Community Courts
The next item of business is a statement by Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, on community courts. As always, the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I remind members that we are very tight for time today; we have a lot of business to fit in. Brevity in both questions and answers should be the watchword of the day.
I am grateful for this opportunity to set out my response to last Thursday's vote. First, I will deal with the factual information in relation to the community justice centre, after which I will address the broader issue of the Government's commitment to replace short prison sentences, where appropriate, with tough and effective community sentences.
I turn to the community justice centre project. There are lessons to be learned from community courts such as those in Midtown in New York and elsewhere. There are clear advantages to having a strong focus on top quality criminal justice services in the most disadvantaged areas that are often the most blighted by offending, which is why we worked constructively with Glasgow City Council and other partners through the Glasgow community justice centre project board on a feasibility study into the costs of building and running a community justice centre, as well as the benefits that such a centre could bring.
The project initiation document, which we will shortly arrange to place in the Scottish Parliament information centre, pulled together the conclusions of the work and highlighted a number of issues. It set out the aims of the court, which are: improved community safety; improved community involvement in the justice system as a whole; taking a problem-solving approach; tackling the underlying causes as well as the actions of offenders; speeding up the delivery of justice in the local area; and more effective payback to the community that has been blighted or damaged.
All those aims are important, but delivering them is not dependent on the creation of a new building. The community court would have dealt, at most, with a couple of thousand cases a year. In 2007-2008, over 79,000 people had a charge proved in the sheriff summary court and a further 47,000 were convicted by justices of the peace.
The cost of the new building, and the running costs thereof, were substantial. What caused us to support the project board's decision was the scale of the revenue commitment just to keep the building open, staffed, resourced and safe. The Glasgow stakeholders considered—as the final programme initiation document highlights—that the final costs would likely be considerably higher than the consultant's estimate of £750,000 per year. The document also said that there would be no cash-releasing benefits or offsetting savings. In the current financial climate, that does not seem to offer best value for money. The project board concluded that the project, at this stage, should not be progressed in its current form.
The chair of the project board wrote to the chief executive of Glasgow City Council to intimate the board's conclusion. The chief executive's response was positive and realistic. He said:
"I appreciate the Board's practical and informed approach to taking the difficult decision not to progress this project further. I note that the Board had some early discussions on how the principles of the Centre could be introduced into mainstream services in Glasgow and that your staff intend to continue that work. I would support further work with the Council and other partners to explore how this could be delivered in the context of the local and national aspirations for reducing reoffending".
We have not abandoned our commitment to better justice-system delivery for the citizens of the east end of Glasgow. We will work further with the council to explore how some of the benefits that have been identified—particularly quicker delivery of community payback, with visible reinvestment in the neediest communities—can be delivered through better joining up of services using existing premises. My officials will have a first meeting with Glasgow City Council on that next week. We will work together to find a practical and affordable solution.
I want to deal more widely with our stated commitment to move from routine short prison sentences that provide free bed and board, to tough and effective community sentences. Our strategy is clear and coherent, and is based on the independent work of the Scottish Prisons Commission. We published it in December, in "Protecting Scotland's Communities: Fair, Fast and Flexible Justice". It has two main strands: a robust regime of community penalties, and strong and proportionate management of offenders whose crimes merit prison.
A coherent penal policy is needed. We remain committed to the provision of a modern and fit-for-purpose prison and we are investing a record £120 million in prison capacity each year. Public protection is the Government's first goal. Protecting the public effectively needs prisons that are not overcrowded and which can undertake the necessary work to rehabilitate serious offenders who need to be locked up and detained.
In 2007-08, 76 per cent of sentences were for six months or less. On average, individuals who are given such sentences spend only three weeks in prison. There is no time for the Scottish Prison Service to work with them to tackle underlying drug or alcohol problems; the service can only contain them. The greater the overcrowding, the greater the challenge for the service. The prison population is still rising. There are more than 8,000 people in our prisons, although recorded crime is at a 25-year low.
In terms of long-term public protection, we need to develop alternatives to prison that are robust, that take effect quickly and which offer real payback to communities. That is what we are doing, through the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which will create the new community payback order, and through work in partnership with local authorities to improve the standard of delivery on the ground. We are investing an additional £2 million per year in community service and, in conjunction with the Association of Directors of Social Work, we have drawn up revised operational guidance and have carried out training events throughout the country for community service staff. The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill includes provisions for more flexible sentences, which can be kept under review by the sentencer. It also provides a significant new sanction to support tough action on breach: electronic tagging. We are also investing extra cash to improve delivery this year.
We have to prioritise. We need a visible police presence, which reassures good citizens and deters bad ones. That is why the Government took the decision to increase police numbers by 1,000. We need a coherent penal policy and a system that improves management of offenders, Scotland wide.
Resources are not infinite and we are in a recession. We are aware of the financial situation and the pressures that £500 million of cuts from Westminster will bring. We therefore need to target our resources. Sometimes that will mean that desirable extras, such as the community court building, do not proceed. If we fund Glasgow community court, we must make cuts in other areas—£1 million is not petty cash. Last week, the Justice Committee voted to retain Annan justice of the peace court. That decision is not cost free, as committee members are aware, and might cost up to £800,000.
Our priority is safer communities, with a visible police presence and more robust and immediate community sentences, which communities can see and believe in. We need to invest in front-line services, not in new buildings.
I recognise and share members' view that key elements of the community court model, particularly the clustering of support services and the closer links with communities, are eminently worth pursuing. I have asked my officials to work with Glasgow City Council to do just that, in a way that suits local circumstances. I expect that work to generate lessons for wider application. Moreover, when the financial situation improves and pressures are less severe, matters can be reviewed.
I understand local members' desire for investment in the east end of Glasgow and I am happy to reiterate that the Government has shown unprecedented commitment to the east end. However, in the current economic circumstances, the development of the community court building does not offer the best value for money, given the available resources. The building could be delivered only by making cuts in vital police or community justice services.
I say for the benefit of members who arrived slightly late that we are short of time this morning, so questions and answers should be as brief as possible.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement but is not the statement an insult to the Parliament? After the Parliament clearly expressed its will that a community court be established in Glasgow, why has the cabinet secretary not reflected on his position but simply trotted out the same arguments against the court that we heard from the Scottish National Party last week?
We all recognise the financial pressures that exist. However, despite the pressures, Glasgow City Council made it clear that it was ready to invest millions in the court, because it thought that the approach would work. Given the cabinet secretary's wider sentencing strategy, the court is surely far more than a desirable extra—it is an essential part of the strategy. If the Scottish Prison Service's £4 million in VAT savings is not to be invested in the court, what will it be invested in? When will the cabinet secretary's target for community sentences to start within seven days be met, if the court does not go ahead?
The cabinet secretary talked about a coherent strategy. Does not his decision show how incoherent his strategy is? How can his plans to treble the number of community sentences have credibility, when the current system is creaking at the seams and he refuses to invest in proposals that are proven to deliver tough and effective community payback?
The Parliament and the Government's own research support the establishment of the community court, so why are ministers standing in its way? Is this not the clearest illustration of the fact that the Scottish Government's justice strategy is not just soft touch, but out of touch?
The Scottish Prison Service would not need to make savings here, there and everywhere if we had got the Barnett consequentials to follow on from the Carter review south of the border. If we had been given what was our right and entitlement, the Prison Service would have an additional £120 million per annum, but nothing is said by Labour members about ensuring that Scotland gets its right and entitlement.
The targets are not dependent on a court building. They are not just being rolled out through what would have been the Glasgow community court; they are going nationwide. They concern better systems, not simply new structures. The fundamental point is that, if other parties want to persist with the court building, they should tell us how many officers they want to be taken off the streets, which areas they want to be deprived of a visible police presence, which prison building they want to close, or which construction they want us to delay.
The project is not cost free—it comes at a cost. All the Opposition parties should be mindful that the last time they came to the chamber to force us to do something, they forced the citizens of Edinburgh to have £500 million spent on a tram scheme—£500 million that the country could have spent without the mess that the scheme has created for the citizens of this city. Members should beware of what they are asking for—cuts in front-line services in order to build a community court building.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of the statement.
There is a unanimous view in the chamber, even following the statement, that the project is desirable. Last week, there was a clear majority in the Parliament for proceeding and the failure to proceed is a negation of parliamentary democracy. The Conservative group has little confidence in the cabinet secretary on a range of issues. Does he not accept that the defiance of Parliament on this issue raises real doubts over his ability to satisfy the Parliament as to his competence and suitability for office?
This is not just the position of the Government. When Clive Fairweather, the former chief inspector of prisons, was asked about the matter, he said that the position was understandable, with money being tight these days. He went on to say that one or two of the details have not quite been worked out. I hope that, rather than simply being put on the shelf, the project could be put to one side to be worked on, so that when a bit more money becomes available we could come back to it. That is what the Government has said. We have not said no; we have said that, as and when the financial climate is better, we will be happy to revisit the matter.
In the interim, if Mr Aitken wants money to be spent on the project, that cannot be done out of VAT, which is non-recurring; it must be done by cutting funds for something else. The choice is simple. If Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems wish to build the community court in Glasgow, they do so at the expense of a visible police presence and the circumstances that are essential for community justice.
Rubbish.
Order.
They cannot just produce the money out of their back pockets. That is the reality of life.
He is talking absolute nonsense.
Irrespective of what Mr McLetchie might shout from a sedentary position—
I will stand up and say it: it is nonsense.
Order.
We are in a recession, and we have to make these decisions.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of the statement.
This morning, we have seen the sorry spectacle of the cabinet secretary coming before the Parliament with weasel words, saying that the Scottish National Party Government intends to defy the will of Parliament. He does so with the aid of the ludicrously entitled project initiation document, which is what he has based his decision on. That is notwithstanding the release of some £50 million and the action that has been taken, with the unanimous support of the Parliament, with regard to the slopping-out cases. Is the cabinet secretary seriously telling us that the Government cannot find the necessary £750,000 to £1 million for the Glasgow community court?
The cabinet secretary told us that the Government strategy was clear, consistent and based on the work of the Scottish Prisons Commission. Why does he pick out only parts of the Prisons Commission report? Does he no longer accept the commission's conclusion that
"we first need up-front investment in better services in and for Scotland's communities"
if we are to take crime and punishment seriously?
Is the cabinet secretary not seriously embarrassed to tell the Parliament that the Government holds those considered views in contempt? If the Government is not prepared to reconsider its position, should the cabinet secretary not reconsider his position? Is the Government's strategy on justice not now rather a shambles?
We accept the conclusions of the McLeish report, and we are delivering record funding. We have put in an additional £2 million to ensure that our community justice front-line services—not simply buildings—can be properly resourced. Clearly, however, we must make hard choices during difficult times.
I recall that Mr Brown opposed the closure not only of Annan justice of the peace court, with a price tag of up to £800,000, but of Rutherglen justice of the peace court. He is keen to ensure that the Government increases expenditure on buildings, but he will not tell us which front-line services we have to take the funding from. We live in a world in which resources are not infinite. Thankfully, we do not have to make up the £800 million of cuts that Mr Purvis would have imposed upon us—and which the Lib Dems have rolled back from.
If members wish to proceed with buildings, they must cut the funding from other budgets. Be under no illusion: those budgets will be for front-line services, and it is police and prisons that we require to fund. We will not cut front-line services simply for a building that we cannot fund at present—but, along with Clive Fairweather, we will work to see whether we can deliver the concept when better financial times come.
We come to open questions. We should have only one question per member, please. I will stick rigorously to that.
I apologise for being a little late, Presiding Officer—my sprint from the garden lobby might just teach me a lesson.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. The community court is only one part of the fight against crime in Glasgow. As the cabinet secretary said, the Government has shown unprecedented commitment to the east end of Glasgow. Will the cabinet secretary outline some of the other measures that are being taken in Glasgow to make our streets safer?
Absolutely. We recognise the particular problems that the east end of Glasgow has. That is why our commitment to 1,000 additional officers, and indeed the splendid work that is being done by Strathclyde police authority and the chief constable of Strathclyde, have resulted in a record police presence in the city of Glasgow. Of course, that could be jeopardised if we have to replace police officers with a building.
We have supported the community initiative to reduce violence in the east end, through the violence reduction unit. We recognise that specific areas have particular problems, not simply criminal justice problems but problems with drink, drugs and deprivation. We seek to work using a holistic approach, and that is what we are doing.
We will have a visible police presence to enforce the law firmly. We will continue to invest in the prison estate to ensure that those who need to be behind bars are put there. That investment is not just for the prisoners; it is to ensure the safety of our hard-pressed officers. We are investing a record amount in front-line delivery services for criminal justice and for tackling alcohol and drug abuse.
If members want to spend money on a building, they should be under no illusion: they cannot also spend that money on other services. What they make us spend on some areas—as with the Edinburgh trams—must come out of other areas. On their heads be it.
On accepting his nomination as First Minister, Alex Salmond lectured the Parliament, saying:
"The days of Scottish Government imposing its will on the Parliament are behind us, although I daresay that there might be days in the near future when I come to lament their passing."—[Official Report, 16 May 2007; c 25.]
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the First Minister should regret having made that statement?
No. If other parties want us to spend money on something, they must tell us what money should be used. That is the point that I have been making throughout. I am happy to make a deal with Mr Martin: if he wants me to tally up how many officers we will have to take off the streets, I will be more than happy to make him an offer. Then, he can make the decision. In the interim, if all that he is prepared to do is to parrot demands for us to spend more on this and that, without telling us where the money is to come from, he will get the answer that he got.
I can tell members that the answer is about 20 police officers. What other steps are being taken by the police to speed up justice?
It is about being fast, fair and flexible. The issue is not simply one of buildings; it is one of procedures and ensuring that the police and the Crown are locked on and understand the issues. This is not done deliberately, but there have been instances of people appearing in court for something when it is clear that there are other, outstanding offences that will be rolled up.
When people are sentenced to community service, we must ensure that it is not weeks or months down the line but immediate and speedy. That is one of the lessons that we learned from the Midtown system. We pick up on those lessons, but one does not need a building to be able to deliver them; one does that by having a better policing system, by improving technology and by ensuring that matters move swiftly. Lessons are learned by ensuring that not simply the police, but courts, prosecution and social work move smarter and work together. However, the building is not necessary.
The cabinet secretary has made much of the anticipated costs and why the Government cannot afford to proceed with community courts in Glasgow. However, the Minister for Community Safety has told Parliament in the past that the Government believes that there are costs associated with doing the right thing. Therefore, does the cabinet secretary think that community courts are not the right way to cut crime and reoffending rates?
Costs are involved in doing the right thing and that is why we made the substantial investment to ensure that we have 1,000 additional officers on our streets. However, if one makes an investment there, one cannot make it elsewhere. I refer once again to Clive Fairweather—a person with huge experience and, with all respect to Mr Lamont, more experience than him—who recognises the position that the Government is in. He also recognises that matters require to be worked out.
I suggest that Mr Lamont considers and reflects upon Clive Fairweather's views. We realise that the project is not in a position to proceed at present because we do not have the financial culture and climate. That may change. We can continue to work with Glasgow to see what we can do immediately. We can look at the project in due course as money may free up. In the interim, I repeat that if Mr Martin and Mr Baker want to spend money on that, they must tell us which police officers they want us to take off our streets.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the Barnett formula. Would the decision on community courts have been any different had Scotland received the Barnett consequentials of the money that was released from the reserve to support investment in English prisons?
Absolutely. In England and Wales, following the Carter review, £1.2 billion was transferred from reserve to the Ministry of Justice to be allocated for the prison estate. That is a reserve claim—the Scottish Government does not automatically receive equivalent funding through Barnett consequentials. The justification for that procedure and emergency funding south of the border was pressure upon the prison estate. However, lo and behold, at the same time as people are living with the problem south of the border, we in Scotland have problems and pressures in our prison estate, as Conservative members are never shy in coming forward to tell us.
We did not get our Barnett consequentials from the £1.2 billion. Had we done so, the £120 million could probably have delivered not just the community court in Glasgow, but a community court in every jurisdiction in Scotland. However, until such time as Mr Baker is prepared to stand up to his colleagues south of the border and fight the cause for Scotland, we will continue as a Government to be short changed and to face £500 million-worth of public expenditure cuts.
I have listened with some incredulity to the cabinet secretary's claim that proceeding with the community court would take police officers off the street. Is he seriously telling the Parliament that he did not budget for the 1,000 additional police officers? Is he also telling the Parliament that, in light of the vote taken last week, providing community-based justice is not a front-line service?
The cabinet secretary referred to the Annan court in his statement, but the Justice Committee also made reference to Girvan and Cumnock justice of the peace courts. Will the cabinet secretary assure me—
That is three questions.
—that he will not come back and try to push through measures to close those courts? I apologise to the Presiding Officer.
Robert Brown wanted to save Rutherglen as well as Annan, and Cathy Jamieson wants to save Cumnock and Girvan. None of those is cost free and all of them have a tag. Mr Baker wants to spend the money on the community court and we also have calls to spend on Rutherglen, Cumnock, Girvan and Annan. On and on the price tag goes, but it cannot be done.
Do we budget? Yes, and I will tell the chamber where we budgeted. We budgeted for police officers' pay and when the police officers' settlement was received the Government honoured the pay deal and did not seek to short change our police officers as was done by a Labour Government south of the border.
We did not budget for the problem with police pensions—we inherited that from previous Administrations—but as well as recognising the obligation that we have to pay our hard-working police officers what they are entitled to, we met our obligations as a Government on behalf of the people of Scotland to meet the pension rights of our police officers. They had to be met: does Mr Baker want us to renege on them?
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and for his continuing support for community courts. [Laughter.]
Order.
As someone who speaks to the people of the east end of Glasgow, I know that they want action. Does the cabinet secretary agree that what is needed for the people of the east end of Glasgow is swiftness of delivery and not necessarily a building?
Absolutely. I am glad that Sandra White, at least, has been listening to what I have been saying. What I have stated is not simply the Government's position, but the position of learned and respected people such as Clive Fairweather. We must get on and do something, and that is what we are doing. As Sandra White correctly said, this is not all about a building. It is about working smarter, changing systems, moving faster and ensuring that the system is fair and flexible. Those can be done and they will be done. However, we acknowledge that if and when money is freed up in due course, we will be more than happy to consider the expense of a building. In the interim, whatever Mr McLetchie may say, our priority is police officers in our communities.
Not after the election—the cabinet secretary reneged on it.
Order, Mr McLetchie.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the copy of his statement, but not for the quality of his responses to legitimate questions that have been raised by parliamentarians regarding an issue on which the Parliament voted decisively last week.
The cabinet secretary said that £1 million is not petty cash. I agree. Is that the revenue cost that his department assumes for the community court? Is that not £500,000 or £1 million less than anything that was initially budgeted for by the Government? It is one thirty-thousandth of our budget, so I am not prepared to take lectures on fiscal prudence from the cabinet secretary.
Finally—
I am sorry, but members must ask one question only. I ruled against one member on that point, and I must be fair to all members.
We provided £1.6 million to support the £5 million community initiative to reduce violence in the east end of Glasgow, targeting 55 gangs and 700 young men. If Parliament makes us spend £750,000, £1 million or whatever on a yearly basis, projects such as that will be jeopardised. We believe that they—and not simply having a building—will tackle the root causes of crime.