Crime
The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S1M-3569, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on crime, and two amendments to that motion. I call Michael Matheson to speak to and move the motion.
Although the motion is in Roseanna Cunningham's name, she is unwell and unable to be with us this morning.
As we approach the end of the Scottish Parliament's first session, it is a good time to consider the Scottish Executive's record on our justice system. There is little doubt that Scotland's criminal justice system is creaking under the pressure that it is having to sustain. Why, after three-and-a-half years of this Government, do we have so many problems with our justice system? Even if the Lord Advocate were to tell us this morning that the Executive has identified all the problems and is committed to addressing them, I would have little confidence in the ability of this Government to address all the problems that exist in the system and to effect the change that is necessary to deliver the type of justice system that we require.
We have only to look at the Executive's handling of the issue of secure accommodation places for young people to see why I hold that view. First, the Executive admits that there is a requirement for 25 new places, then it says that the places will probably be filled almost immediately, but, two months after that announcement was made, we have no idea when or where those places will be provided. That is hardly what I would call strategic planning.
To create a change and deliver an effective and efficient criminal justice system, we must be prepared to tackle the overall management of our justice system.
Will the member give way?
I would like to make some progress first.
We appear to have a court system in which delays are endemic, which is symptomatic of a system that is struggling to cope. Trials can be adjourned over and over again for a host of reasons, some of which relate to a lack of resources in the system. The consequences of those problems are that witnesses are inconvenienced, victims are affected and, in some extreme cases, time bars are breached, resulting in prosecutions being lost entirely. In such cases, justice is not being served.
Recent figures from the High Court show a rise of 300 per cent in the number of cases that do not go to trial. Part of the problem is the need for more up-front resources and better management, but a major part of the problem is the increasing level of crime. Crime and offences have risen under this Government, with a 24 per cent increase in non-sexual crimes of violence over the past five years. Meanwhile, during the same five-year period, the number of police has risen by a mere 1.2 per cent. Serious staffing issues in the police need to be addressed at the moment.
Mr Matheson recognises that the number of police has risen marginally in recent times, but does he agree that, in the first period of this Government's term in office, the number of police fell dramatically from the level that was inherited?
It is well recognised that, during the first two years of this Government, police numbers declined from the inherited levels. Only in the past year—in the lead-up to the election—has the Executive recognised the need to address that problem. Last year, however, only 21 per cent of police officers completed their 30-year service before taking retirement, compared with 40 per cent five years ago. Over the past five years, there has been a 21 per cent rise in ill-health retirements. As Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary put it in his annual report, that leaves us with
"an increasingly inexperienced front line requiring increased training and supervision".
Over the period in which crime has increased and police numbers have decreased, fewer prosecutions have taken place. Despite more than 4,000 more offences having been recorded in 2000 than in 1997, the number of proceedings taking place has fallen. A combination of inadequate police numbers, fewer prosecutions and court delays serves to undermine confidence in our justice system.
In the Executive, we have a Government that has failed to grasp the need for a more co-ordinated approach in the management of our justice system. As alternatives to custody have been a topical issue, I will take them as an example. There are bail schemes in Edinburgh and in Glasgow, but nowhere else. Supervised attendance orders are easily available in some sheriffdoms, but not in others. Supervised attendance orders were intended to keep fine defaulters out of prison, but there are massive variations in their use. In East Ayrshire, 253 people are on supervised attendance orders, whereas in Midlothian, there are only five.
The disjointed nature of our justice system only undermines its effectiveness. Drugs can be found at the root of many of the problems of youth crime and youth disorder. However, the services that we have to deal with drugs and drug offences are patchy throughout the country.
Before Michael Matheson makes another series of attacks on the Government, perhaps it is time that the Scottish National Party told us the precise measures that it would take to join up the system.
Pauline McNeill should be patient. At the previous election, we proposed the establishment of drugs courts in Scotland. What happened? Hey presto, three years down the line, the Government stole the idea, having rubbished it three years earlier. That is an example of the SNP policy ideas that have effected change. The initial signs are that our drugs courts are proving to be effective.
My colleague Richard Lochhead will address drugs in more detail, because he has been doing work on the issue. However, let us consider the example of drug addicts and their experiences in the Grampian Primary Care NHS Trust. A drug addict in the Grampian area who is looking for help will have to wait longer than 18 months for an appointment to be assessed. If we cannot deal promptly with the needs of even those addicts who are looking for assistance to address their habit, how can we tackle the problem of drugs issues clogging up our courts and the human tragedy of those with a drug dependence ending up in our prisons? That is the type of issue that undermines our system.
I agree with what Michael Matheson has said. Drugs courts and drug treatment and testing orders cannot be rolled out until we have more residential and non-residential programmes in place. However, when will the Opposition address—indeed, when will the Executive address—the major alcohol problem, which is five times the scale of the drugs problem and causes infinitely more violence, including domestic violence?
I agree that we need to address the alcohol problems in our society. Christine Grahame was probably the first member to raise that issue and the need to tackle the problem, which shows the SNP's commitment to tackling it.
On the number of pilot projects that we have in our justice system, everybody agrees that we need to ensure that any new scheme is effective and can deliver the necessary change. We also need ministers who are prepared to decide whether to end a pilot project or to roll it out throughout the country. I will give an example. Two pilot bail information and accommodation schemes were introduced in 1991. A report into their workings, which was produced in 1994, found them to be effective but expensive in reducing unnecessary remands. A further evaluation was undertaken in 1999 and the findings were broadly similar. Rather than a decision on rolling up or rolling out the schemes, we have two projects that are still working in isolation. We have had two evaluations, but the reports are just gathering dust on the Executive's shelves.
Let me turn to what we believe is needed to address the problem. There is clearly a need to ensure that more resources are put up front to invest in the system and ensure that it works to deliver the justice system that our people need and deserve. As well as delivering more effective management of the system, we need to ensure that the police are effectively resourced, so that a real increase in the number of police can be achieved, rather than the smoke-and-mirrors exercise that is being used by the Executive. Only through increasing police numbers can we improve deterrence and detection, and ease the fear of crime that paralyses many of our communities. Rather than tinkering at the edges of providing secure accommodation for young people, we should be providing enough places to ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible, as the Association of Directors of Social Work has been calling for.
We need to end the proliferation of reviews, strategy groups and so-called pilots that have been instigated under the present Government. In order to find a more effective way of tackling the problems in our justice system, we require an overarching review of our whole justice system to identify precisely where the problems are and to ensure that resources are applied to the right areas to tackle the problems. The Government's failings in the justice system are marked. An overarching review will let us ensure that we take our justice system into the 21st century and that justice is provided in an even-handed fashion to people throughout the country, irrespective of where they live.
I move,
That the Parliament acknowledges that all sectors of the criminal justice system must be managed effectively to ensure the even delivery of services across Scotland and calls on the Scottish Executive to conduct a fundamental review of the criminal justice system to establish how best to ensure that justice in Scotland is delivered in a fair, effective and appropriate manner.
The Lord Advocate (Colin Boyd):
It is a privilege to have this opportunity to address the motion from the Scottish National Party, and I recognise the importance of the debate. However, we have heard a tale of doom, gloom and darkness from Michael Matheson. I am not entirely sure whether that is due to the weather, the time of the morning or a natural disposition on Michael Matheson's part, but to make a speech without recognising the work that is being done by thousands of people in the criminal justice system, day in, day out, to modernise and reform the system and to make it fair and effective, is unfair on them.
I note the calls for a fundamental review of the entire system. By my reckoning, six major reviews have either been undertaken and completed or are proceeding. I notice that Michael Matheson did not mention one of those reviews in his speech, which seems to me to show a severe case of amnesia.
Is not it the case that the Justice 1 Committee, particularly when considering the budget, was extremely supportive of the Procurator Fiscal Service, especially front-line procurators fiscal, who we know are under strength and underfunded? It would not be appropriate to say that we are attacking them. In fact, we have been very supportive of funding for the system.
We are talking about the SNP, not the Justice 1 Committee.
The same applies to members of the SNP on the—
Order.
I acknowledge that the Justice 1 Committee, and indeed the Justice 2 Committee, which is undertaking a review of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, have been very supportive, to my mind. That is not a party-political point; it includes all SNP members.
Does the Lord Advocate think, in the spirit of not making party-political remarks, that his introductory remarks were appropriate for a Lord Advocate to make in the Parliament, bearing in mind his particular role as a law officer? Secondly, does not he recognise Michael Matheson's legitimate criticism that the problem with the Government's approach is not the fact that it undertakes reviews, but that it undertakes many reviews that have little in common with one another?
On the second point, I recognise the need for the reviews that are being undertaken to mesh together.
On the first issue, I did not consider that I was straying into party-political points. I was responding to Michael Matheson's points about the criminal justice system, for which I—and others—have responsibility.
We have work to carry out. There is a high-level review of the modernisation of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which involves a detailed consideration of the way in which we prepare and prosecute High Court cases and a review of the advocate deputes' role. As I said, we look forward to receiving the report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service from the Justice 2 Committee. On a wider front, Lord Bonomy has completed his report on the operation of the High Court and Sheriff Principal McInnes and his committee are carrying out a review of summary justice. Andrew Normand, the Crown Agent, is examining the integration of targets. A lot of reviews are under way.
While we carry out that work, we want to continue our existing work. I want to take this opportunity to raise a matter that has arisen overnight. I am sure that all members condemn last night's hoax calls, which were a result of the fire dispute. Whatever members' views on that dispute, hoax calls put lives in danger. [Members: "Hear, hear."] I want to make it clear that all such cases will be dealt with with the utmost seriousness and priority. Today I will issue instructions to the police and to procurators fiscal on how such calls should be dealt with and the priority that they should be given.
I return to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, because it is important that the Parliament realises how much that service has changed and achieved in the past year alone. The publication of the Pryce-Dyer report in February set the direction for a range of managerial, structural and cultural changes, which will deliver a more focused, modern service for the 21st century. We are on target to implement the report's recommendations.
The restructuring of the Procurator Fiscal Service throughout the country into areas that correspond—outwith Strathclyde—to police authority areas will produce dividends, including better co-ordination with the police. We recognise the need to achieve greater consistency in practice throughout Scotland.
On the relationship between the Procurator Fiscal Service and the police, how will the new structure help to ensure that we have a better and quicker throughput of cases?
The police and the Procurator Fiscal Service already work much more closely and procurators fiscal are being brought in at an earlier stage in the investigative process. Recently, there was a good example of that in Dumfries and Galloway, where the police and the Procurator Fiscal Service operated together on a major drugs case.
In ensuring that the criminal justice system works, we must have in place the right legislative procedures and the right legislation. We recognise the need to ensure that the judiciary and the public have confidence and that there are adequate deterrents against the abuse of bail. The courts should have full information on bail supervision orders when they take a decision on bail. Therefore, we have decided to take a wider look at the reasons for the current pattern of bail and remand and at how bail operates in practice.
We are conscious of the recent public and parliamentary concern that, when a convicted person seeks bail pending appeal, the Crown has no formal right to be heard by the court. As the First Minister said to Parliament, we are committed to ensuring that courts have before them all the information that they need when they take such vital decisions. We have discussed the matter with the judiciary and concluded that the best way forward is to give the Crown a right to be heard at initial bail hearings and a subsequent right of appeal against grant of bail. We intend to discuss that further with the convener of the Justice 2 Committee with a view to securing consensus on a package of amendments that could be included in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
I realise that I have overrun my time. In conclusion, I want to make the point that everyone in the Executive, both in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the justice department, is committed to ensuring that we have a system that works cohesively and coherently. We want to ensure that we have a system that, at the end of the day, produces an effective, fair and efficient criminal justice system that serves the people of Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-3569.2, to leave out from "and calls on" to end and insert:
", welcomes the commitment of the Scottish Executive to systematic reappraisal of the way in which justice is delivered, building on the system's strengths but also addressing the need for improvement; supports the major programme of modernisation, investment and review being undertaken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; awaits with interest the outcome of the major reviews of the criminal justice system currently being conducted by Lord Bonomy and Sheriff Principal McInnes and the work on integration of the system's objectives being undertaken by the Crown Agent, Andrew Normand, and agrees that these reviews should inform proposals for the further improvement and modernisation of the criminal justice system to ensure that justice in Scotland is delivered in a fair, effective and appropriate manner.
I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for listening so carefully to the Conservative campaign on behalf of the public that convicted murderers should not be released on bail pending appeal without the prosecution having the statutory right to put arguments before the judge about the protection of the public, police concerns and the public interest. I am also grateful that he is dealing with the issue of the Crown having the right of appeal against a bail disposal of a person who is convicted of murder or other extremely serious crime.
The Conservatives were armed with our own amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that we were to lodge today. It is refreshing that the Lord Advocate has seen fit to reply to our campaign. The massive expertise of his department will ensure that the clearest and best drafting should be readily available. As a result of the Lord Advocate's major announcement on bail this morning, the families of victims of convicted murderers will be able to sleep more soundly in their beds, as will the general public. I also support strongly the Lord Advocate's call that hoax calls to the fire service, which can imperil lives, be dealt with with the maximum severity.
Yesterday, in the Queen's speech, a number of new law-and-order measures were announced for England and Wales. They include new sentences to protect the public from dangerous offenders, help reduce offending and deal with young offenders. The proposals include new sanctions to allow courts to enforce the payment of fines more efficiently; modernising laws on sexual offences; developing international co-operation on tackling crime; and tackling the anti-social behaviour that damages communities.
Some of those issues have a definite relevance for Scotland. It would be helpful for the Deputy Minister for Justice to state, when he winds up the debate, which Sewel motions may be introduced in due course in that respect. Although we will wish to study the detail of those motions, I can give the minister a reassurance that any measures that are designed to give greater protection to the public and to make the voice of victims louder than that of the criminals will be given a fair wind by those of us on the Conservative benches.
The reality is that crime is rising. Between 1997 and 2001, the total number of recorded crimes soared. Drug-related crimes increased by 23 per cent and non-sexual crimes of violence rocketed by 24 per cent. Littered streets, graffiti, fly-tipping and abandoned cars are all symptoms of lawlessness and of crime being on the increase. It is no coincidence that fire raising and vandalism are up by 17 per cent on 1999 figures.
Against that background, the Conservatives believe that far more police are needed and that they should be visible within communities. It is no use for the Executive to pile extra responsibilities on to the police when their numbers are insufficient to provide a highly visible, high-profile presence throughout Scotland in neighbourhoods that are affected by crime and disorder.
On 3 October, in a reply to a question that I asked in the chamber, the First Minister confirmed that there was a need for more police. Cathy Jamieson, when asked, supported the First Minister's statement. The Conservatives would like to see that policy developed with a considerable increase in numbers, which would put the police in a better position to detect and deter crime and to work with parents, schools and voluntary groups to the benefit of our communities.
I will give way in a moment.
We need a court system that will back up the police and that is able to deal with criminal cases speedily and efficiently. We have argued that we must have more fiscals operating at the sharp end. It is no use for police officers to arrest criminals if those cases never get to trial owing to a lack of prosecution staff.
Does Lord James Douglas-Hamilton support the Scottish National Party's pledge to put 1,000 more police on the streets of Scotland?
I will not respond to that precise figure, but the number should increase by whatever amount is necessary to allow the police to do the job properly. As no one from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents or the Scottish Police Federation will give me an exact figure, I do not see why I should second-guess them. However, I would like to see a substantial increase.
We have also called for an overhaul of youth justice. Children's hearings lack deterrent clout and there is a need for more increases in secure accommodation and more disposals and powers for children's panels. In September 2001, we advocated the use of weekend and evening detention, compulsory grounding and the expansion of community service and supervised attendance orders. We opposed the Executive's plan to raise the age of criminal responsibility and to refer 16 and 17-year-old lawbreakers to children's panels. Far from helping young offenders back on to the straight and narrow path, delaying effective punishment sends out the wrong message and is likely to lead to higher crime rates in future. Surely it would be far better to continue to send 16 and 17-year-olds to adult courts and persistent and serious young offenders under the age of 16 to youth courts, and allow children's panels to focus their energies on dealing with at-risk children.
We take a hard line against crime in favour of the rule of law and law and order. Crime disproportionately affects poorer and more vulnerable people. We want to create a society that is free from crime and free from the fear of crime.
I move amendment S1M-3569.1, to leave out from "and calls on" to end and insert:
"regrets that the Scottish Executive has presided over rising crime and rising fear of crime; regrets that the Executive is only committed to ‘maintaining the capacity of the police' and not increasing the number of police officers on our streets; regrets that the Executive has chosen to focus on politically correct issues such as smacking, and calls on the Executive to address the real issues of concern to the Scottish public by increasing the number of police officers and procurators fiscal, overhauling the youth justice system and dealing adequately with the drugs problem that blights our communities."
I call Keith Raffan.
I think that there has been a mistake. Donald Gorrie will open the debate for the Liberal Democrats.
In that case, I call Donald Gorrie.
I am sorry if there was an error, Presiding Officer.
I have the privilege of speaking officially on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in strong support of the Executive amendment moved by Colin Boyd. There is obviously a war of reviews: the Scottish National Party calls for a review, and then the Lord Advocate lists a large number of reviews. There are two questions behind that: when is a review not a review; and what good does a review do?
I start by recognising the personal commitment of the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland and the two justice ministers to improving the system. All have achieved a considerable amount. There has been improvement in the services provided by the police, the court system and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. We should recognise that, and I hope that the other reviews that were mentioned will produce more improvements. I recognise the good work that has been done, but as there is no point in standing up and congratulating everyone all the time, I will take a wider view of justice.
This and previous Governments have failed by failing to tackle crime before it happens. We want to prevent, not to cure, which is a simple message in medicine. We must see our society as unfit and sick and deal with it in the same way as we would deal with unfit and sick individuals. We try to prevent people from getting sick by keeping them fit and healthy, and we must tackle the unfitness of our society in the same way.
I am sure that the Lord Advocate has discussions with the judiciary, during which he could usefully press them on short sentences and the revolving-door principle. People go to prison officially for six months but they are in prison for only three months, which leaves no time to improve them and sort them out. When they come out of prison, they just go back in again, which is a complete waste of everyone's time and does not help society at all. I know that politicians are not meant to interfere in sentencing, but I am sure that the Lord Advocate can influence the judiciary so that they see the futility of that exercise; Parliament could back him up. There is also the question of how we treat remand prisoners, many of whom would not need to go to jail if we had more resources to deal with them in the community. Those two changes would greatly reduce the number of people whom we send to prison; the existing figure is a great blight on our society.
Other members have already mentioned drugs and alcohol, which are two great causes of crime. I recognise that the Executive has made efforts in that direction, but a lot more could be done.
I share Michael Matheson's view that there are a lot of pilot projects around. From my knowledge of nautical activities, a pilot is meant to be followed by the fleet. In this case, the pilot is halfway across the Atlantic but the fleet is still in the harbour. We have to extend successful pilot schemes more quickly, more vigorously and more widely. For example, as far as alternatives to custody are concerned, the Freagarrach scheme for younger people and the Airborne Initiative, which helps slightly older people, have proven records of reducing reoffending. However, they struggle to find funding to keep going; indeed, they have no money to extend their activities to other parts of the country. There are many other examples of pilot projects that should be extended more rapidly.
I return to my point about a healthy society. The causes of crime affect people from very early in life, and in that respect we grossly underfund many activities. For example, all the national youth organisations effectively receive less funding than they did quite a few years ago under our wicked friends, the Tories. That situation is just not acceptable. Such organisations provide local activities that help to keep children within society rather than allow them to rebel against society.
Indeed, many organisations try to help families. For example, I recently visited Couple Counselling Scotland, which is one of a number of organisations that help people in marriages and partnerships not to break up. However, those organisations are also desperately underfunded. After all, every time we stop a divorce, we save a lot of trouble later in life—many children from troubled homes end up getting in trouble with the law. I realise that such activity is not within the Lord Advocate's personal remit; however, I hope that he will use his authority to press different Government departments to tackle problems in the way that I have highlighted.
We also need more resources to back up the children's panels, alternatives to custody and courts in general. It does not really matter where a person is sentenced if there is no proper support for the sentence within the community. The situation is notoriously bad in many cases.
I hope the Lord Advocate will take my points on board. I am very happy to support his excellent amendment.
First, I welcome the Lord Advocate's condemnation of last night's hoax calls to the fire service. Every decent person in Scotland will also roundly condemn those actions.
I make no apologies for highlighting the situation in Grampian and Aberdeen in my speech. After all, the city of Aberdeen has the second highest crime rate in Scotland; for example, housebreaking is 144 per cent above the national average. At the moment in Grampian, we have a prison that is more than a third overcrowded and sheriff courts that have the longest waiting times in the country as far as bringing criminal trials to court is concerned. Indeed, in response to the weight of work in those courts, there will be four extra sittings this month and next month.
Of course, the problem of drugs misuse is behind the recent rise in crime in Grampian. The police reckon that more than 80 per cent of crime in Grampian is drugs related. There has been a dramatic rise in drugs misuse in the area in recent years, especially problems with heroin and, more recently, a very severe problem with crack cocaine.
However, one of the reasons why Grampian has such high crime rates is that the area has a chronic lack of drug rehabilitation services. I want to turn the minister's attention to an article in the local press.
Will the member give way?
No, I want to finish this point.
The article read:
"An Aberdeen drug addict who stole from his mother's home to fund his habit asked a sheriff to send him to prison for better treatment … His defence agent claimed"
that the addict
"was eager to go to prison to kick his drug problem, as he felt there was little help for him outside jail."
Two weeks ago, I met privately with six drug addicts in the city. I sat around the table with them and heard how they spend their days on Union Street asking for money because they do not want to commit crimes to feed their drug habits. One couple told me that it costs between £90 and £120 a day to feed their habit. The other people did not tell me how they got the money to feed their habit, but if we put two and two together, we will get four. They begged me as their MSP to take up their cases. They said that in April 2001 their general practitioners referred them to the local substance misuse service, which is run by local the primary care trust. They were told they would have to wait a long time but, 18 months later, they have still not heard back. Since April 2001, they have had to fund their habits on a daily basis.
If I was a drug addict and left the chamber today to commit a crime in Aberdeen—if, for example, I broke into a house and the police turned up on my doorstep tomorrow and found stolen goods in my house—I would appear in court the following day to plead guilty and the sheriff would ask for background reports. Three or four weeks later, or even two or three months later, I would appear back in court in Aberdeen and would be given a drug treatment and testing order. That same day, I would be assigned three workers to help me with my drug addiction and I would get immediate treatment.
Many thousands of addicts do not commit crime, but must fund their habits. Indeed, many people who commit crime to fund their habits, but who have not been caught, are told to come back in 18 months because the authorities—which are supposed to be funded by the Government ministers who are sitting in the chamber today—cannot help. I ask the ministers: What sort of message are we sending to drug addicts throughout Scotland who are in such situations? The matter is urgent and the minister must intervene. Grampian has one of the lowest levels of funding in Scotland for coping with drug misuse. However, communities, individuals and families in Grampian—which has among the highest crime rates in the country—are paying through the misery of losing someone to drug addiction or through having their houses broken into time and again. I know people in Aberdeen who will not leave their houses because they have been broken into three or four times in the past two years. That is an unacceptable situation.
I invite the minister to go to Aberdeen and sit down with drug addicts—I can set up a private meeting for him. I ask him to sit around the table with them and hear their stories first hand. It is not only drug treatment services that are the problem, but police funding. In Aberdeen, we have the lowest numbers of police officers in the country.
I ask the minister to address those serious problems, to get in touch with reality and to do something about the situation.
I subscribe to the views of many members in the chamber concerning the hoax calls that have been made to the fire service. I hope that the Lord Advocate and the police use every possible intelligence source to detect and follow through on those serious crimes.
I agree in some ways with what Donald Gorrie said about the evaluations and pilot schemes that we hear about regularly in evidence to the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee. We must move away from the constant flow of glossy documents that we receive and consider instead the action that we can take to tackle many of the issues to which members have referred today. I once said to a constituent that if I set up a car boot sale in the Blochairn area to sell the glossy evaluation documents that I receive, I would be a wealthy individual. We must deal with the problem because it concerns the delivery of action in our local communities.
Michael Matheson seeks credit for the drugs courts. I do not care who introduced the idea of the drugs courts; all I care about is that they work in communities such as Glasgow and throughout Scotland. I have often said in Parliament that we must grow up and that we must share and deliver ideas, rather than care where they came from.
It is mentioned regularly by and in respect of the police authorities that crime is being reduced, but Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said that we must at the same time tackle the underlying crime trends; for example on graffiti, abandoned vehicles and anti-social behaviour. We cannot be complacent in dealing with those types of crime and the effective way to tackle those problems is through sharing information. Organisations must work together to tackle crime. I was impressed when I visited the Dalmellington area of East Ayrshire at the invitation of Provost Boyd. The police and health authorities and the local authority there are based in one facility. That ensures not only that they talk about partnership, but that they live in partnership by being co-located in one multifacility. That is an effective way of ensuring that they work together to tackle crime. We often talk about partnership, but we do not necessarily deliver it in our communities. We must ensure that we deliver partnership.
I want to talk about the gimmick that 1,000 police officers will deliver on tackling crime. I believe that we must make best use of those police officers to ensure that they do not spend day upon day in our courts. The time that police officers spend in the High Court dealing with a large volume of cases is one of the issues that the Lord Advocate must deal with today. He must consider more effective ways of dealing with reports so that our police officers do not spend so much time in court when they could be in our communities.
I welcome the Lord Advocate's commitment to continue to examine ways in which to reform the criminal justice system. However, it is time to move away from glossy documents; we must ensure that they are action documents and that we deliver in our local communities.
I will begin by addressing the motion and picking up on management issues. The SNP's Michael Matheson addressed many of the concerns that we have about management and its effects; the Lord Advocate's amendment covers that by suggesting that everything is in hand, albeit through reviews. Enough has been said about reviews for the moment. Reviews will perhaps ultimately bring solutions, but in the short-term there are actions that the Conservatives feel could be taken to improve the situation without waiting for further review.
I commend Paul Martin's comments on the number of glossies that MSPs, voluntary organisations and the Executive get. The amount of money that is spent on glossies through this Parliament is immense and could be put to better use, perhaps within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
In the past, the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee have pointed to deficiencies in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I have to tell Colin Boyd and Elish Angiolini that, since they have come in, it seems to me that attempts are being made to address some of those issues. I congratulate them on that and wish them well, particularly in trying to bring the Procurator Fiscal Service up to scratch. It has long been needed, and if they can achieve that they will have achieved much.
I take the opportunity to add to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's comments on what the Lord Advocate said today about bail. That is the kind of news that we want to hear. We heard Donald Gorrie saying that ministers in this Parliament had achieved much on justice issues; however, one of the great disservices that they have done Scotland was to introduce the bill that became the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc (Scotland) Act 2000. I like to think that the Lord Advocate could go a bit further in dealing with bail issues.
The Lord Advocate's amendment and the SNP motion both mention justice being
"delivered in a fair, effective and appropriate manner."
How can that happen when members of the judiciary do not come under pressure from politicians to meet politicians' requirements with respect to sentencing? I would like the minister who will respond to the debate to explain exactly what is meant by "fair" and "appropriate" dealings in the courts.
Does not Phil Gallie think that there would be extreme dangers if politicians began to determine sentences and did not keep the judiciary at arm's length? The independence of the judiciary is essential to the delivery of justice.
Yes, there are dangers. I note from the Queen's speech that there seems be a drive by the Government south of the border for consistency in sentencing, but I do not know how we can achieve that without direct political involvement, which I do not want.
I would like to pick up on one aspect of the Queen's speech on which I would love the Scottish Executive to act. I am sorry, but I have forgotten the phrase. I am thinking of the situation in which somebody has gone through the court process and been discharged, but there is additional evidence to demonstrate—
Double jeopardy.
I thank my colleague. I welcome the fact that, south of the border, the Government intends to consider double jeopardy. I ask the Lord Advocate, is there an opportunity in Scotland for us to consider double jeopardy? I am thinking of the Chhokar and Cawley trials. Those trials created much concern in Scotland and an element of double jeopardy would have helped to solve them.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
I noticed a recent case in which a person was charged and found guilty of paedophilia. The Parliament seems to think that child abuse is a serious crime, but the sheriff who sent that person to jail did not. He said that the biggest sentence he could give—given that the accused's appearance was under summary procedure—was six months, which was automatically halved to three months. If we take remand into account, that probably means that the person will spend even less time in prison. I suggest that the Executive should pick up the Tory idea of making sentences mean what they say. If that were done, we would meet an objective of the Parliament and reduce the nonsense of people being sent to prison on sentences that are far too short.
In the short time that is available to me, I will focus on drug and alcohol problems and their relation to the criminal justice system. It is in everybody's interests, especially victims' interests, that we break the cycle of reoffending. Ultimately, that is what prison and alternatives to custody should be about.
Sixteen years ago, when I was an MP at Westminster, I took through the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act 1986 as a private member, but my interest and focus have now moved away from enforcement. I am not saying that enforcement is not necessary, but that my interest has moved towards treatment and rehabilitation.
The statistics in Scotland are frightening. The latest figure from Professor Neil McKegney is that there are 55,000 addicts. I have argued with the minister about the issue, but at least 35,000 of those people are injecting heroin addicts. To finance their habit, they steal well over £500 million a year and nearly £200 million of that is stolen in Glasgow alone.
I am a great supporter of drug treatment and testing orders and drugs courts. I do not care who introduced them—in fact, the idea was debated back in the 1980s; I am sorry that the SNP was absent from the debate then. The SNP has tried to make a party-political point about them today, but what matters is effective policy to deal—[Interruption.] I know that we are reaching the run-up to an election, but SNP members should not peak too early, if they are going to peak at all.
Let us concentrate on devising effective policy in dealing with the problem, rather than try to make party-political points. I have been involved in the matter for 20 years and am sick to death of hearing the SNP playing party politics with such serious issues. I hope that I have the support of the other parties in the chamber in that respect, if not that of the SNP.
Ultimately, we must focus on rolling out the pilot programmes in DDTOs and drugs courts. The Deputy Minister for Justice knows that that is the problem; he is in touch and does not need to have meetings arranged for him by Mr Lochhead. I was present with the minister at drugs raids in Clackmannanshire just a few weeks ago. I pay tribute to him for being thoroughly in touch with the problem, not just as a politician, an MSP and a minister, but in his previous incarnation as a doctor—as a psychiatrist and general practitioner. If we are to roll out those programmes and make them effective, that will require more residential beds and more day programmes, as the minister knows.
I also ask the minister to consider halfway houses. If we are to invest in treatment—whether residential or non-residential—we need a mechanism by which we can ensure that that investment is worth while. Halfway houses, which ease problematic drug users back into mainstream life, are absolutely crucial in making that investment worth while.
The scale of alcohol abuse is that it is five times the size of the drug problem in Scotland. Of course, the press focuses on drugs and Michael Matheson was right to emphasise the repercussions of the drug problem—theft, shoplifting, burglary and so on—but alcohol abuse leads primarily to violence and domestic violence. I do not in the four minutes that are available to me have time to go into the issue of cross-addiction, but many people who have alcohol problems also have drug problems, and vice versa. We need to focus far more on alcohol problems.
Earlier this year, the Executive published its plan for action on alcohol problems. It launched the plan somewhat bizarrely in a pub—let us not go into that—but it is yet to be debated in the chamber. Anyone who has attended drug action teams, which are mostly now called drug and alcohol action teams, will know that treatment of alcoholics is the poor relation of treatment of problematic drug users. Anyone who has attended a DAT's discussion on the allocation of resources will know that.
The Executive must focus on the alcohol problem, which is far greater in scale than the drugs problem and is also the cause of far more violence and domestic violence. If we could effectively address the alcohol problem, that would help greatly in reducing the tremendous overload on the criminal justice system.
We have heard yet another Liberal make cheap political points by accusing others of making cheap political points.
The reason for today's debate is the cruel neglect of the criminal justice system and the police by new Labour in its first three years in office. We have already heard the figures: serious assault is up 20 per cent and there has been a 50 per cent increase in the handling of weapons over the past three years alone.
We have also heard Paul Martin say that it does not matter where good policies come from, which is why I am surprised that he did not support the establishment of drugs courts back in 1999. Would his constituents in Springburn agree with him that there should be no increase in police numbers and that the matter is all about efficiency?
Will Kenny Gibson clarify where in the Official Report, or in any public statement, I said that I did not support drugs courts.
I did not say that Paul Martin did not support drugs courts, but that he did not call for them in 1999. Now that drugs courts are Labour policy, Paul Martin thinks that they are a great idea, but he did not call for them when they were SNP policy.
I am also interested in how Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's views have moved. During a previous debate on crime, Lord James talked about redeployment of police officers rather than additional police officers—if Lord James will check the record, he will find that I am right about that. I am pleased to see that he now believes that we should have additional officers. However, he also needs to think about how many officers we want to deploy.
Today, I want to focus on two issues. The first is postcode policing. It is totally unacceptable that some parts of our country have policing that is inferior compared with that of other parts. That is a reflection not on the police but on the way in which they are deployed. People in one part of Scotland should not be more in fear of crime, or be more likely to be the victims of crime, than people in another part of Scotland.
My colleague Richard Lochhead mentioned that Aberdeen had the second-highest crime figures; the highest crime figures are, of course, in Glasgow. Let me provide some statistics: for offensive weapons, the incidence in Glasgow is almost three times the Scottish average; serious assault in Glasgow is almost three times the Scottish average; the number of assaults involving knives is four times the Scottish average; almost a quarter of Scotland's racially aggravated problems happened in Glasgow; and one third of Scotland's homicides took place in Glasgow.
It is clear that some areas have particular policing problems. Overall crime—including crimes such as vandalism and housebreaking—is 70 per cent higher in Glasgow than the Scottish average. No other place in Strathclyde is more than 16 per cent above the average, although that is a bad enough figure in itself.
Until we recruit, train and deploy the extra 1,000 officers, it is important that chief constables use their resources to ensure that police are redeployed to areas that have specific crime problems.
Kenneth Gibson mentioned that the way in which the police are deployed is the problem, but he has not said what he means by that. He went on to provide some numbers about crime being different in different areas. Will the member please clarify what he means by deploying police differently? I assume that he means that they should be deployed in different parts of Scotland. What is wrong with the deployment of police in Glasgow—
I have only about 45 seconds left. I acknowledge Sylvia Jackson's point. However, if crime is a significant issue in a certain area, the resources that are available must be devoted specifically to tackling that problem. That would mean that a pensioner in an area where crime is three or four times higher than it is in another neighbourhood would not have to suffer that level of crime or of the fear of crime; the risk of crime would be the same everywhere. We want to reduce the level of crime, but we do not want huge anomalies in certain areas of the country.
In my final few seconds, I shall touch on delays, which show that the available resources are limited. The number of delays that have resulted in cases not being proceeded with has increased from 4,214 in 1998-99 to 8,409 in 2001-02. That is a 100 per cent increase in only three years. It is clear that the system cannot cope. In Glasgow, the number has more than doubled. In 1998-99 in Glasgow, 1,384 cases were not proceeded with because of the time bar and because of delays by the procurator fiscal, the police and other reporting agencies, such as HM Customs and Excise. In 2001-02, that number had risen to 2,872 cases.
The Executive is failing Scotland. It is failing to put resources into tackling crime and it is failing to reform the criminal justice system. We need more resources and more officers. We must examine what is happening in the criminal justice system so that the people of Scotland will feel safe from crime.
The SNP wants a more joined-up system—so do we all. The Parliament's justice committees have repeatedly made that point to ministers over the past two years. However, to deny that the Executive has taken measures to improve the quality of justice in its attempts to join up the system, and to deny that it has made major changes to the criminal justice system is to deny the truth. Given what Mr Gibson said, is the SNP arguing that there should be a new crime in Scots law—the theft of SNP ideas? I think not. I am prepared stand corrected, but I think that it was the Americans who invented drugs courts.
The artificial debate that we often have over whether crime figures have risen or fallen is something that we need to address. The reality in Strathclyde is that the level of crime is down. The incidence of serious crime might be rising, but so are detection rates. Mr Gibson should get his facts right before he starts talking about crime in that area. Only the other day, the chief constable for Strathclyde, Willie Rae, explained to me that, leaving aside the problem of offensive weapons, there has not been an increase in the level of serious crime in the past 10 years. It is people's perception of crime that needs to be tackled, as I am sure we all agree.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
I took two interventions from Labour colleagues.
I will take a very brief intervention.
Serious crime is obviously the most significant issue. Is Pauline McNeill aware that Glasgow's homicide rate is more than double that of London or Paris? Does not she think that that is a serious issue that should be addressed?
Mr Gibson is not acknowledging the fact that the figures show that there has not over the past 10 years been a massive increase in serious crime. He can interpret the figures any way he wants, but my point is that we must tackle people's perception of crime and their fear of crime. I am sure that we all agree on that.
I shall say a few words about the impending changes to the criminal justice system, which I think are important. No one can deny that the way in which victims are to be treated in the future will be better, or that the measures that the Executive is taking are good, but I have some issues with the Executive about the way in which it is tackling crime and I am prepared to disagree with it. However, I do not deny that the Executive is putting in place measures that will make victims central to the criminal justice system.
Section 15 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill has not been focused on in the debate. That section will give victims the right to have information about the release of offenders who have offended against them. That is a crucial aspect of the bill. The liaison office that will be set up for the victims and the prospect that there will be some type of victim impact statement will be important factors in the joining up of our criminal justice system.
As the Lord Advocate said, the Justice 2 Committee is to report on the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service soon, probably in December. We need strong procurators fiscal who recognise that they are not simply lawyers, but that they have special powers and that the decisions that they make daily affect people's lives and the quality of justice. I welcome the plans for the reorganisation of the Procurator Fiscal Service in Glasgow, which will make the service more interactive with agencies and the public. That is the way forward. For too long, the PFS has been a hidden service that has not been visible to most people.
I would like the Lord Advocate—or Richard Simpson, if he intends to address points from the debate when he winds up—to tell us what is happening with the pay comparability study. I also think that the issue of the time bar is of real concern. Statistics suggest that police reports are the biggest cause of the time bar being used. That matter must be addressed; there is obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with.
On secure accommodation, the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee have called repeatedly for an increase in the number of available places. The committees also think that the justice department, rather than local authorities, should co-ordinate secure accommodation because if there is a shortfall in secure accommodation, local authorities do not necessarily have to meet the demand whereas the justice department does. Therefore, there should be a move towards the justice department co-ordinating secure accommodation. It is crucial that the type of accommodation be addressed. Secure accommodation is not appropriate in all circumstances. For example, it is more appropriate to have places of safety for children. Therefore, the issue is not just the amount of secure accommodation, but the type of accommodation.
I wanted to say something about alternatives to custody, but I am running out of time. I will welcome the Justice 1 Committee's impending report on alternatives to custody. We should also welcome what the Executive is doing in that area. At some stage I would like to examine further the question of tagging orders, which we might do during discussion of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
Before I speak in support of the SNP motion, I intimate that I do not seek to dress up the current system as a disaster area, so I hope that my comments and criticisms are taken in that spirit. I do not think that we can say that the Executive has not attempted to join up the criminal justice system. Pauline McNeill is partly right to say that the effort that the Pryce-Dyer report represents points the way forward for many of the substantial issues. What is important, however, is the implementation of that report and I have concerns arising from that. First, we have not recognised the depth of some of the justice problems and are not implementing changes quickly enough through the management review and restructuring of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which I think are widely supported.
However, I refer members to a visit the Justice 2 Committee made during its inquiry. We asked people who work in the justice service for their views on the restructuring and the management culture. One person replied, "Actually, to be honest, all I want is a desk." That is the bottom line—the issue is still about the nuts and bolts of the service. That individual did not even have a desk at which he was guaranteed space in which to work. Is it surprising that there are problems in such a working environment?
Equally, there is a problem with the position of senior fiscals. Concern has been expressed that when fiscals move through the service and become senior fiscals, they move into management and out of direct involvement with prosecution. That strikes me as odd, not only because it assumes that good prosecutors are good managers—there is no evidence that that is true—but because the system takes out of the service and away from the front line the people with the experience and expertise that makes them best qualified to do the job of prosecution. That does not strike me as being a particularly commonsense approach to prosecution.
Secondly, I want to spend a couple of minutes on an area on which the Lord Advocate spent some time talking to the Justice 2 Committee. I make no apology for raising again the vexed question of victim statements. Everybody in the debate has recognised the need for the greater involvement of victims in the justice process and I think that we all welcome the fact, as Pauline McNeill said, that victims will have greater access to information.
I still have profound concerns, however, about the current format of victim statements. Yes, we want to re balance the rights of the victim and the rights of the accused or, indeed, those of the guilty. However, there is a profound concern about being unable to cross-examine a victim about their statement in order to test it. The issue is not just about the basic fairness that is built into the system, but the fact that the victim statement could make matters worse for the victim.
Evidence to the Justice 2 Committee suggested that if the expectation is raised that the victim will, through the victim statement, have a material effect on the sentence, and if the victim statement subsequently does not have such an effect, that could make the situation worse for the victim in many cases. Therefore, if we are all concerned about victims' rights, I suggest that we reconsider that issue.
Evidence to the Justice 2 Committee said that there are two aspects to victim statements; the first is punitive and the second is therapeutic. The first aspect is about whether the statement will or will not materially impact on the sentence. There is still confusion about whether that is the case. The explanatory notes to the bill said that victim statements would have an impact on sentencing. In evidence, ministers said that the judge would take cognisance of all of the facts, but that the victim statement would not have an impact on sentencing. That matter needs to be clarified.
One of the main arguments for having victim statements is that they would be therapeutic. However, that is absolutely not proven. There is no evidence that in the majority of cases victim statements would be of therapeutic value.
I want to make a plea on behalf of the police, who are often ignored in debates of this kind. The firefighters' strike, in particular, has made us aware of the role that public servants play. The police in Scotland need to know that they are valued as public servants, but that has not been the case in the past. It is important that more police are put on the streets and that more resources are made available to them, but those are not the only issues. We must let the police know that we value the work that they do. At the end of the day, when we pick up the phone and dial 999, we expect the police to be there for us. There is a reciprocal responsibility on members of the Parliament to be there for the service.
The SNP motion and the Tory amendment show how out of touch those parties are with what is happening on the ground in Scotland. Over the past three years, there have been real and significant improvements in different parts of the criminal justice system. The Lord Advocate outlined many of those improvements and I will mention a few that are beginning to make a real difference in Aberdeen.
I do not disagree with Richard Lochhead that Aberdeen has a serious drugs problem and that that causes high levels of crime. However, I do not accept the other points that he made. When one speaks to people working in the area, it is clear that there is beginning to be a sustained input of resources in Aberdeen to support effective policing, drugs education and further development of community rehabilitation services.
Will the member give way?
No.
An increasing range of services is being made available. That is clear, whether one speaks to the chair of the local DAT, to Grampian police or to Aberdeen Drugs Action, a voluntary group that does good, valuable work in the city. I am aware that, like his predecessor, the Deputy Minister for Justice is clear about the problems in Aberdeen. I am pleased that Richard Simpson came to Aberdeen to launch the £10 million better off programme. I hope that soon Aberdeen will receive an extra £0.5 million, which will provide further rehabilitation services for 300 addicts in Aberdeen initially.
We need to develop services as quickly as possible. Increasingly, the barrier to doing so is not a lack of resources but a lack of people. Because of the lack of trained drugs workers, we were slow to get DTTOs up and running in Aberdeen. We must recognise how effective DTTOs in Aberdeen are. They are beginning to offer drug abusers who are involved in crime ways of addressing their behaviour and moving out of drugs use.
I would like DTTOs to be complemented by a drugs court in Aberdeen. I know that the two drugs courts elsewhere are having a positive impact. A drugs court would be a useful addition to our strategy for addressing the drugs problem in Aberdeen.
Will the member give way?
No. I have very little time and want to speak about a number of issues.
The other service that I want to mention is the Procurator Fiscal Service. Recently, I met John Watt, the new procurator fiscal in Aberdeen. He is happy with the increased resources that have been made available and the focus on modernising the service. When the current Solicitor General was the fiscal in Aberdeen, there was a problem of low pay for fiscals compared with other local opportunities. That problem has been solved. More generally, the Procurator Fiscal Service has been restructured and more information technology has been introduced to streamline services and produce better justice.
No one would dispute the suggestion that there is still a great deal to do. As usual, Mr Lochhead tells us that we are all doomed. However, we should recognise that there have been real successes. Grampian police were not receiving as much money as they ought, but that problem is being solved—they will receive an increased share of resources over the next three years. The force is undertaking the biggest recruitment drive for many years and I am sure that the extra money will allow it to recruit even more officers. Grampian police are to be commended for introducing initiatives such as intelligence-led and problem-solving policing and better call handling, all of which make a real impact on crime in the city.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton called for more highly visible policing. I suggest that he come to see what is happening in areas of Aberdeen, such as Middlefield, where the police are rolling out initiatives that involve high-intensity and high-visibility policing. The police there are working with other agencies such as the Prince's Trust and Barnardo's Scotland to reduce crime and to offer real opportunities for young people to get out of crime.
We come to wind-up speeches. Members should try to keep them to time, please. George Lyon has four minutes.
The debate has been reasonable and a large number of points have been covered. I begin by highlighting a point that has not been touched on, however, which is the problem of hard-core young criminals—the so-called untouchables. Overall youth crime figures have been running at approximately the same level for the past 10 years. However, when one looks into the statistics, one quickly discovers that the number of those who have been dealt with for more than 10 offences has grown by more than 40 per cent. We need to deal with that crucial area of youth crime.
A number of cases from my constituency have been raised with me in which one young person is a one-man crime wave. His parents cannot control him, the schools cannot control him and the police and social work services cannot deal with him. Hence the tag "the untouchables". We have to address that issue. The Executive has carried out a lot of work in improving the criminal justice system, but we need to come up with answers to the problem. I am not suggesting for one minute that there are easy answers, but the problem is not intractable. However, the issue is raised time after time in my constituency surgeries and my dealings with local police.
George Lyon has raised an important point, because there are one-man and two-man crime waves all over Scotland. Is not the solution to have more secure accommodation? That is what I hear from the Borders and East Lothian. There are insufficient places. The police can point to people on the street who are committing crime waves and should be in secure accommodation, but who come back time and again. The issue is rehabilitation.
I do not think that locking up young offenders is the answer, because they will come back out into society and the reoffending behaviour will continue. We have to come up with solutions that tackle the fundamental problem with such children, to try to prevent them from reoffending. That is the key issue. Secure places might have a role to play, but they are not a solution in themselves.
In Michael Matheson's opening remarks, we had to wait 10 minutes before we heard what the SNP's answers were to the problems that he raised. He suggested having more resources up front, but he did not say how much more was needed. He suggested that there should be more police, but he did not say how many more. Christine Grahame clarified that by saying that there should be 1,000 more, but she did not say where the money would come from. Michael Matheson also suggested that there should be a sufficient number of secure places, but again he did not say how many or how much they might cost. He went on to say that we should end the tinkering and the reviews, but the SNP's solution to the problem of the number of reviews is to have another one. Instead of having six reviews, it wants one great big, overarching review to replace them—that is its answer to the problem.
Colin Boyd was right to outline the major reviews that are taking place. More important, he pointed out that the Pryce-Dyer review is now being implemented. Over the next two to three years, we hope that the investment in management time and money and the changes that have been made to the system will deliver a criminal justice system and a Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that can deliver and back up the police's good work.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton agreed with the Lord Advocate's remarks about hoax calls. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I echo that view. I heard on the radio this morning that some 70 per cent of the 340 calls that have been made since the strike began have been hoaxes. That is disgraceful. I do not understand who could think that that is a sensible thing to do at this time, when people's lives are at stake.
Donald Gorrie raised several concerns, including a concern about pilot projects. Although one might well criticise the Executive for the number of on-going pilot projects, there is a fundamental need to evaluate policy, to make sure that it works and to fine tune it before rolling it out across Scotland. Donald Gorrie's key point was that, once pilot projects have been evaluated, they must be rolled out across Scotland and the necessary resources must be put in place to ensure that they are turned into action.
As Colin Boyd said, police numbers are at an all-time high. The First Minister has pledged to maintain that track record. As the Lord Advocate also said, Tory Governments regarded the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as a cinderella service for a long time. The first Labour Administration continued that neglect until the coalition took over. Record investment is reversing that position. In 1996-97, the spend on the Crown Office was £47 million; it is now £87 million. More than 100 new legal staff have been taken on and the number of backroom staff has also increased. I suggest that that track record of action is bringing the criminal justice system into a modern state that is fit for the 21st century.
Like other members, I associate myself with the remarks that have been made on the bogus 999 calls. It is depressing that such a moronic tendency should prevail in some parts of Scotland. I hope that the Lord Advocate's direction to fiscals will be that those cases should be prosecuted relentlessly and fast-tracked, because of the possible length of the dispute.
Several interesting speeches have been made. The debate is about the Executive's attitude to justice policy. That attitude was encapsulated in two joint meetings of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee at which we discussed the budget. It was apparent from those discussions that justice is the poor relation.
There is a lack of cohesion between the justice ministers and law officers. The blame for that lies firmly with the justice ministers. In fairness, law officers are aware of the problems. They know that serious crime is increasing and that it is increasing in complexity. They understand the problems of court delays and of the importation into Scots law of requirements arising from the European convention on human rights. Justice ministers have manifestly failed to obtain the necessary budgetary support. In the never-ending litany of Executive priorities, justice is not only the poor relation; it is the cinderella department.
The lack of availability of forensic witnesses often hampers the prosecution's ability to bring a criminal to book when a crime of abusing a child or an adult has been reported.
As ever, Dr Ewing makes a telling point. Other important points must be made. Fiscals' pay is under review. What will happen if the review results in a substantial increase? What effect will that have on the budget? It is true that a number of other reviews are on the go. That is a good thing. We wait for the result of Sheriff Principal McInnes's deliberations with considerable interest. The Justice 2 Committee will report in December.
I am becoming increasingly anxious about the progress of Lord Bonomy's long-awaited report on the operation of the High Court. The delay is inhibiting proper consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. We need the report to be produced as quickly as possible.
Although things are happening, all efforts will come to nothing unless the justice ministers realise that many of their policies will increase crime, rather than reduce it. Their ludicrous proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the children's hearings system to 16 and 17-year-olds is a typical example. That sends out totally the wrong message.
We all recognise the immense drug problems that face every section of our society and we all hope that the drugs court pilots will succeed. However, that will not happen unless those courts are respected by all the agencies involved and particularly by their clients. I do not think that that respect will be forthcoming unless the clients are required to stay off drugs and submit to testing when necessary. Otherwise, what sort of message will be sent out to people who have many previous convictions and custodial sentences? If the procedure is not tightened up, people will come to regard the drugs courts simply as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The Executive has opportunities to make improvements as the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill makes its way through the parliamentary system. Next week, we will discuss deducting fines from benefits and civil diligence. Will the Deputy Minister for Justice follow his colleagues down south and agree that such measures represent the way forward? Will he go ahead with the increased powers of sentencing and disposal that we are recommending for the children's hearings system? Will he support our proposal for a realistic non-custodial alternative rather than the present racket of unfulfilled community service orders? Public cynicism about the Executive's justice programme is at its height. The Executive must move to allay that cynicism at the earliest opportunity.
This has been an interesting debate. In fact, I think that members have raised about 20 issues today, some of which could be the subject of individual debates in the chamber. However, I am disappointed that the Opposition parties have not accorded the Lord Advocate and the justice department any significant praise, although Bill Aitken went some way in that direction.
Massive steps are being taken. The review of the Crown Office and the subsequent reforms represent the biggest set of changes that the prosecution system has experienced for some time. The pay negotiations are continuing and are at a sensitive stage. The Bonomy review should report in a few weeks, followed by the McInnes review. The Nicholson committee is doing important work on licensing legislation. The new judicial appointments system has been introduced. Those are just some of the initiatives that the justice department is dealing with in a highly effective way.
All that work is being done against a background of a worldwide increase in violent crime, which is a challenge to our society. Many speakers, including Donald Gorrie, Richard Lochhead, Michael Matheson, Keith Raffan and several Labour members, have alluded to the drug problem, which comes on top of the existing alcohol problem. Alcohol has always been a problem in relation to crime and that needs to be addressed. The review of the licensing legislation is part of that, with a possibility of tests in relation to purchasing alcohol and the introduction of non-compulsory youth identity cards. There is a range of initiatives that try to deal with the alcohol problem more effectively.
The drugs issue is fundamental to the major changes that have been occurring in our society. In that regard, Elaine Thomson has invited me to Aberdeen and I have agreed to go. Richard Lochhead does not appear to acknowledge that we have nearly doubled Grampian NHS Board's expenditure from £0.75 million to £1.3 million and that we have introduced £2 million of new money for rehabilitation. That money was not fully spent in the first year by the local authorities, but it is in the system nevertheless. We have also put other moneys into the system through social inclusion partnerships and many other initiatives. Furthermore, because Grampian has a specific problem in relation to psychostimulants, we will run the pilot scheme on psychostimulant treatment there.
Does the minister think that it is appropriate that people in Grampian have to commit crime in order to get drug treatment?
Nobody should have to commit crime in order to get drug treatment. I openly acknowledge that there are problems in some areas in that there are waiting lists for standard treatments that are based on a traditional medical model and that someone who injects heroin will get treatment more quickly than someone who only smokes heroin. However, the justice department is driving through DTTOs and drugs courts, which will enable treatment to be obtained more quickly. We are trying to integrate treatment programmes to ensure that they are effective. However, I do not deny that we have a long way to go. We must improve matters.
In the brief time that I have, it is difficult to deal with all the issues. However, on police, the SNP's simple approach of calling for 1,000 more officers sounds wonderful and gets a headline—the press respond to it beautifully in an almost Pavlovian way—but the important point is what those police actually do. My colleagues, such as Paul Martin, addressed those issues. They acknowledged the fact that police officers do inappropriate tasks and that we need to improve the court system so that the police are less involved in it. They also acknowledged that we need to improve police efficiency and effectiveness.
I do not have time to address all the other issues that have been raised, but the debate has been interesting. The other fundamental point that was raised—I think that only Duncan Hamilton and Pauline McNeill referred to it—is the total change that we are trying to bring about by redressing the balance between the victim and the offender. That is fundamental to the way in which we progress the justice system. I hope that the Parliament will support the Executive amendment and recognise—
Will the minister give way?
I do not have time, I am afraid. I am already over time.
What about Sewel motions?
We are considering Sewel motions. We will publish a list in due course. We are examining the Queen's speech.
The choice before the Parliament is stark. It is between following what the Executive is doing—a number of reviews, with incremental improvement and steady progress—or waiting for the big review that the SNP suggests. How long will that take? Would it be four or five years to have a royal commission? Let us continue with the Executive's effective programme. That is the way forward.
I call Christine Grahame to close the debate for the SNP. You have up to eight minutes. If you can shave anything off that, that would be helpful.
I would not want to offend you, Presiding Officer, so I will do my best.
I associate the SNP with the remarks that have been made about the absolutely outrageous hoax calls. Last night's hoax calls follow a spate of outrageous attacks against firefighters at fire scenes. Such attacks are increasing. I note what the Lord Advocate says about prosecuting hoax callers rigorously. He has the full support of the SNP on that, because firemen—and women—risk their lives every day. The public are doubtless ashamed that a minority takes part in hoax calls.
Richard Simpson rightly says that there is a plethora of issues. I will try to touch on them as they came up. As the Lord Advocate knows well, across the Parliament's parties and committees, we—the Scottish National Party is represented—have fully supported those areas of the prosecution service that require support. We have acknowledged the severe stress that procurators fiscal are under, even to the extent that, as has been remarked, one has to look for a desk. I am not surprised: the procurator fiscals have been the Cinderellas of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Another concern is the fact that senior procurators fiscal are moved into management. The difficulties in management have perhaps led to the disastrous failures in the prosecutions in the Cawley and Chhokar cases. We realise that resources are needed. However, we also realise that the prosecution service needs reform.
On secure accommodation, I have heard remarks in the chamber about 25 new places. I am content to take an intervention from Richard Simpson if he will tell us whether those 25 places have already been allocated, which is my understanding. Perhaps he will write to me later on that.
I endorse what Pauline McNeill said about the justice committees' thoughtful analysis of the criminal justice budget. We would like the resources for secure accommodation to be mainly in the justice budget line and streamed down into the children and education line. Those areas overlap; there is a clash. The ADSW requires that the resources be budgeted in that manner. We lack secure accommodation places.
That partly answers George Lyon's point about offenders being back on the streets. Putting offenders into secure accommodation is not the entire answer, but it is part of it. It is frustrating for the police to see on the streets one young offender who is a crime wave in his own right. By way of explanation, I should add that, when we refer to secure accommodation, we are referring to a whole range of facilities. We do not just mean bars for keeping in baddies; we mean secure accommodation for the protection of young people who run away from home and separate secure accommodation for young women and young men and for disabled people. That area has been neglected and the Parliament and its committees have shone a light on that neglect. The SNP is committed to 100 more secure places across the range, to ensure that there is no longer a lack of accommodation for all the young people out there who need our help and, in some cases, from whom the public need protection.
The SNP is committed to 1,000 more front-line police officers. The police are put into jobs that they do not require to do. I visited one police station where a police officer was spending two days putting labels on evidence about fraudulent dealing in compact discs. That was a waste of police time. We need police out, on foot, on our streets. That is not simply for detection, but as a preventive measure. As Pauline McNeill correctly said, it would make people feel secure in their communities and make our streets feel safer. The young vandals and hoodlums who come along and bang at cars, breaking their wing mirrors, will not do that if there is a policeman on patrol. The elderly person who will not leave their house because they think that they are under threat from a group of youths—even if they are not in fact under threat—will have the freedom to go out if they see police on patrol, which will make them feel secure. Putting more police on the streets is essential as a preventive measure.
Far too many prisoners are on remand. I lodged written questions—S1W-29260 and S1W-29259—on bail schemes and had it confirmed that such schemes are only now being set up. The answer that I received was:
"Bail supervision schemes are currently being set up by local authority criminal justice social work services".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 4 November 2002;
p 2108.]
I asked that question as recently as September 2002, three years plus into the Parliament. We know that 10 per cent of criminal justice social worker posts are unfilled. The pressures on the criminal justice social work system are enormous. That relates to issues that Donald Gorrie and others went into, including diversions from prosecution, alternatives to custody and keeping people out of prisons.
We know that being in prison is a waste of time in most cases. We know that more than 70 per cent of prisoners reoffend within two years and that 82 per cent of them are in prison for less than six months. That is a cock-eyed way in which to run the criminal justice system.
We have to put money into diversions from prosecution and alternatives to custody. I recognise Donald Gorrie's long-standing campaign on alternatives to custody. My party has been campaigning on it, too, although I do not want to make a party-political point about that—of course, Keith Raffan would not know a party-political point if he tripped and fell over it.
The Justice 1 Committee has had to undertake—under its own steam and in its own precious time—an investigation into alternatives to custody, because, as committee members know from the evidence that they have collected, there is no audit or directory of alternatives to custody or diversions from prosecution.
Good things are going on all over the place, however, including the Cluaran project in Falkirk, where young people are being diverted away from prosecution. There is also the breaking the cycle youth crime initiative in East Lothian. However, those initiatives are patchy and nobody has added up what is being done in those areas—if that work was done, sheriffs would know what was available to them.
It is interesting that the following debate is on poverty. That is a relevant issue, as so much that happens to young people depends on where they live and on their start in life. Some young people can see a life of crime from when they are toddlers. Their chances of not getting into that life are sometimes remote.
Proposals for drugs courts came from the SNP, of course. We have no problems about where ideas come from, but I ask Paul Martin to recognise please where the idea for drugs courts, which he opposed, came from. Keith Raffan raised the possibility of our examining the extent to which alcohol is involved. That is a pet project of mine. We should consider how people with alcohol problems can be diverted from prison. We know that the coalition invests little in that and that the extent of alcohol problems is far and away greater than the extent of problems associated with drugs. Furthermore, alcohol is often seen as the gateway to drugs. I know that Keith Raffan agrees with me on that matter.
The situation with Sewel motions is a disgrace. We have had 38 Sewel motions so far. There was supposed to be a trickle of them, but it is turning into a flood. The fight against Sewel motions will continue in the chamber. What is the point of having a devolved Parliament if devolved issues are clawed back to Westminster?