions are being asked in that respect. However, the fact is that SNP back benchers should have signed up in support of the motion, because they should be joining the rest of us in trying to persuade the cabinet secretary to drop his ill-conceived proposals to abolish prison visiting committees.
It has been maintained that prison visiting committees are being abolished so that they can be replaced by a Government-funded independent advocacy service, whether it is to be run by Sacro or A N Other. However, it is not an either/or situation. The new advocacy service will not deal with prisoners’ complaints, nor will it monitor their welfare and conditions or the administration of prisons, which is what the visiting committees do. That is an entirely different role from that of the advocacy service that is envisaged, as Margaret Mitchell and Malcolm Chisholm pointed out. However, the Government has wilfully misrepresented the situation as being an either/or one.
The Government, in talking about the support that it claims to have for its proposals, has misrepresented the views of the chief inspector of prisons and of prison governors. In fact, the only view that has not been misrepresented, and the only view to which the cabinet secretary has paid any attention—not for the first time—is that of the Scottish Prison Service. However, even then, it is only the view of the executive members of the SPS board; the non-executive board members were never consulted.
Is David McLetchie not aware of the statement that was issued by Rod MacCowan of the Prison Governors Association, who says,
“Nevertheless, VCs were established in the 19th century”,
and who goes on to say that “much has changed” and then to welcome the proposed changes? Bill McKinlay, the respected former prison governor of Barlinnie, who recently retired, talked about “the passing of time” and went on to say that we need
“A truly independent advocacy service expressly for the use and benefit of all prisoners but especially directed toward the most vulnerable”.
Does Mr McLetchie not wish to listen to the practitioners?
No one disputes the value of an independent advocacy service. The issue is whether it is an either/or situation or whether it is complementary. There was nothing in the cabinet secretary’s remarks that contradicted that.
It is a great pity that Cathy Jamieson is no longer a member of Parliament, because in her time as Minister for Justice in the Scottish Executive a review of visiting committees was undertaken that concluded in its first recommendation that
“Visiting Committees continue to serve a valuable function distinctive from other players and should be retained and their specific features capitalised on to contribute to the wider reforms taking place in the criminal justice system.”
Mr MacAskill endorsed that recommendation in December 2007 but, barely four years later, he is intent on the abolition of visiting committees. Indeed, he is trying to airbrush the Jamieson review out of history as if it never took place. Why? His pandering yet again to the SPS is no doubt part of the reason but, as Jenny Marra pointed out, he is in essence playing a crude numbers game to reduce the number of public bodies as part of the so-called decluttering of the landscape. The abolition of visiting committees will serve a useful purpose in that respect; indeed, it was the key driver behind the Scottish Government’s consultation, as its own summary admits and acknowledges.
The fact that visiting committees cost a mere £75,000 a year to run and involve 230 informed and committed volunteers in the independent and frequent inspection of our prisons and in safeguarding the welfare of prisoners, is apparently of no account—they are all to be sacrificed for this trivial purpose.
As we have heard, the UK is a signatory to United Nations and European conventions on the prevention of torture that aim to protect prisoners against ill-treatment. Independent inspection and monitoring is part and parcel of ensuring that our prisons comply with the highest international standards. No civilised society should treat the deprivation of liberty and the incarceration of prisoners lightly. The care that we take in that regard distinguishes our free society from oppressive regimes and criminal justice systems that have scant regard for human rights and due process, and in which mistreatment and inhumane conditions are all too commonplace. Accordingly, the support, to which Lewis Macdonald referred, that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has given for the retention of visiting committees comes as no surprise. However, like Patrick Harvie, I am astonished to find that the Government that is putting the role of independent custody visitors of police cells on to a statutory basis in order to comply with international conventions is also proposing to abolish independent prison visitors. Where is the logic in that?
Members from other parties know very well that Conservative members are no dewy-eyed softies when it comes to prison. We believe that prison works. For us, it is no mere coincidence that in Scotland today we have a high prison population and the lowest crime rate for over 30 years. That is a simple equation that seems to be lost on the cabinet secretary.
However, even though we believe in the value of prison, that does not imply on our part a disregard for or indifference to the rights of prisoners and their welfare. I have been impressed by the commitment of many Conservative friends and colleagues who serve, and who have served, on visiting committees, to their work and their belief in its worth and value. I am sure that there are many MSPs of all parties who have received similar testimony in recent weeks.
The timetable for the proposed change has been put back by three months. Like Christine Grahame, I welcome that putting on of the brakes. It would be better if the cabinet secretary were to use the intervening period to drop the proposal. He could then flesh out the concept of his independent advocacy service, which was never consulted on yet has miraculously emerged as the outcome of the consultation. He could also implement the remaining recommendations on visiting committees that were in the 2007 review that Cathy Jamieson commissioned, and which would build upon what they do rather than destroy them. That would be a very good use of his time indeed. I beg to support the motion.