Home Detention Curfew
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1486, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on consideration of the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/36), and on motion S3M-1488, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the draft Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment of Specified Days) (Scotland) Order 2008.
I call David McLetchie to move motion S3M-1486.
I am pleased to deputise once again for Bruce Crawford—on behalf of the bureau rather than the Government, I hasten to add—in moving the motion on the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) Order 2008, which is a negative instrument.
For the benefit of members, I will clarify the procedure. The Parliamentary Bureau has agreed to set aside an hour for a debate on the two instruments.
The first, on which I will move a motion on behalf of the bureau, is a negative instrument. The framing of the motion reflects the decision of the Justice Committee, which first considered the instrument, to recommend
"that nothing further be done"
under the instrument.
The second motion, which Mr MacAskill will move, is on an affirmative instrument that requires the approval of Parliament.
Members should not take Mr Crawford's name on motion S3M-1486 as reflecting either his or the Government's position, which will no doubt be revealed in due course.
I am happy to perform the formal function of moving the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that nothing further be done under the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Prescribed Standard Conditions) (Scotland) Order 2008 (SSI 2008/36).
I am tempted to say that all will now be revealed, but I call Kenny MacAskill to speak to and move motion S3M-1488 and to speak to motion S3M-1486.
I am grateful to Mr McLetchie for giving that explanation to Parliament.
I welcome the opportunity to come before the Parliament to argue for a straightforward, commonsense measure. The draft Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment of Specified Days) (Scotland) Order 2008 does not change the criteria for access to home detention curfew. High-risk offenders will still be excluded, and everyone will still have to serve a quarter of their sentence first. The draft order does not change how HDC operates or how prisoners are assessed to determine their suitability for the scheme. All that I propose is to use the flexibility provided for in the previous Administration's legislation to enable low-risk, short-term prisoners to be out on home detention curfew for slightly longer—for the last six months, rather than the last four and a half months, of their sentences.
Given those facts, I was surprised by the Justice Committee's rejection last week of the draft order in its present form. However, I am confident that the Parliament as a whole will take a broader view and support such a modest and reasonable measure. [Interruption.] I will not take interventions at the moment—there were plenty of opportunities to discuss matters at the Justice Committee.
In considering the draft order and SSI 2008/36, I want fellow members to bear in mind the fact that during the prisons debate only three weeks ago—on 21 February—I reported that the prison population had reached an all-time high, that it had been 8,026 on the Friday before and that it was 8,045 on that day. Today, the prison population is 8,067.
The Justice Committee sought to insert a sunset clause in the draft order, but members did not appear to object to the extension of HDC in principle. The clear implication is that the Government needed only a short-term solution to a short-term problem, which would be solved when Addiewell prison opens. If only that were true. We are talking about a significant problem. The trends that have led us to the position that we are in are inherited—they have been building up throughout the country for many years. The continuing increase in the prison population and the need to refurbish or rebuild parts of the prison estate to ensure that that they meet health and safety standards and standards that are considered acceptable today has put the prison service in Scotland under intolerable strain. The Government recognises that we live in Caledonia, not utopia. That is why we have committed ourselves to three new prisons.
HM Prison Addiewell will, of course, buy the Scottish Prison Service some relief, but it is not the total solution. On current trends, even when that prison comes on stream, the SPS will still operate well over prison design capacity. I am not here to argue for a quick fix; I am here to argue for one element of our integrated strategy on the better management of offenders in Scotland. As part of that strategy, I made a commitment to the Justice Committee. I said that when Addiewell opens, I will review the whole operation of the HDC scheme. The committee rejected that offer, which was made on the parliamentary record. I regret that rejection.
We are well aware that Scotland has the third highest imprisonment rate in Europe—approximately 141 people per 100,000 of the population are imprisoned—but there is nothing to confirm that Scots are genetically more prone to criminality than other people. At a time of reducing offending patterns, it is perverse that an increasing number of people are incarcerated. Our prisons cannot be repositories for those who suffer from underlying mental health problems or drink or drug addictions. We need to reverse the trend that exists. The Government is taking steps that will begin to address the problem over the long term.
There are members who support alternatives to custody. We must begin to take that agenda forward and ensure that alternatives are not seen as a soft option—they should be seen as a credible option. Rather than our having the injury of crimes that have been committed compounded by the agony of having to provide free bed and board, those who harm or damage our community must pay with the sweat of their brow for the harm that they have caused. We are working towards that, and we believe that it is the Government's and the Parliament's duty to acknowledge the problems that exist, take responsibility for them and take action to help alleviate the pressure on the prison estate.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I will not.
The existing HDC scheme, which the previous Administration introduced in July 2006, provides for the early release of short-term prisoners—those who are serving between three months and four years—for a period of between two weeks and four and a half months. There are around 330 people on home detention curfew right now. The scheme provides for early release from prison, but people on it are subject to control under curfew, which normally lasts around 12 hours a day. The hours when the curfew applies and the extent of curfew control may vary, but compliance with the curfew is monitored by electronic tagging.
As I said, I ask members to support motion S3M-1488, which will extend the maximum period for which the current group of prisoners who are eligible for release can be released on HDC from four and a half months to six months. The legislation that governs the HDC scheme requires that prisoners in custody must serve at least a quarter of their sentence, so the full period of six months will apply only to prisoners who have been sentenced to two years or more.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I will not.
The provisions will not mean that more short-term prisoners will be released on HDC. They will mean that the same prisoners who are assessed as suitable for HDC can be released up to six months, rather than the current period of four and a half months, early. The effect will be to create a little—very much needed—space in the prison estate. We have no reason to believe that prisoners who are released on HDC for six months rather than the current four and a half months are likely to breach their conditions.
The law excludes certain categories of prisoner from consideration for the scheme, including those who are subject to the sex offender notification scheme and other schemes. That will remain the case, and correctly so.
If the prisoner meets the criteria for consideration for release on HDC, that must be supported by a positive assessment in which the offending history of the prisoner is taken into account. The assessment is provided by social work services and takes account of the views of the people who are living at the address to which the prisoner is to be released and other matters relating to domestic violence or child protection issues.
Seventy-nine per cent of prisoners successfully complete their period on HDC, and the majority of prisoners who breach the terms of their HDC licences are recalled to custody, which shows how seriously the Government treats breaches.
In introducing HDC in 2006, the previous Administration considered that it could be used flexibly and was an appropriate tool to ease reintegration. We agree. HDC may not, in itself, stop future reoffending; nor does it give someone employment. However, it allows an individual to be reintroduced into the family and, because of its restrictive nature, it gives them an opportunity to break ties with peer groups and reduce offending behaviour. It also allows prisoners the opportunity to follow up contact that was begun in prison with outside agencies that can support their rehabilitation. It does all that with the assurance that if the prisoner does not take the opportunity that is afforded by HDC and commits a breach, they will be returned to custody. That view was reinforced down south by a National Audit Office report.
For all those reasons, we are moving the motion in my name and addressing the motion that was moved earlier by Mr McLetchie. There is a crisis in our prisons. We cannot have the Tories or Labour playing narrow, sectarian party politics in a way that jeopardises good order in our prison estate. I move the motion to ensure the safety of our prisons and to allow our excellent prison staff and governors—and members—to do their job.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the draft Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment of Specified Days) (Scotland) Order 2008 be approved.
Labour introduced the home detention curfew scheme as part of a package of measures that included the upgrading of the prison estate, with quick-build options for new places, and the passing of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, which was aimed at addressing the revolving door and short-term offenders. HDC for up to 130 days was introduced for short-term offenders, with strict eligibility criteria. By contrast, the present Government, under similar pressures, has responded with the single measure of releasing the necessary number of prisoners to create slack in the system, rather than responding as we did, in the context of wider objectives.
Today, we are asked simply to extend the scheme with no context—not as a matter of principle or out of a belief in HDC as an integration model, but as a mechanism for immediately reducing prison numbers. The scheme has not been properly assessed and, to date, there have been 26 recalls for reoffending. Before an assessment has been carried out, we are being asked to broaden out the scheme substantially to short-term and long-term prisoners—the cabinet secretary did not mention that.
The cabinet secretary says that he is under extreme pressure to release more prisoners in order to relieve overcrowding in the system. Parliament is being asked to extend the scheme immediately to include more serious criminals serving long-term sentences, who are to be released up to six months early. That could mean that a long-term offender serving six years could be out in the community in two and a half years, if that was granted by the Parole Board for Scotland. That is not right in principle, and it does not reassure the public about anything.
Home detention curfew was not designed as a way of offloading unwanted prison numbers. Labour cannot and will not support the proposals without strict conditions, which we tried to impose at the Justice Committee last week. I am at a loss to understand why the cabinet secretary could not respond to the pleadings of Bill Butler, who made it clear that Labour would support the Government if only it would commit to an end point for the provisions in a genuine attempt to respond to members' concerns.
I refuse to accept that it would have taken another eight weeks to revise the provisions. I know that if a matter is urgent, it can be dealt with sooner. In my former role as a convener, I asked Labour ministers to take Scottish statutory instruments off the table and forced some compromises. The cabinet secretary should have seen that there was a compromise on the table. His failure to work with members of the Justice Committee who have real concerns about the issue does not bode well for the future. He has asked us to sign a blank cheque and to extend the scheme with no power to ensure that we can pull it back if we do not like what we see. We are asked to take it on trust that he will review the situation in January, when the new prison opens and 700 new prisoner places are available. When that happens, it will negate the cabinet secretary's reason for extending the scheme in the first place.
We are being accused of playing politics with prisons, but the cabinet secretary is playing politics with the committees of the Parliament. As has been said, minority government is meant to be about compromise. He should have worked around the committee's concerns. If he had come to a compromise, we would have agreed a way forward and we would not be having this hour-long debate today.
The cabinet secretary has tried to persuade me on several occasions that the Government is on track to build the new prison at Bishopbriggs. If there is any urgency around prison overcrowding, I call on the Government to get that work started immediately, give us the timetable and show us that it means to find real solutions to prison overcrowding.
Someone has to protect the public's interests in this debate, and we believe that that is what we are doing. Long-term prisoners are, by definition, more serious offenders, and the case has not been made to include them in the scheme. Every day this week, the press has run a story about prisoners on early release offending while they were being trusted in the community. Although we know that it is impossible to assess risk on every occasion, the public is already confused and alarmed by some of those stories, and we are not about to compound that public concern by agreeing to the proposed measures.
The SNP Government must demonstrate that it is not soft on prisoners and that it will pay more than lip service to new community sentencing measures to create alternatives to prison. That means putting money on the table for community sentences. We have not seen that money yet, but if the Government provides it, it will show us that it means what it says. If the Government is serious about managing the prison population in the long run, it should do so within the context of managing prison numbers.
We cannot support the Government's proposed measures today. It had a chance to compromise and it did not take it.
When the cabinet secretary's proposals came before the Justice Committee, they were rejected and they should be rejected again today.
The proposals should be rejected on a number of grounds, not least of which is the fact that they represent the negation of the principal duty of a Government, which is to safeguard the public. Despite what Mr MacAskill has said today, public safety cannot be guaranteed. Such matters are inevitably difficult, but the risks to the public will inevitably increase when high-tariff prisoners are released after serving, in some instances, a derisory proportion of their sentences.
The second reason why the proposals should be rejected is that they represent a reduction in the deterrent effect of prison. The message goes out loud and clear: "Get six years and you will serve 18 months". The law does not mean what it says and it certainly does not say what it means.
The proposals should be rejected because they are an underhand attempt to reduce the prison population by stealth. That is what all this is about. I concede that there is a problem, and the cabinet secretary could be forgiven for thinking that he did not create it, because he did not. It is bizarre that the Addiewell complex, which was designed and is being constructed to replace the Low Moss facility, is not ready, but the Low Moss facility has been demolished. Whose planning was that? Serious questions need to be asked of the previous Executive and the Scottish Prison Service.
However, the cabinet secretary is being a little bit more than disingenuous: he says, quite correctly, that the SNP is committed to building three new prisons, but he conveniently forgets that two prisons will be disposed of during that exercise, with the result that we will have one more prison.
If we discover, during the course of the investigation into the length of time that it has taken to produce the new prison, that a shortage of craftsmen and skilled construction workers is the cause, how will the member accommodate the rising number of prisoners?
I point out to Margo MacDonald that the Conservatives would not have been left in that position. Our manifesto indicated that a further prison facility was necessary, we budgeted for it, and a more than adequate workforce would have been available to produce the desired result.
Margo MacDonald's point is a bit of a red herring. The fact that we are a facility short at the moment is not the responsibility of the present Administration; Mr Ewing may want to intervene on that point. Nevertheless, the Government should be asking hard questions about how we got into this position.
Mr Aitken recognises the level that overcrowding in prisons has reached. The Government has come forward with the solution that is needed to address the problem. If the Conservatives do not accept our solution, what solution do they propose? If Parliament votes against our proposal today, what will the member say and do if the warnings of governors of prisons such as Barlinnie come true?
I will tell the governors of Barlinnie and other facilities to get on with things. There is some contradictory evidence. Why, for example, is the Kilmarnock facility never completely full? Is there a deep-laid plot by the Executive and the SPS to ensure that it is not utilised to the extent that it could be? I am afraid that the minister's arguments will not wear.
By the cabinet secretary's admission, 21 per cent of offenders who have been released on HDC have breached the terms of their licences. I concede that many of the breaches are not significant, but it is hardly encouraging that, in the space of four and a half months, 21 per cent of offenders have breached their licence. The obvious corollary of that is that, within six months, about 28 per cent of offenders will breach their licences. We should look at what has happened down south, where many offenders who have been released early have committed serious crimes. The same will inevitably happen here if we go down this road. We should recognise that the scheme has been an unmitigated disaster.
In the SNP's soft-touch Scotland, decent law-abiding citizens will pay the price. If the proposals become reality, Kenny MacAskill should draft a standard apology letter to all the victims that the legislation will create unnecessarily. He had the opportunity of an opt-out, but last week he failed to take it. He should not get the opportunity to avoid the issue today.
As we have discussed several times in the chamber recently, the Scottish prison system is at saturation point. As we have just heard, Bill McKinlay, the governor of Barlinnie prison, was quoted in a national newspaper as saying that very soon the prison will have to stop taking prisoners. Bill Aitken mentioned the Conservatives' commitment to build another prison. Is he suggesting that, if they had been in government since May, they would have built another prison by now? I doubt that.
I apologise for the absence of my colleague Margaret Smith, who is not well. Recently she and I had a discussion with Andrew McLellan, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland, who was quick to point out how serious the situation is. Overcrowding is preventing the rehabilitation of offenders. Every day, as more prisoners are sent to Scotland's overcrowded facilities, the situation becomes worse. Today we heard the latest figures, which have risen again. Primarily for that reason, I support summarily extending the eligibility of offenders for HDC, at least until the opening of the new Addiewell facility, when the matter can be reviewed.
Will Mr Pringle indicate why the Liberals did not support the sunset clause that would have achieved the compromise that he has just advocated?
I am not sure that a sunset clause would be legally competent, and I did not think that such a clause was the right approach. We are where we are, and the legislation that I hope we will approve today is the right way forward.
A few issues have been raised, notably regarding risk assessment. I point out that there is no move to change the nature of the current risk assessment procedures—the proposal is to change only the HDC period. Indeed, the chief executive of Sacro said on the radio this morning that she felt that the procedures for allowing somebody out on HDC were as rigorous as they could be. I have no doubt that that rigorous process will apply to anybody who is considered for the scheme. I had no doubt about the process when we introduced the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 during our Administration, and I do not doubt it now.
If the system is so rigorous, how is it that 21 per cent of those granted release under the system breach their licence?
I accept that figure—I was coming to that point. The fact is that 21 per cent of those who are out on HDC breach their licence and are recalled, but of those 21 per cent, 60 per cent appeal and are allowed to stay out on HDC.
I do not belittle the issue. When HDC was first debated in 2005, the then Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson, was right to describe them as the most important aspect of the legislation. The severity of the overcrowding problem is such that we may, if we are not extremely careful, end up in a situation in which risk assessment is balanced against overcrowding rather than public safety; indeed, I believe that we may already be in that position.
As I said, only 21 per cent of those on HDC are recalled, and I think that I have answered Bill Aitken's question on that issue.
An HDC licence costs £6,000 a year, which is £34,000 less than a prison place. Is that not a good use of resources?
Some Labour Party members have been strong advocates of a sunset clause. I think that I have answered Bill Butler's question—I am not sure that such a clause is competent.
I know that Bill Butler and his Labour colleagues recognise that there is significant strain on the prison service. Therefore, surely the most pragmatic course of action is to approve the measures and hold the cabinet secretary and the minister to their assurances to review the HDC scheme once Addiewell is up and running, rather than cause unnecessary delay. I fully support the Executive's motion.
I have some pleasure in speaking in favour of the motion, as addressed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
The debate on home detention curfew in Scotland took an overtly political tone at last week's Justice Committee meeting. I will offer a backdrop to the current debate on home detention curfew. HDC came into the legislative framework under the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, and its primary aim was to ease prisoners back into the community while restricting their movement.
Our prison population in Scotland is now more than 8,000. Week on week, new record figures are announced. The prison system is operating at around 1,000 above capacity. Based on its operating structures, Barlinnie is 50 per cent over capacity.
On the overcrowding at Barlinnie—I assume that there is also overcrowding, to a greater or lesser degree, in other prisons—when will the Scottish Executive be subject to challenge under the European convention on human rights because prisoners are in such overcrowded conditions?
I cannot answer that question. I suggest that the member refers it to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
Crime rates are not increasing. In the current climate, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has already advocated that only prisoners who are serving two or more years in custody will be affected. In addition, the HDC statistics show that approximately 3,000 people have been released under HDC licence and fewer than 1 per cent have offended while on the scheme. Bill Aitken's point about the fact that 21 per cent of people who are subject to home detention curfew are recalled was answered by Mike Pringle. The matter was also raised at the Justice Committee last week. In total, 91 per cent of HDCs are successful, because of those who are recalled, 60 per cent successfully appeal. The situation must be addressed.
One of the new Scottish Government's key principles and priorities was to create safer and stronger communities. I do not believe that the Government or the cabinet secretary would risk not fulfilling such a key pledge. It is up to prison governors to recommend those who might be suitable for HDC, and they are rightly strict in that respect. Indeed, as members have already pointed out, 40 per cent of those who apply are refused.
Does the member agree that we should argue for the extension of home detention schemes because they have been a huge success in helping to protect our communities, not because they represent a means of reducing the prison population?
We should argue for their extension on both grounds.
On 4 March, I lodged a motion on the Pew Center on the States report, which puts the United States position on these matters into perspective. The fact is that, as the authorities in Texas and Kansas have discovered, locking people up is not always the answer and does not impact on the overall crime rate. They are beginning to understand that jail should be for those who represent a clear threat to the community.
I hope that this debate will shine a light on the justice agenda and I urge all members to support the motion.
My party has no objection in principle to the modification of home detention curfew. Indeed, given that the previous Labour-led Executive proposed it as a central provision of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, such a stance should not be unexpected.
The HDC provision in the 2005 act was conceived as part of a package of wider measures to deal with the not insubstantial task of tackling the problem of reoffending rates. The system of releasing and licensing certain categories of low-risk prisoners, who would be remotely monitored for no more than 135 days, was agreed on the basis of the evidence received by the Justice 2 Committee in the previous session of Parliament and was thought by the majority of members to be a reasonable and proportionate approach. That was the correct position, and I do not resile from it. However, last week, the Justice Committee was asked to agree a significant modification to the specified length of HDC—a modification that, I might add, would also extend the provision to long-term prisoners—and the Parliament is being asked to do the same this afternoon.
Let me repeat what I said last week to Mr MacAskill: Labour acknowledges that there is real pressure on prisons. No one disputes that prisoner numbers are at an all-time high, and I accept that there seems to be a lack of capacity in the prison estate. Last week, the cabinet secretary said that the situation was a short-term problem that had to be dealt with. No member would dispute those salient points. However, it seemed to me and to many members of the Justice Committee that the proper method of dealing with such a pressing and serious situation would be a sunset or review clause that would allow a modified order to be passed and ensure that Parliament would be able to return to this matter in, say, 18 months' time, when Addiewell prison will be on-stream.
I still feel that such an approach offers advantages. First, it would allow the temporary, highly pressured situation to be addressed, which would be a good thing. Secondly, it would allow Parliament to judge further evidence on the operation of HDC with regard not only to the 21 per cent who breach their licences but to the more difficult question whether HDC is working in re-integrating prisoners into the community and cutting the seriously high reoffending rates. Finally, if the matter were to be reviewed by Parliament in plenary session, members would be able to judge the success or otherwise of such a time extension in a considered fashion. What is wrong with that?
I ask the cabinet secretary to reconsider even at this stage his objection to the inclusion of a sunset clause. After all, as far as I have been able to ascertain, most legal opinion agrees that it is possible to identify areas for regulation where a presumption in favour of sunset or review clauses is appropriate. Enabling reconsideration would be a welcome sign of mature reflection by the Government.
Of course, no one would argue for or agree to a blanket use of sunset clauses. However, as the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report on its inquiry into the regulatory framework, which was published in 2007, makes clear, it has been recognised that a presumption in favour of a sunset or review clause might be appropriate where regulation is introduced at short notice in response to a crisis. Such regulation might be created as a precautionary measure and might not benefit from the amount of detailed prior analysis that would normally be carried out. Given that Parliament is being asked to introduce regulation at short notice in response to a crisis, the use of a sunset clause is entirely apposite. I ask the cabinet secretary to reconsider.
The matter is too serious for soundbites and petty party politicking. Extravagant talk of meltdown does not help. When it comes to the safety of our communities, all members—including those recently elevated to ministerial rank—should employ reason and seek to build consensus, and should not sit smiling on the front bench when serious points are being made.
Given that the proposed modification of the primary legislation is of such significance, last week's decision by the Justice Committee was reasonable and responsible. The cabinet secretary's refusal to countenance the inclusion of a sunset clause was mistaken. I hope that the Government will reconsider its position. If it does, Labour stands willing to support the measures in the Home Detention Curfew Licence (Amendment of Specified Days) (Scotland) Order 2008, once it has been suitably amended to ensure the safety of all our communities. That is the paramount consideration.
As a member of the Parliament's Justice Committee and a representative of the West of Scotland region, where Greenock prison lies, I welcome the debate.
I was disappointed that last week the Justice Committee decided not to back the proposed extension of home detention curfew. There was no logic in that decision. At least Bill Aitken was consistent, as the Tories were against HDC in the first place.
For some time, warnings have been issued by people involved in the justice system, including the governor of Barlinnie prison, that Scottish prisons are badly overcrowded. That situation stems from the previous Administration's years of neglect of the Scottish Prison Service. The fact that the prison population has broken through the 8,000 barrier has set alarm bells ringing, and it is imperative that something is done.
We cannot expect the SPS to do an adequate job under such circumstances, never mind expect prisoners to respond to the support that is offered to them if it is not adequate. The SPS has expressed the fear that if the present circumstances continue, in a few short months Scotland's prisons will be unable to cope. What then? What will happen when there is an increase in violence following a major football match or matches? Where will we put offenders? Will Labour members offer to detain them in their homes overnight? A night in the company of Labour MSPs sharpening their knives might deter many people from reoffending.
The proposal to extend the period for which an offender can be tagged from four and a half months to six months is not to be feared. If those extra six weeks—we are not talking about six months or six years—help prisoners to reintegrate into society so that they do not reoffend, surely providing for such an extension is worth while.
The Government is taking longer-term action on prison overcrowding. Over the next three years, £360 million of capital investment will be ploughed into improving and modernising the prison system, with new prisons being provided in Addiewell, Bishopbriggs and the north-east. However, a short-term solution must also be found. Action needs to be taken now, before the situation gets even worse.
It is hard to understand the difficulties that prisoners must face when they try to reintegrate into their communities, but it is a damn sight harder for prison staff, who are working in conditions to which they should not be subjected, and for our communities, which are harmed when former prisoners reoffend. By allowing prisoners to spend an extended period on HDC, we will help to ease them back into society, which will in turn help society in the longer term. Not only will that ease the pressure on the prison system, it will potentially benefit prisoners by allowing them to readjust and reintegrate.
As I have said, action needs to be taken now. If we faff around inserting a sunset clause, as the Labour Party wants to do, we will further delay decisions, which will only cause more problems. The Government has already stated its intention to review the entire HDC policy in early 2009, when Addiewell prison opens.
Last week, Labour again sidled up to its Tory bedfellows to form a right-wing alliance. Arguing against the extension of HDC will not endear Labour to the public. Last week was the first time that the use of a sunset clause had been mentioned. I would have thought that Labour would be a touch more understanding of the problems that it left the SNP Government with.
The cabinet secretary's motion needs to be passed so that we can provide some breathing space for our prison service. The men and women who work hard to maintain standards in our prisons should not have to cope with the added strain of overcrowding. The current situation is not acceptable by any standards, and the extension of HDC is a logical way of starting to rectify the situation.
We are debating a serious issue, so I was disappointed by the previous speaker's tone and by the intemperate approach of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, who seems not to want to engage with hard issues and who was reluctant to accept the compromise that was proposed in the Justice Committee. It does not help to suggest that there is a division between people who are for prison and people who are against prison, because that is false. The issues are difficult.
The cabinet secretary's failure to understand the importance of building confidence is fundamental. He claims that he wants to move to greater use of appropriate community sentences. If he wants communities to sign up to that approach, it is ill advised for him to refuse to agree to a moderate proposal to keep a watch on the issue that we are debating.
It is argued that individual cases make bad law. However, people's experiences can illuminate a situation and reveal flaws in a policy approach that seems logical in theory. In that context, I mention my constituent Mr Armstrong, whose case illustrates why people do not have confidence in the system and why ministers should be willing to compromise on HDC. In brief, Mr Armstrong was convicted of a serious assault and was sentenced to just less than four years in prison. His family, friends and neighbours have campaigned for proper consideration of the circumstances of the assault for which he was convicted. Mr Armstrong alleges that the person whom he was convicted of assaulting was threatening him with a 14in knife and smashing the windows of his vehicle, and that there was a history of reported disorder in the community. The family asserts that Mr Armstrong was a repeat victim who acted in self-defence and who did not have confidence in the police's ability to respond to the circumstances. Perhaps that is a mark of the failure of earlier intervention to deal with disorder. The deepest irony is that Mr Armstrong's alleged assailant was tagged for other offences but was free to appear in the vicinity of Mr Armstrong's home and cause alarm while Mr Armstrong was in prison.
Mr MacAskill is fond of talking about keeping "flotsam and jetsam" out of prison. In the case that I described, who is flotsam and jetsam and who deserves to be in prison? The crude division that Mr MacAskill likes to present does not apply; the reality is that neither party is flotsam and jetsam. We must address people's actions and deal with them seriously, but in so doing we must be careful to understand the context of offending, which might involve a person's being a repeat victim. Such matters must be properly taken into account. I am delighted that Mr MacAskill has agreed to meet me to pursue the issues, and I hope that he will confirm his willingness to accept from the family the massive petition in support of Mr Armstrong.
The issue matters because community safety is paramount. We need to know that home detention curfew works. They cannot be used as a crude attempt artificially to keep prisoner numbers low. We do not want huge prisoner numbers, but we need to know that risk assessments are done on the basis not of keeping numbers down but of ensuring that a person is safe to return to the community. People do not have that confidence, because the cabinet secretary will not agree to a sunset clause so that there can be proper consideration of the issue when more prison spaces are available.
The cabinet secretary's reluctance to compromise stems from his predetermined view on prisoner numbers. He cannot confront the challenges to do with funding new prisons, but that is what Governments must do. He wants to relieve pressure on prisons, but he must not do so at the expense of putting greater pressure on our communities. I am troubled by his reluctance to compromise and by his willingness to engage in a crude debate rather than accept that he can reduce prisoner numbers only if our communities feel safe and have confidence that the policy is about not reducing numbers but addressing what puts people in prison and keeps them there. I urge the cabinet secretary to rethink his approach.
There are too many people serving short sentences in prison, and the opportunity to release them on HDC is the way forward.
The member says that the measure that we are considering will reduce prisoner numbers. If members agree to the measure, does he know on what date it will be implemented, to allow that to happen?
The cabinet secretary could probably tell the member that. I am not aware of exactly when the measure will be implemented, but it will be as soon as possible. As with any other proposed legislation that comes before the Parliament, the order must go through the natural process.
As I have said, it has been statistically proven that the short-term and low-risk prisoners who stand to benefit from the extension of HDC often simply do not belong in prison. In fact, the public and the prison population alike are best served by those people serving part of their sentence in the community. As I have said, the chief executive of Sacro is right behind that, and we should take account of the comments of somebody who is, in effect, in the profession.
Labour Party members are strong advocates of a sunset clause that would result in the extended eligibility being revoked on the opening of the new Addiewell facility. I accept that the concept is principled, but it fails to take account of the current situation in Scotland's prisons. As I have described, the situation is worsening day by day. I am concerned that a delay to allow us to debate a possible sunset clause would serve only to add to the problems. As I have said, I support the Executive's motion.
I am sure that many members have heard stories from constituents about the effect of crime on the communities we represent—I certainly have in the few months that I have been a member. I often hear stories from residents about a lone young teenage thug who has made the lives of local families a misery with his thefts, violent behaviour and vandalism. The residents have lost count of how many times he has been in and out of court, but his one-man reign of terror continues and the police can do little about it. Those law-abiding families feel that the Government is not listening to them—they feel abandoned. It is little surprise that so many people feel like that when we have proposals such as those that are before us today, which would release on to our streets even more criminals even earlier. On that issue, the Scottish National Party is completely out of touch with public opinion. Nothing dismays victims more or brings the entire criminal justice system into greater disrepute than the fact that criminals almost never serve the sentence that the court hands down.
What has been the experience of home detention curfews in Scotland? From their introduction in July 2006 until March 2007, almost 1,300 criminals were released on HDC licences, but more than 200—almost 20 per cent—needed to be recalled to custody because they had breached the terms of their licence. Let us consider the longer experience in England, where HDC has been in existence since 1998. Under that scheme, tens of thousands of criminals have been released early from prison, including dozens of sex offenders and criminals who have been convicted of cruelty to children and thousands of drug dealers. According to Home Office figures, those criminals went on to commit more than 1,000 offences, including drug offences, assaults, including on police officers, and rapes. There is no doubt in my mind that those crimes would not have happened if the criminals who committed them had remained in prison and served the entirety of their sentences.
The current system is failing and clearly does not work to cut crime—we need only consider the crime figures to realise that. In the past 10 years, minor assaults have risen by 28,000, acts of fire raising and vandalism have gone up by 45,000 and breaches of the peace have gone up by 20,000. We should not let criminals out of prison early. Scotland needs an alternative approach to tackling crime—we need to make criminals scared of getting caught and scared of punishments, so that they choose not to commit crime.
Will the member give way?
The minister will have his chance in a few moments.
No, I will not, actually.
The minister's chance will come.
We must make criminals pay a heavy price for their actions so that others are scared of following their example. We need to put victims first and ensure that they see justice being done. We need to give our police force the backing and resources it deserves. Above all, we need to wage war against crime so that the law-abiding majority can take back their streets, town centres, homes, communities and shops.
At least Bill Aitken had a solution, which was that the governor of Barlinnie should do his job, although as it is judges and not governors who send people to prison, that is completely irrelevant. Aside from the rhetoric and the point scoring, what on earth would the Conservatives do about the crisis that is facing us right now?
That is a matter for the Scottish Prison Service. We must have confidence in our judges to send to prison those people who need to be locked up. It is then for the Scottish Prison Service to ensure that they remain behind bars for the time that the judges require.
The war on crime that I have just outlined will not happen in the SNP's soft-touch Scotland, where a four-year sentence will mean 18 months in prison. Decent, law-abiding citizens will pay the price. If the nightmare proposal becomes a reality, I hope that that the justice secretary will apologise to the communities in my constituency and throughout Scotland that will continue to be blighted by crime as a result of his ridiculous scheme. I urge Parliament to reject the proposals.
Once again, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has failed to convince members of the merits of extending the home detention curfew scheme from four and a half months to six months. Let us be clear: he wants to implement the measure to deal with the pressures on the prison estate. That concern has been well briefed, compliments of Barlinnie prison and many well-orchestrated press releases from the Scottish Prison Service.
We accept the prisoner numbers that the cabinet secretary presents, but we are not convinced that the extended HDC period will make a significant contribution to reducing them. Mike Pringle is ill informed to support a proposal if he does not know when it will be implemented. If he believes so strongly that the extension will make a difference, he needs to understand how, when and where it will do that. It should also be noted that the average prison population over the year is, in fact, 6,500, which is well below the design capacity figure.
Once again, the Kenny MacAskill spin machine has sought to present its unprecedented defeat at the Justice Committee as members playing party politics. Let me be clear what the Labour members' politics are: we will, at every possible opportunity, interrogate legislative remedies that are placed before us. It is our job as parliamentarians to do that, and the cabinet secretary must convince us of the merits of the proposals he puts before us. His inability to provide the facts to back up his proposal is why it failed; it has nothing at all to do with the politics injected into the Justice Committee.
It is important that the Parliament not only passes legislation that looks good but ensures that the extension will fulfil the key aims that the order is meant to achieve. I reiterate the point that the minister said that it would significantly reduce prisoner numbers. Our politics are to seek answers and the cabinet secretary's politics are not to provide them.
A considerate Bill Butler put forward a genuine compromise during committee proceedings on 4 March. The First Minister would be proud of it, because it follows the spirit that he set out in his acceptance speech, when he said that he wanted
"to reach across the parties and try to build a majority, issue by issue, on the things that matter to the people of Scotland."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 25.]
Bill Butler proposed an opportunity for the cabinet secretary to respect the committee's concerns on home detention curfew and revisit the committee with a redrafted order that included a sunset clause.
Will Paul Martin give way on that point?
I will not give way. Fergus Ewing has had his opportunity.
No I have not.
Once again, SNP members have proven that they do not want to be constructive and do not want to answer the question.
I will answer it for Paul Martin now, if he wants.
Order.
A sunset clause would ensure that the six-week extension would expire after a given period. The reason the cabinet secretary gave for not redrafting the order was:
"We are guessing, but we estimate that it would probably take a couple of months."—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 4 March 2008; c 555.]
He needs to up his game and deliver legislation at the pace of former Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace. In response to the circumstances surrounding the Noel Ruddle case, Jim Wallace brought forward a timetable that allowed changes to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 to be passed 10 days after introduction.
Cathy Jamieson and Jim Wallace respected the Parliament and its committees. Mr MacAskill would do well to follow that challenge.
I remind the chamber what I said at the outset and of the condition of our prison system—a system that we inherited and that is in a mess not simply as a result of the previous Administration, but as a result of what that Administration took over when the Tories went out on their ear back in 1997. We inherited a mess of rising prison numbers such that we now have record following upon record and a crumbling prison estate—because action was not taken to ensure that the appropriate required places were available.
Will the minister take an intervention?
In a minute.
Thankfully, this Government decided to commit to three new prisons, the first of which will come on track in January. Until then, we have a significant difficulty. It is simply not good enough to suggest that the governor of Barlinnie should seek to find additional space under a cupboard or in a locker. That is not how we run our prisons. It was negligence such as that that got us into the situation in which the taxpayer in Scotland is paying millions of pounds to people who were convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison—because the Tories and Labour failed to address the problems of the European convention on human rights that they were warned about. As a consequence, this Government is having to shell out to pay damages, as well as to ensure that we have a proper prison estate.
Order.
There has been a great deal of cant and hypocrisy from the Labour-Tory coalition. They united at the Justice Committee and they are uniting again now. Before I come to the falsehoods, I will run through some of that cant and hypocrisy. First, I will deal with the cant and hypocrisy from Labour.
On that point—
I am dealing with Mr Butler's point. Let us deal with the sunset clause. As my colleague whispered in my ear, despite the fact that it was in government for eight years, a sunset clause never arose under the Labour Administration; never once did that Administration introduce such a clause. Then—though they forget it—there is the arithmetic. There were 29 days in February this year because it is a leap year. On 22 of those days we had record prison numbers. The only reason it was 22 out of 29 is that there are no admissions to prisons during the weekend.
I ask members to look at the figures and realise that time is of the essence. Mr Martin seems to think that there is no problem. It was made quite clear that it would take two months to get a sunset clause into an SSI and introduce it—two months, when there were 22 rises in February alone. There is gross hypocrisy. If Mr Martin wants to know the date when the home detention order will come into force, it is 21 March. We have neither latitude nor time. Labour was prepared to allow the Scottish Prison Service to shell out millions to criminals. We are taking action to ensure that our prison staff are protected and, most important, that we do not run into further difficulties that compound the agony for us as a Government and, in particular, for the taxpayer in having to pay out.
I will now deal with the cant and hypocrisy from the Tories.
The Tories go on about building prisons. They were in charge from 1979 to 1997. Who in Scotland can forget the years under the iron heel of Margaret Thatcher? Lo and behold—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. Is it in order for the cabinet secretary—inadvertently I am sure—to mislead Parliament by saying, as I think I heard above the rant, that the Labour-led Executive never introduced a sunset clause? I point him to the Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2008, the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001, and others. Will he withdraw that comment?
I am happy to acknowledge Mr Butler's superior knowledge on the matter.
On a related point of order, Presiding Officer.
It had better be related, Mr Aitken.
I seek your advice on whether it is appropriate for the cabinet secretary—inadvertently I am sure—to mislead the chamber by stating that the Conservatives did not take any action to avoid breaching human rights, when the Conservative Government did not sign up to the European convention on human rights.
On that point, Mr Aitken, my advice would be to sit down.
Yes, well, what they did do—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Order. I am not going to take points of order if they are not genuine. I call Cathie Craigie.
This, I feel, is a genuine point of order. I would not wish the cabinet secretary inadvertently to mislead Parliament. He has quoted some figures today about the prison popul—
No. Will the member please sit down.
Well, I—
Would the member sit down. Sit down. I am not going to take debating points dressed up as points of order. I call Margo MacDonald.
My point refers to the standing orders of the Parliament, but I apologise for not having my copy of them with me. It concerns how long it takes to get an SSI into a bill, which seems to be a central point in this afternoon's debate. Will you guide me, Presiding Officer? Is there a prescribed time in standing orders for the insertion of an SSI into a bill?
It is not my function to guide the member as to standing orders; the member should go and read them.
Mr MacAskill, you have about three minutes left.
I am happy to defer to Mr Butler's superior knowledge of sea fish regulations. I have no doubt that he has been concentrating on them, because he has not been keeping his eye on the ball on other matters.
I advise Ms MacDonald that we would have to withdraw at least one regulation, which would mean going back before going forward. That would take approximately two months, and we do not have that time.
I will deal with the cant and hypocrisy of the Tories, who are crying out for prisons to be built. When they were in power between 1979 and 1997, not three prisons did they build, not two prisons did they build, not one prison did they build. They built zero prisons. They cannot get enough of prison building, but when they had the opportunity for 18 years, they built not one.
I read about Miss Goldie fulminating about the outrage that people who are convicted and sentenced to four years of imprisonment could be released after 18 months with the possibility of tagging. I point out to her now, as I pointed out in a previous speech, that Jonathan Aitken esquire was sentenced to 18 months but served only seven months, including many months in an open prison—the kind that is so castigated by members on the Tory benches. He was then, through a heinous soft option, released to home detention with curfew and tagging. If Miss Goldie or Bill Aitken do the mathematics, they will realise that reducing 18 months to seven months is like reducing fours years to 18 months. [Interruption.]
Order. There are too many conversations in the chamber.
The cant and hypocrisy from the Tories and Labour is substantial, but there have also been factual inexactitudes. Mr Lamont sought not only to provide misinformation about Scotland but to provide misinformation about England and Wales. Far be it from me to defend the Ministry of Justice there, but I remind him that statutory exclusions in the English scheme deal with sex offenders and violent offenders. Indeed, 85 per cent of curfews are successfully completed south of the border.
The SNP recognises the problem it has inherited and it presents the action that it is taking in building prisons, but we need to provide more than simply warm words—and, indeed, more than the hectoring and lecturing that we hear from Bill Aitken. We need to provide solutions. That is why we are moving the motion. A shameful coalition of Labour and the Tories is seeking to play politics with our prisons. They are jeopardising the good order in our prisons and undermining the excellent work that our staff do. That is shameful. I urge members to support my motion at decision time.