Community Courts
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4065, in the name of Bill Aitken, on community courts.
I will introduce the motion in what I hope are consensual terms, with acknowledgement that while some things work in our justice system, some do not. We should not be inhibited about reviewing best practice elsewhere and incorporating it in our approach. We are all concerned about high prison numbers and—contrary to what the Minister for Community Safety might believe—Conservatives would like to see lower prison numbers. However, the most obvious way to achieve that is to achieve a significant reduction in crime. I am sure that there is nothing wrong with that premise.
In central New York—a city that for years was regarded as dangerous and, some might say, lawless—a new approach to crime was adopted some time ago. Much of that approach was about increased and more intensive policing, but the policy was also predicated on speedy and effective justice. An offender now comes before the court within 24 hours. Where a guilty plea is tendered, the sentence is immediate. In the vast majority of cases, the sentence is community service, although the range of options that are available to the court includes drug treatment, monetary penalties and custody. For community service disposals, the work begins immediately and is intensive and closely supervised. Work is also carried out with the offender during the period of his compulsory work: parts of the allocated time are used to give appropriate advice on health and employment issues.
It is important to stress that, in New York city, community service is not a soft option. Breaches are not tolerated and result in custody. The effect is that offenders recognise that the court must be respected and that the work must be done. There has been a positive reaction from a number of offenders, who have gone on to lead much more ordered lives. Many of them have found employment.
In the central New York area that is covered by Midtown community court, a 48 per cent reduction has been achieved in nuisance-type crimes such as breaches of the peace, thefts by shoplifting, prostitution and small-time drug dealing.
Another New York city court based at Red Hook works on a similar basis, although a degree of artificiality is perhaps caused by the fact that, due to slum clearance and a major motorway project, the Red Hook population has been dramatically reduced. The court still does valuable work, however.
The need for more direct judicial intervention than is available under the conventional court system has been acknowledged by the Government by the inclusion in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill of a provision to allow for such interventions. The drugs court at Glasgow sheriff court is already allowed that greater degree of intervention and has, I think, been worth while. However, the drugs court has not—no matter how it is spun—been an unalloyed success. From my experience of having viewed the court several times, I think that its success is highly dependent on the approach that is taken by the presiding sheriff. At least one of the presiding sheriffs is prepared to intervene in a robust and direct manner that seems to pay dividends.
Does Bill Aitken agree that the drugs courts success is attributable not to the building in which it is located but to the way in which it operates, which is different from the traditional court process?
That was my point. There is room for such processes, but I would guard against the view that the drugs court has been the success that we all hoped for, although it has achieved a measure of success.
There is a unanimous view among those who have visited the New York courts. As Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson visited the city, and I know that current Scottish Government ministers have also visited. I have visited the city on two occasions and was extremely impressed. That unanimity of view has prompted the Scottish Government to do some initial work with a view to operating a community court in the east end of Glasgow. It is a matter of profound regret that that will now not proceed. The Government has proposed the view—which has some merit—that the cost implications of that work would have been considerable. I point out that the costs of fitting out the appropriate building and the associated property costs would have fallen in the current financial year, when we have no particular difficulty. With some imagination, the revenue costs in the years ahead could, I would have thought, have resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of money involved. Why could not some attempt have been made to apply lateral thinking?
Given that Mr Ewings boss, Mr MacAskill, has stated time and again that offenders should be out on the streets working and paying back the community by the sweat of their brow, we need to consider—although I fully accept that we must not take work away from law-abiding people and that it is not for the Government, council or other public body to act as a provider of labour gangs—what other things we could do. We could sit down and work those out collectively and achieve a solution.
Let us compare and contrast that proposal with what happens at the moment: fines are not paid, direct measures are ignored, and we have an appalling and absolutely unacceptable level of breaches of probation orders and community service. The current approach is not working. The value of the proposal would have been in its ensuring that such disposals were made to work and that local people would have seen work being carried out. That would significantly improve the attitude of the victims of crime and it would act as a deterrent to those who are likely to commit crime. Frankly, I think that it is very disappointing that we have not made further progress.
In Midtown, justice is visible and swift, but in our system, delays are endemic. I accept that the Midtown system is not, in some respects, totally cohesive with the Scottish legal system, but we could have worked out a solution by sitting down and considering the issues. Instead, the Government has simply carried out an exercise in accountancy and now feels that it would not work. The Government has lost a real opportunity to have an impact on crime levels and, in time, on prison population levels. When the Midtown project was started, the number of community sentences was minimal and the number of jail sentences was very high. After the system had been in operation for a few years, that situation was reversed, with the disposals being largely for community service and a fairly minimal amount of sentences of imprisonment being handed down. Because offenders know that a breach of an order will result in custody, the work is done, the conduct improves and crime is cut.
Even at this late stage, I urge the Scottish Government to think again.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with regret the decision of the Scottish Government not to proceed with the establishment of a community court in Glasgow; recognises that community courts based on the New York City model in Midtown can address patterns of offending behaviour by providing for swift and effective summary justice coupled with a range of rehabilitation services to break the cycle of reoffending, and believes that the recent action taken by the Scottish Government demonstrates its incoherent approach towards addressing crime and the causes of crime and to providing viable and robust alternatives to custody.
As members will see, my amendment shares some common ground with the Conservative motion, but on the big issue—the coherence of the Governments strategy on crime—it will come as no surprise to anyone that we entirely disagree.
Let us first consider the areas of agreement. Bill Aitkens motion recognises the positive lessons that can be learned from the establishment of community courts such as those in Midtown, New York. I accept that point. I hasten to add that I have been on no foreign trips to New York—I get to go to places such as Aberdeen, Peterhead and Dumfries and Galloway—but, nonetheless, I learn from others that lessons can be learned from the practices that have been applied in New York. To some extent, I agree with the analysis of those who support that model.
However, the key point in todays debate—at least in respect of the wording of the motion and of the amendments other than our own—is that the essence of the New York model is not the building but how the services work together. That is the fundamental disagreement between where we stand in the debate and where other parties at least appear to stand—in so far as we can discern that from their amendments.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will do so later. Let me just develop the argument.
The swiftness in starting the community payback sentence is what seems to be the holy grail for such courts, not the expense for a new building that the Conservative motion asks us to incur. I see that Mr Brownlee is listening with studious intent at this point.
If the minister is worried about the lack of capital funding for such a building, he might have a quiet word with Mr Swinney who, in next years budget, had allocated £20 million to a local income tax. Thankfully, that money is now available. A little word in his ear might draw some dividends.
While we are on the topic of quiet words—not something I excel at—Mr Brownlee might wish to have one with Mr McLetchie and ask him why he supported the spending of £500 million on trams, which we sought to oppose. Two can play at that game.
The effective working together of all agencies to provide services is the key to delivery of the results that we all want. We did not dismiss the community justice centre concept out of hand. We appreciate the value of community courts in other areas, so we undertook a feasibility study to establish the costs of building and running such a centre and to identify the potential benefits but—it is a big "but"—the study showed that the cost of the building would be around £3.73 million, which would need to be found from the public purse.
Will the minister give way?
Just a second.
The running costs would be around £750,000 a year. That money would have to be spent before any service gains were made. We must be realistic: in the current financial climate, the community court proposal does not offer best value for money.
Is the feasibility study that underlies our discussion in the public domain, or will the Government put it in the public domain? It is an important document.
I believe in complete transparency with regard to provision of documents that can properly and appropriately be made available in accordance with the rules and regulations that applied to the previous Executive. The same rules and regulations apply to this Government.
We will work with Glasgow City Council to establish how we can achieve the service gains that were sought from a community justice centre. We want to explore how payback can be targeted at the communities that are most in need of reinvestment, with a strong focus on community buy-in. We want to examine how local services can be directed to support people out of a lifetime of crime. Officials will meet Glasgow City Councils director of social work later this month. The council should be allowed to come up with local solutions to local problems, but we share its commitment to putting resources back into the communities that are most blighted by crime.
I hope that members will recognise that resources are not infinite—we are in a recession. We are told by the Government in Westminster that it is essential that we make cuts. The Labour Party in London criticises us and tells us that we must make deeper cuts. It is extremely ironic, and a tad inconsistent, that the Labour Party in Scotland calls on us to do the very opposite—to spend, spend, spend. It used to be the members of the Scottish Socialist Party—who, as I recall, were not known for having quiet words, either—who believed that every leaf of every tree was a high-denomination note. It now appears that that belief is shared not only by members of the Labour Party, whose strange view of arboriculture we are used to hearing about, but by the Conservatives. There is a new alliance of spendthrifts—Labour, Tory and Liberal members are all invoking us to spend, spend, spend.
The Government has a strong and coherent strategy to deliver a safer and stronger Scotland. In such a short speech, I have not had time to address all the issues, but we most certainly will. We will continue to work with our partners in Glasgow to procure the best possible results as regards justice for their citizens.
I move amendment S3M-4065.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"recognises that community courts based on the New York City model in Midtown can help to address patterns of offending behaviour by providing for swift and effective summary justice coupled with a range of rehabilitation services to break the cycle of reoffending; notes the decision by the project board for the Glasgow Community Justice Centre that in the current economic circumstances they should not proceed with the development of a new court building, and supports the joint work underway between Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government to identify how best offenders can pay back for their crimes to the communities most in need of reinvestment and local services can be directed to support offenders out of a life of crime."
I call Richard Baker to speak to and move amendment S3M-4065.1. You have four minutes.
Is that right? I was told that I would have six minutes.
You have four minutes.
Okay.
Scottish Labour has supported enthusiastically the proposal for a community court in Glasgow, which Labour ministers in the previous Executive were keen to take forward. It had been intended that the court would deal with some 2,000 cases every year, and its main aim would have been to deal quickly and effectively with criminal incidents and antisocial behaviour. When the plans were announced, it was hoped that the court would be up and running in 2009. The Scottish National Party is now in power and, although it is 2009, the court is not up and running. Indeed, the plan has been abandoned.
The situation that we have reached, in which an excellent proposal has been ditched, is deeply disappointing, so I welcome the debate. In pointing to the incoherence of the Scottish Governments policy, the motion addresses the nub of the issue. The Government seeks to expand massively the number of community disposals through what amounts to the abolition of sentences of less than six months, but it is failing to provide anything like the investment that is required to make such an expansion achievable.
As we have heard, the planned community court in Glasgow was based on proven models of success at Red Hook and Midtown, and in England. Members who visited New York have said how impressed they were by the swiftness with which offenders are dealt—they usually appear in court a day after they have been arrested, and when sentences are awarded they begin there and then. That is a far cry from the situation here, in which only 1 per cent of sentences begin within the Scottish Governments seven-day target. We are nowhere near making the progress that the minister says that we need to make if we are to achieve the overall objective. A community court would have been a focal point for those efforts.
The sentences that are handed out by community courts, which involve work that is identified by the local community, are exactly the community payback that is supported across the Parliament. The idea of progress courts, which the Scottish Prisons Commission advanced in its report, was incorporated in the plans for the community court. It was proposed that the judge would play a key role in community engagement and that the new approach to sentencing would help to engender greater confidence in communities.
The cabinet secretary's approach threatens public confidence in community sentencing and will not advance community safety. Labour wants more use to be made of community sentences, and we advanced the principle of payback when we were in government. Although the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has proposed a trebling of community sentences, only a 20 per cent increase in funding is to be provided. At the same time, organisations such as Sacro are having their budgets cut, there is stasis on the development of the domestic abuse and drugs courts that were introduced in the previous session of Parliament, and there has been a 14 per cent drop in the number of drug treatment and testing orders. The decision not to proceed with the proposed community court leaves the SNPs policy without any credibility.
The Scottish Governments approach is a recipe for disaster in our justice system. We know that even many of those who support the abolition of sentences of less than six months have made it clear that the measure requires major up-front investment, which the Government is not providing. That message is conveyed in the Liberal amendment, which we will seriously consider supporting, and the motions description of the Governments strategy as "incoherent" is a good one.
We do not believe that the matter should be allowed to rest. The Governments amendment is entirely inadequate. The Government should reverse its decision and seek to continue to work in partnership with Glasgow City Council to develop the plans for a community court. We have stated that we believe that the proposal can be afforded; Bill Aitken made the same point, Derek Brownlee suggested as much in his intervention, and we point out that the cabinet secretary has said that the Scottish Prison Service has made some £4 million-worth of VAT savings. There will be a real cost if we do not proceed with the proposal: a great opportunity will be lost to make progress on community sentencing in Scotland and to develop what could be a blueprint for delivery throughout the country.
The Scottish Government might believe that the proposed community court should not go ahead, but I am confident that the Parliament thinks that we should proceed with the idea. That is why we will support the motion.
I move amendment S3M-4065.1, to insert at end:
"and further believes that the Scottish Government should reverse its decision and seek to progress plans for a community court in Glasgow."
The Conservatives have brought to Parliament a motion on an extremely relevant and topical issue. It goes to the heart of whether the SNP Government is serious about its programme of criminal justice reform, which the Liberal Democrats broadly support. We will support the Labour amendment, as the point that it makes is intrinsic to our amendment.
Mr Ewing said that he had not had time to deal with all the issues; the difficulty is that he did not deal with any of them. There is no question but that much of the current system is struggling, and the effectiveness of community sentences is patchy to say the least—42 per cent of those who receive them reoffend within two years. If we are to reduce that figure, such sentences must be implemented speedily, must be effective and must concentrate on tackling the causes of the offenders criminality. In many council areas, none of those requirements is met.
To its credit, the Government is trying to improve matters by replacing the 21-day commencement period with a target of seven days. There is some distance to go, given that last year only 2.16 per cent of community service orders in South Lanarkshire were inducted within seven days. The figure for Glasgow was only 29 per cent, which will now be worse because of the protracted strike that is affecting the service there.
Will Robert Brown give way?
I will continue because I have only four minutes.
The Glasgow community justice centre and community court project involves an extremely dynamic and innovative concept that was set in motion by the previous Executive. As has been pointed out, it had sign-up across the political spectrum. A reforming policy that gets warm words even from John Lamont is reaching parts that other justice initiatives have failed to reach.
It is no wonder that the model has worked spectacularly well. It was pioneered in New York and carried through in Liverpool, and it has been adopted in other parts of the United States of America and in Canada, South Africa and Australia—it is not a new concept in any sense of the word. It would not be going too far to say that success in the Glasgow project, targeted as it is on the wards with the highest offending and the greatest concentration of multiple problems in Scotland, would slash national crime rates dramatically and improve the quality of life for many hard-pressed communities, to say nothing of salvaging the lives of some offenders, which are going to waste under the current system.
On any view, the community court model offers the potential for a new start on rehabilitative community sentences. It is a necessary precursor to the policy of replacing ineffective and costly short-term prison sentences with tough and effective community sentences. That is why the Liberal Democrat amendment puts community courts in the proper context.
An ominous silence had surrounded the community court project in recent months—no one knew what was happening—but we now know that it has joined the long list of the Scottish National Partys broken commitments. We understand that the independent business plan, which Mr Ewing has said he may be prepared to put into the public domain, refers to safer communities and success in reducing rates of offending, and predicts more accountability to communities. We believe also that there was a strong recommendation in the business plan for the community court to proceed, which has been ignored by the Government and the community justice authority. It is vital that it is put in the public domain—I am astonished that that has not happened in advance of the debate.
The exact trail of responsibility for the deplorable decision to abandon the community court is unclear; what is clear, however, is that responsibility lies with the justice secretary to reverse the decision by working positively with the community justice project board. The community court was and is about fast and effective justice—a spend-to-save initiative, as Cathy Jamieson has rightly described it. It is a dynamic way of revitalising community service and, as Bill Aitken rightly said, it can build community confidence in the ability of the system to deliver. Whatever the difference of nuance about community courts, Parliament will speak clearly tonight on the matter and support the reinstatement of the community court concept. Thereafter, the justice secretary must listen and he must act.
I move amendment S3M-4065.2, to leave out from "and believes" to "custody" and insert:
"notes that the independent business plan in March 2009 anticipated numerous benefits from a community court project, including improved community safety, greater offender accountability and reduced rates of reoffending; believes that the cancellation of the community court project also undermines the Scottish Governments own stated commitment to replace short-term prison sentences with tough and effective community sentences, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue to work with the Community Justice Project Board."
I suspect that I was not alone in my great disappointment at learning last week of the decision by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to abandon the Glasgow community court project. I sincerely hope that he understands—and I hope that he will tell his boss—that the news comes as a blow to the city, part of which I represent. My constituents have made it crystal clear to me that they want to see a fast, effective and responsive justice system in Scotland. That is exactly the model from which the cabinet secretary has made a conscious decision to walk away.
A lot of time, dedication and effort have been put into the proposals. Since 2006, an expert working group consisting of sheriffs, procurators fiscal, police and public officials has been developing the community court model to tailor it to fit Scotlands needs. Planning was at an extremely advanced stage, with Glasgow City Council receiving thousands of pounds to fund a detailed business case for the court—a case, I might add, that strongly supported the need for such an imaginative plan.
The report presented a strong and convincing rationale for the adoption of the community court model: it recognised its potential for increasing community safety by contributing to crime reduction; it acknowledged that it afforded communities and individuals directly affected by crime a real stake in the justice system through restorative justice projects; and it agreed that such a court would have the ability to begin to tackle unacceptable reoffending rates.
The Glasgow court was to be Scotlands first genuine community justice centre, bringing all the various justice agencies under one roof. It would be ready to respond quickly and effectively to the offence, to the offender and, importantly, to the victim. It is a model that understands that the quicker that we get people into the system and the offence is appropriately dealt with, the sooner justice is served and the more faith the public have in the judicial system. It also provides practical benefits to the courts and an increasingly overcrowded prison system. That was highlighted by Clive Fairweather in a letter to The Herald on 21 April.
The unique "restorative justice" ethos of community courts not only means that offenders are properly punished for their behaviour but ensures that they pay back their debts directly to the communities that have had to suffer the consequences of their actions. For example, they provide swift, visible justice, often through supervised work schemes that provide environmental and other benefits to the community.
Additionally, community courts offer a range of support services aimed at effectively tackling the root causes of an offenders behaviour. Community courts can quickly identify and respond to an individuals circumstances and problems, such as addiction issues, and have agencies on hand to begin rehabilitation work. It is a proper balance. As Bill Aitken said, the model of Red Hook community justice centre is one that Scotland should follow.
Community courts present us with a real opportunity to change the way in which we view and dispense justice in this country. They are exactly the sort of innovation that the people of Scotland expected Government to introduce when they voted to establish the Parliament more than a decade ago. The SNP Governments decision is short-sighted and reactionary. Why is the cabinet secretary choosing to turn his back on such an imaginative, speedy and effective model of justice? If, as he is doing, he claims that it is a question of money, he and his boss are being penny-wise but pound-foolish.
The amendment in the name of my colleague Richard Baker states that
"the Scottish Government should reverse its decision and seek to progress plans for a community court in Glasgow."
I understand that the Red Hook community justice centre in New York is known as the court of second chances. I hope that, at decision time, Parliament will vote for Labours amendment and offer the cabinet secretary that second chance. He and Mr Ewing should grasp it with both hands.
Despite the rhetoric, it is clear that—perhaps unsurprisingly—there is a great deal of unanimity among members and that we agree that a community court would be a good thing. Experience around the world would seem to indicate that such a court works.
We agree fundamentally that the point of such courts is immediate justice. Those of us who are privileged to be parents will understand me when I reflect on this. Let us suppose that my son and heir has just done something that he should not have done and that he knows he should not have done. I say to him, "Aye, lad. You shouldnt have done that. Well talk about it in a week and a halfs time." The absurdity of that as parental discipline makes the point that we all agree on: if our justice system is to have any reasonable effect on those who come before it, it needs to act swiftly.
As far as I can tell, the court that was proposed for Glasgow was about trying to get all the services in the same place so that the whole process could be fast. However, at the moment, alternatives to custody are not being implemented quickly, and there is no point in spending money on a building to put people in if the system is not yet working fast. We need to get the system to work fast.
I therefore agree with what I think is the ministers central point, which is that the money for the building is not the issue. Where we need to spend money, and where we need to change things, is in the systems around the court so that whatever penalty or community disposal comes up can be implemented quickly. That is not specifically about the building, although the building might help us to get people in the right place to do that.
Does Nigel Don agree that part of the success of Red Hook and Midtown in New York is down to the fact that the buildings, within those communities, are identifiable as where justice is administered and that the support services are located locally within those buildings, which enables speedy reaction?
I do not think that that is in dispute, although if the support services were a few miles away it would not really slow down the process. That is why I commend the Governments insistence on continuing to work with the project board and the council to speed up the process of justice. That is what is important: it is not about a building, whether it is £3 million or £5 million.
I have heard members saying that the community court would be a good thing and that the Government should spend the money. In the current circumstances, with a fixed budget, we need to adopt the discipline of asking, "If were going to spend more money on this, wheres it going to come from?" It is not fair on any Government to ask it to spend more on something without telling it where the money will come from, although I have heard some suggestions from members.
In my remaining seconds, I will talk briefly about the coherence of the strategy. To be fair, the Government has a strategy and is trying to make it work. The strategy is that the people in prison should be the people who need to be in prison—either for the protection of society, as is usually the case, or for their own protection—and that the people whose imprisonment would not benefit either them or society should be kept out of prison. That is very much the cheaper option, and in the long term it will be far better for society.
We need fast systems in place. Whatever non-prison disposals we come up with, they will have to work quickly or they will not work at all. I will stop now because I have come to the end of my time.
This debate ought to be about the principles of justice and about how justice should not only be done but be seen to be done in local communities.
I will start by dealing with the building. In some senses, it is right to say that the debate is not about the building. In Scotland, we sometimes become too hung up on what we think a court building, and the panoply that goes along with it, should look like. If we are serious about justice being delivered and being seen to be delivered, we have to get away from such notions and ensure instead that the workings of the court are located in local communities.
Members have mentioned Red Hook and Midtown in New York, and I have visited the Midtown community court. It is situated in a converted building in a local community. It is not a purpose-built court costing millions and millions of dollars but a building that is central to the community and in which the community therefore has some investment, as Bill Aitken and others have pointed out.
The debate is about more than simply ensuring that everybody works better together because we know that that has not been happening, despite our best efforts. In Midtown and Red Hook, services are co-located and people can see that they are in the same building. That makes a difference, as does the fact that the judge is community oriented—someone who talks to people in local communities, goes out to explain the workings of the court, and finds out what is important to people. Any community sentences are, to a large extent, driven by community interests; it is ensured that offenders are involved in community projects and carry out work that is seen in the community.
In Glasgow, we had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to follow world-leading examples from elsewhere and change the face of community justice. We had an opportunity to focus on an area that, sadly, is sometimes known for its high levels of violent crime, drug use and alcohol misuse. It was not about simply putting another court building in place but using a catalyst for change to regenerate the local community. If the Government does not act on the will of this Parliament, the opportunity will be missed—and I believe that the Government will live to regret that.
All of us who support the principles of community justice want community sentences to be enacted more speedily. As has been suggested, even the Conservatives probably want the prison population to be reduced. However, none of us wants that reduction to come about by administrative means. Simply opening the doors and saying to people, "Go away, out of prison," will not do one thing to reduce the rate of reoffending. To do that, we will have to change the whole culture of communities.
It is sad, but the current Cabinet Secretary for Justice has form on these issues. The youth courts, which were modelled on the principle of community justice centres abroad—bringing different organisations together and trying to ensure that people move quickly from the court into their sentences or programmes—have also been put at risk.
The Minister for Community Safety might admit today that he has got things wrong and should think again, but I wonder whether he will also tell us whether the youth courts will be put in place some time in 2009, as we were promised—and I have a quotation here from Mr MacAskill, which I will happily pass to the minister. Will the minister assure us that the courts will be put in place, and will he tell us when? Will he also agree to the reasonable request that has been made this morning—to put into the Scottish Parliament information centre a copy of the feasibility study on which the Government has based its decision to rule out the community court?
It looks to me as if a consensus is building up in the chamber. I hope that the minister will be big enough to say that he will rethink the issue and come back to Parliament with a plan to go ahead with the community justice centre in Glasgow.
I fully support community courts. Cathy Jamieson said that this is not about the building, and she is correct—it is about the expediency of the system. However, in Glasgow we would be pretty hard-pressed to find any empty buildings, with Glasgow City Council closing down schools and community centres. I therefore ask her to think over the point again. I fully concur with what the minister has said and with what my colleague Nigel Don has said.
I have heard many things about the Conservative party, many of which I cannot repeat here for obvious reasons, but until today I had thought that the party generally attempted to consider the facts. Today, however, we see Conservative members engaging in the very politics of spin and disinformation that their leader, David Cameron, has vowed to stamp out. His Scottish wing seems not to have heard about that and has decided on a policy of misinformation and soundbites in its quest to smear this Government.
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
Bill Aitkens motion is a work of fiction. It is built on the premise that the Scottish Government decided not to proceed with the community courts system, and Bill Aitken has gone on to reiterate that misleading and ill-informed statement. Let us look at the facts for a minute. Bill Aitken knows, as all of us in the chamber know, that the project board for the Glasgow community justice centre met in March and decided not to proceed with the service. That was the boards decision, not the Governments decision. It cheapens the member and others in this chamber to pretend otherwise. We have to correct the glaring inaccuracies in Mr Aitkens motion. There is nothing to it—no substance and no merit—and I am really disappointed in it. The Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments are no better.
It is to the credit of the Government and Glasgow City Council that they have continued to work on how their aims can be realised. As the minister and others have said, this is not about the bricks and mortar but about the expediency of services. It seems to me, and perhaps to others, that the other parties would be happier if all plans were simply dropped. That would give them the chance to criticise, rather than enter into constructive dialogue on how people in the Parliament and the country can work together to deal with the problems that crime creates for communities throughout Scotland. We should take that to heart.
I remind members that the Conservative party was the party that failed to build any extra prisons in Scotland and which introduced automatic early release.
What this Government is doing, in working with Glasgow City Council and others, is commendable. It is grown-up action that Scottish people want to see—not juvenile point scoring and one-upmanship. Until the Conservatives realise that, they will continue to live and breathe the air of the political wilderness in Scotland. The Scottish Government stands accused of creating a "soft-touch Scotland", yet it is the Conservatives who have a soft touch with the truth.
Follow that. That was a remarkable conversion by Sandra White to loyalty to the Scottish Government. If this debate were being held two years ago, we would have heard Sandra White condemning any Scottish Executive that made such a daft, disappointing and dangerous decision.
Because she had been given a briefing note, Sandra White wanted to articulate a number of issues, and the minister tried to argue that the present economic circumstances make it difficult to pursue the choice under discussion. Like many ministers, he has been selective in the information that he uses. He mentioned the trams, about which a legitimate debate is to be had, but what about the £900 million that the former Executive did not receive from the United Kingdom Westminster Government but which was made available to John Swinney to disburse as he saw fit as Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth? What about many of the other commitments that this Government is not revisiting, such as the national conversation and the debate on whether we should have a referendum in 2010? Those are political choices that members are entitled to make, but SNP members should not come here and lecture the other members of this Parliament, saying that we are not making wise choices but that the SNP, with its current proposal, is.
The reason why the Governments proposal is daft, dangerous and disappointing is that it misses a threefold opportunity—one in evidential terms—to make a real difference to the experience of justice in our communities. Years ago, someone said that justice delayed is justice denied. If the courts system can move from a three-month treatment of an individual to a one-day treatment, there will be major benefits. For the communities that I represent in the east end of Glasgow, which suffer too many small groups of individuals who create major problems in the community over the weekend without facing any consequences of their actions for the next two or three months, anything that could improve the situation would be a positive development.
Of course, it is about more than just a building but, if Sandra White had read the project reports, she would know that they were about constructing a new building at a much lower cost than was initially anticipated by the former Scottish Executive. The building was to cost nearly 50 per cent less and the revenue costs were going to be 50 per cent less than was initially projected, yet Sandra White comes here today, some yapping dog for the Government, to claim that the SNP has a better response to the situation than the former minister.
Order. Mr McAveety, I do not think that that kind of expression is really suitable.
Sorry about that. I apologise to the member if any offence was caused by that remark. However, it strikes me that the view that Sandra White articulated is not appropriate for the debate that we are having in the east end of Glasgow.
I have here a letter from Kenny MacAskill to Glasgow City Council, dated May 2008, in which he says:
"I know we both strongly support the concept of a Community Justice Centre and believe that it could bring very real benefits to Glasgow in terms of reducing crime and providing effective payback to the community."
I also have the report that the councillors received from their community justice team. It states that
"it cannot be argued that the figures that were given were a surprise to the Scottish Government"
and that
"it is considered surprising that the Scottish Government has now withdrawn its support".
That directly contradicts the claim that Sandra White made, which was also articulated by the minister.
The minister pointed out that he is here and said that he does not get to go on foreign trips. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice goes on foreign trips, as the minister had to come to the knife crime summit because the cabinet secretary was elsewhere that day. The minister is here today, too, because the cabinet secretary cannot respond on the issue. Those are two fundamental issues that impact on the communities that I represent. I am of a relatively modest disposition, but I am quite angry about the Governments decision, as it rejects all the major developments that have been taking place to tackle injustice in the east end of Glasgow.
Many of us have been arguing for years that we must give commitment and investment—sometimes including quality buildings, I say to Sandra White—to the east end of Glasgow. Such developments are welcome as they send the signal that we are trying to make a material difference to communities such as those in the east end. I am therefore disappointed that the minister has chosen to defend the Governments proposal and that we have not heard anything that suggests that the issue will be revisited.
I hope that, by the end of play and once the vote on the motion is recorded, the minister will reflect on the matter and put forward a much better idea of how to fill the small gap in funding in order to deliver something that would make a meaningful difference to the communities that we serve throughout the country.
Everybody knows that there is an urgent need for sentencing reform, to reduce reoffending and tackle acute overcrowding in Scotlands prisons. As my colleague Robert Brown made clear, the Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that very short prison sentences are ineffective and should be replaced with tough and effective community penalties whereby offenders can pay back the community that they have harmed. That ambition is shared by the Government and, if it is to be realised, the community courts must play a key role. Local community courts allow low-level offending to be tackled promptly and visibly, reducing serious criminality in the longer term.
Bill Aitken referred to Brooklyn in New York where community justice has transformed an area that was once synonymous with crime. That successful model is now being rolled out across the United States. Much closer to home, in Liverpool, the Community Justice Centre has succeeded in providing an integrated approach to tackling crime, combining the powers of the courtroom with a range of on-site community resources to tackle the problems behind offending. The on-site problem-solving team includes the judge, the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Probation Service and the youth offending team. Other on-site services address drug and alcohol problems, debt and housing issues. Volunteer mentors are available to provide practical support, and the judge uses regular reviews to check up on and encourage offenders progress. That is an excellent example of community-based justice in action. If the minister does not want to go to New York, perhaps he could go to Liverpool—it is not very far away—and examine what is being done there.
I therefore deeply regret the Governments decision last month to scrap plans for a new community court in Glasgow, despite the positive recommendations of its business plan. I am concerned that what the Government is now proposing is sentencing reform that has the right aims but is woefully short on substance.
The system is not working effectively. In Edinburgh, community service is considered to have begun when offenders are seen for their first interview. The 2007-08 figures show that 46 per cent of offenders are seen within the first seven days but only 1 per cent actually start work within seven days. If the public is to have faith in the justice system, community sentences must be seen to be efficient and effective. The well-publicised delays that plague the system serve only to send the wrong message to criminals and the law-abiding public.
As they stand, the Governments plans are overambitious and risk being rendered ineffective. Last Thursday, at First Ministers question time, I challenged the First Minister to shelve the Governments plans for replacing prison sentences of less than six months with community sentences, focusing initially on sentences of three months or less. I repeat that call today.
The latest sentencing figures for 2007-08, which were released by the Government last week, show that 12,681 custodial sentences were for six months or less. The Governments own officials admit that, following sentencing reform, the number of community service orders would increase by a maximum of only 1,240. Given the obvious need for reform, even in a best-case scenario those figures do not represent the progress that many—particularly the Liberal Democrats—had hoped for. If the Government is serious about sentencing reform, it must get serious about introducing community courts.
We have consistently argued, during many justice debates, that offenders must be dealt with robustly. We have also stressed the need for communities to have confidence in the justice system and for rehabilitation opportunities to be provided to offenders. As many members have suggested, the community courts model provides a structure for those opportunities to be delivered, but it is clear from the speeches of the apologists on the SNP benches that the SNP is out of touch with the reality that our communities face. Our communities want to see justice done, yet the SNP is the only main party in the Parliament that does not adequately support community courts.
It is not only the main political parties that support community courts; the Lord Advocate said, in March 2007:
"This court will be at the heart of the community, delivering justice that is swift, visible and informed by a thorough understanding of the offenders background and of the impact of the offence in the wider community."
With the greatest respect to the High Court in Glasgow, I do not consider it to be at the heart of the community. That was wise counsel from the Lord Advocate, who has significant experience of the courts in delivering justice for our communities.
Frank McAveety referred to the proposal to develop a court in the Bridgeton area of his constituency. That proposal provided an opportunity to ensure that the courts would be seen as relevant and effective in providing solutions to many of the problems that Bridgeton and other parts of Glasgow face in respect of antisocial behaviour in our communities.
We show humility sometimes and realise the need to be objective. We recognise that courts alone cannot solve all the problems, and so do our communities. We believe strongly that communities have a role in contributing to solving many community problems.
Many communities sense that courts are removed, attitudinally and physically, from the problems they face. I do not believe that our courts properly appreciate the challenges that our communities face when they try to combat antisocial behaviour.
As Richard Baker and other Labour members said, we support the principle of payback. That is why, in government, Cathy Jamieson did not just talk a good game but delivered the game. She delivered community reparation orders, which were scrapped by this Government. I have yet to speak to any community representative who does not want certain offenders to be given the opportunity to face up to their unacceptable actions. Reparation orders provided that very opportunity, and so too would community courts.
The problem lies with the Governments unwillingness to fund community courts adequately. There can be no doubting that community courts will cost money but, with regard to the point Robert Brown made about the spend-to-save principle, I would say that spending money on community courts would save money in the long run.
Compare the cost of a community court—£3.75 million, with annual costs of £700,000—with the effect that vandalism and antisocial behaviour have on our communities throughout Scotland. Courts often talk about low-level offences, but those so-called low-level offences are not low level to the communities that are affected by antisocial behaviour. I say that on behalf of my constituents and the pupils of Balornock primary school, whose playground project has been vandalised. They want action to be taken to stop antisocial behaviour. We believe that the community courts would have provided an opportunity for that to happen.
The debate has exposed this Governments lack of innovation. It is evident that the Government is good at posting glossy documents on its website but that when it comes to following that up with action it is posted missing.
We call on the Scottish Parliament to support the amendment in the name of Richard Baker.
We agree with the Liberal Democrats broad approach to sentencing policy. In 2007-08, three quarters of short prison sentences were for six months or less. The outcomes for defenders who are sentenced to prison are poor. We all know that only one out of four of those sentenced to jail for six months or less remains free of further convictions within two years of release and that, by contrast, three out of five of those sentenced to community service have a clean record after a similar time. That basic comparison justifies the broad approach that we and the Liberal Democrats take to sentencing.
The facts in relation to community sentencing merit some repetition—they might not have been mentioned so far because this is a short debate. More than 6,000 community service orders and 3,000 probation orders with a condition of unpaid work attached were imposed by Scotlands courts in 2007-08. That means that the courts ordered more than a million hours of work to be carried out in the community. I mention that because credit is due to those who are dealing with those orders on our behalf. We should not forget about that in the maelstrom of criticism that there has been today.
Nigel Don hit on the nub of the debate when he talked about swiftness of justice. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the essential thing is that we spend money on a new building. I think that all members agree that it is the swiftness of the response, particularly with regard to the commencement of a community service order, that is important.
We have been accused of doing nothing, and the debate has been full of political knockabout, which is all great fun, but it is important to recognise that we are working extremely closely with professional stakeholders to agree a new, tighter framework for starting and completing community sentences. New guidance in respect of community service orders, which was issued on 27 February, will require post-sentence interviews to be carried out within one working day of the order being made by the court, with the work placement to start within seven working days. The new arrangements will take time to bed in. There are problems relating to community service orders in Scotland, not least in Glasgow, of which we are all well aware.
The new arrangements should lead to significant improvements over the current levels of performance. There is common ground between all parties in that regard. However, I respectfully disagree with the implicit proposition in the amendments, which is that we should spend a lot of money on a new building. That is what we are being asked to agree to today, but we do not agree with it. I have said so frankly and candidly, and we will be entirely open with members such as Frank McAveety and Sandra White who, quite rightly, stand up for their constituents. As I said at the outset of the debate, and as Cathy Jamieson also said, we recognise that the concept of community justice is good.
Does the minister accept that the model that has been adopted in the Red Hook community justice centre and the Midtown community court is not simply about the community service aspect but also about co-locating the court with, for example, addiction services, employment services, housing services and a range of other services? If so, does he accept that that is the opportunity that will be missed if the Glasgow project does not go ahead?
I agree that that is a key feature of the community justice concept, but I respectfully disagree that we are missing that opportunity. We most certainly are not. From my former work as a solicitor in Glasgow sheriff court, I know that some services are co-located there. The social work service is present. I have seen the drugs court operating. I have seen Sheriff Lindsay Woods manifest and palpable desire to help those who come before his drugs court. That is admirable, and I hope that more sheriffs will undertake the necessary training that will enable them to provide the progress courts approach, which Richard Baker referred to.
I respectfully disagree with the proposition that we should progress community courts simply by investing in a new building. I do not think that, even if we did that, we would deliver the swiftness that is the nub of this debate. It is possible to incorporate those benefits of swiftness into the criminal justice system without a costly new building. In the current climate, we must all recognise that resources must be targeted to provide best value for money. The important thing is the swiftness of starting community work and of visible payment to the community—not a building.
We will work with Glasgow City Council to explore the scope for investment in a more focused service for the east end of Glasgow, testing out an improved payback scheme. Therefore, I urge members to support the amendment in my name.
The debate has been useful: it has demonstrated yet again what it means to live in the SNPs soft-touch Scotland, it has shown the Governments attempts further to undermine the credibility of the Scottish justice system and it has helpfully demonstrated the broad coalition that is starting to gather around the SNPs plans.
The Scottish Government has continually argued that there are too many people in Scotlands prisons, yet when it has come to toughening up other disposals so that judges and sheriffs can feel confident in their sentencing choices, it has failed miserably. The Scottish Government cannot continue to talk about alternatives to custody with any credibility unless it strengthens current community sentences and ensures that they are completed on time.
The Glasgow community court provided an opportunity for the Scottish Government to show that it is serious not only about tackling crime but about tackling the causes of crime. It could have been a one-stop shop not only to ensure that effective and efficient punishment is meted out but to offer offenders every opportunity to start to make positive choices and changes in their lives.
Will John Lamont give way?
No—I want to make progress.
Contrary to the picture that the minister and several SNP members tried to paint, the community court would have been a good use of the limited resources that are available to the Government. In relation to spending money, I remind the minister that he told the Parliament that
"There are costs associated with doing the right thing."—[Official Report, 11 March 2009; c 15652.]
What does that say about the Governments attitude to the issue? We can assume only that the minister and the Government do not view tackling the underlying causes of crime as doing the right thing.
Definitive evidence shows that community courts produce results and provide value for money in the medium to long term. As we heard from my colleague Bill Aitken and from Richard Baker, we can look to the Midtown community court and the Red Hook community court in New York in the United States, which house a drug treatment service, domestic violence counselling, job training and a medical unit, all of which are made available to victims and offenders. The results speak for themselves—increased compliance, significant reductions in crime, increased use of alternative sanctions and, crucially, a slashing of the level of fear of crime.
As Mike Pringle said, closer to home, we can look to the community justice centre that has been established in Liverpool. Early evidence suggests that that has also been successful, particularly in reducing low-level offending and antisocial behaviour.
A recent YouGov poll discovered that, on witnessing low-level crime such as graffiti, vandalism or underage drinking, 30 per cent of Scots would report it but would think that nothing would be done and 34 per cent would not report it because they would think that nothing would be done. From those figures, we can have no doubt that the lack of public confidence in our justice system is at the heart of the problem. That is why the SNPs approach is fundamentally flawed—Cathy Jamieson made that point.
Will John Lamont give way?
I am happy to give way.
If the Conservatives regard the matter as such a priority, why did they not seek additional provision for new courts in their budget negotiations with John Swinney?
We wrongly assumed that, since the court was in the SNPs plans, the SNP would deliver it and the point was not for negotiation. That is another broken promise from the SNP Government.
Community courts in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland could have increased public confidence in the criminal justice system by creating visible and robust community sentences and by using local businesses and service providers to deliver justice and rehabilitation. The SNP Government has done nothing to instil public confidence in the criminal justice system; it has called for six-month sentences to be all but abolished, extended the use of home detention curfews and increased the number of offences for which fixed-penalty fines can be issued. The Scottish Government is watering down our criminal justice system at every opportunity.
We want to prevent people from ending up on the path to crime, but we have made it clear that those who blight our communities should face up to the consequences of their actions. Fines must be enforced, community service must be swift, effective and efficient and those who are sentenced to prison must serve the sentence that the judge hands down and not spend half their sentence in the community.
Soft on sentencing, soft on criminals, soft on prisons—the Government will not spend money on cutting crime by tackling the underlying causes of crime because it does not think that that is the right thing to do. We should be clear that we can forget the SNPs grand plans for an independent Scotland—they are no more. Its new master plan seems to centre on the desire to create a soft-touch Scotland. That is a master plan that we utterly reject. We urge the Parliament to back our motion.
That concludes the Conservative debates. We are a few seconds early for general question time, but everybody is here so we will proceed.