Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2775, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill.
Reoffending is corrosive. It tears at families and neighbourhoods, erodes public confidence in criminal justice and saps the efforts and energies of the police and all who work hard every day in our courts, community justice services and prisons. People who offend and offend again clog up our courts and fill up our prisons, often on short sentences. They distort the criminal justice system, which requires more and more effort and resources simply to catch and secure them when those energies and resources would be better used to challenge them to return to law-abiding lifestyles.
In Scotland in 2002, two of every three convicted offenders had at least one previous conviction. Six out of 10 offenders who were released from jail in 1999 were convicted of another offence within two years and one offender in every two who were released from jail in 2001 was returned to jail within two years. That is simply unacceptable, but it is not only about offenders reoffending and being sent to prison again. Of those who received a probation order in 1999, 58 per cent were reconvicted of another offence within two years, while 42 per cent of offenders who began a community service order and 40 per cent of those who were fined were reconvicted for further offences.
Many repeat offenders who end up in prison have already served community sentences, so we must break the cycle of repeat offending. Not only do we need community sentences that work and in which the public have confidence, but we must have custodial sentences that rehabilitate as well as punish. We must have proper sentence management that reduces reoffending and delivers the safer communities that the people of Scotland deserve. Therefore, I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, which is another step in our radical reform of our criminal justice service.
The bill creates a new framework for integrated management of offenders in order to reduce reoffending. It will introduce a home detention curfew scheme to help to manage the return of selected low-risk prisoners from custody back into the community, and will further tighten how we manage sex offenders. It will also establish a further deterrent to people who would offend or reoffend: the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will be given powers to recover from offenders the cost of compensation that is awarded to the victims of crime, which will send out a firm message that crime does not and will not pay.
I will address first the new measures for integrated offender management. I am sure that we all agree that we need to get to grips with offenders, particularly repeat offenders, so that they are less likely to reoffend and less likely to keep churning through the system. We know that the current system is not working: the figures speak for themselves and the findings from last year's consultation echo those failings. I have said repeatedly that when we are faced with a challenge such as this, the status quo is not an option, which is why we have listened and are acting. We are providing leadership and intend to provide national direction.
A new national advisory body will be set up to give a national focus to efforts to reduce reoffending because, for too long, too many services have been pulling in too many different directions. Locally, we need better joint working and better sentence management, which is why the bill will place a new statutory duty on local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service to work together in local partnerships to reduce reoffending. It will also establish new community justice authorities, which will bring together local authorities for co-ordinated service delivery, lead local plans for reducing reoffending and be locally accountable and nationally scrutinised.
We must also get to grips more with offenders' return from prison to communities, so the bill will introduce a home detention curfew scheme that will help to manage the return of selected low-risk prisoners from custody back to the community. The scheme will allow certain prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentences differently: in the community and subject to curfews that will be verified by a robust electronic monitoring system. I make it clear that home detention curfew will not be an automatic entitlement for prisoners, but will be considered only for prisoners who pass a robust risk assessment. It can offer a way of helping offenders to rebuild relationships and to participate in employment or training and so help them to settle back in the community while facing up to their criminal actions. Those are all steps that we know can help us in the fight to reduce reoffending.
Events of the past few months tell us that, when it comes to managing sex offenders, criminal justice agencies must be ever vigilant and work ever more closely together if they are to reduce the risk that is posed to our communities and, in particular, to our children. We recognise the proper public concern about sex offenders. We hear that concern and we are continuing to act. The bill will place a new duty of co-operation on chief constables, local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service. It will set up joint arrangements between those services to assess, monitor and manage the risk that sex offenders pose and it will strengthen the sex offender monitoring process by closing a loophole for those who seek to evade the requirements of the sex offenders register.
In March, the First Minister announced a proposal to make all sex offenders who are sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more subject to conditions on their release, on which they would be supervised and liable to recall to prison if they failed to comply. We asked the Sentencing Commission for Scotland for its views on that proposal, but it felt that it could not support our proposal in advance of its wider review of early release. We note that view, but ministers have a duty to protect the public and we believe that it is right to make the change, even in advance of the further work on early release. Therefore, we will introduce the proposal in an amendment at stage 2.
The minister alludes to an important issue. I understand from a Press Association press release that was issued overnight that the Sentencing Commission's chairman, Lord Macfadyen, wrote to the minister saying that, if the Executive was taking that step on the basis that sex offenders posed a greater threat to public safety than other types of offender, the commission was unhappy because it felt that there had to be a consistent approach. I welcome the steps that the Executive is taking—they do not go far enough for me, but they travel in the correct direction—but if that is the Sentencing Commission's view, is there not a strong argument that the Executive should question the whole concept of automatic early release?
Members are able to read the Sentencing Commission's letter; it is published on the commission's website. The important point is that we asked the Sentencing Commission to do a number of things: we asked it to examine bail and remand, as members are aware, and to examine the concept of early release, on which it will carry out a consultation at some point in, I hope, the not-too-distant future. Given that we have already signalled our intention to try to do something on sex offenders, it is important that we take that forward. I have heard it said that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend than some other offenders, but we need only consider the consequences of such offending for the victims—whose experiences often leave them with lifelong trauma—to realise that we must do everything that we can to close loopholes.
Annabel Goldie is aware of my concern about ensuring that we get the balance right on general early release in the future. We will do more work on that, but it is proper that we introduce measures on early release of sex offenders in an amendment to the bill so that we can tighten the current legislation. I hope that what Miss Goldie said indicates support from the Conservative party for that measure.
Does the minister agree that, although the figures show that sex offenders are least likely to reoffend, that is partly due to the difficulty in detecting and convicting them and that it is highly likely that, although reconviction rates for sex offenders might be low, reoffending rates might not necessarily be so?
Stewart Stevenson makes a valid point. The possibility that he suggests is one of the reasons why I feel that it is right and proper that we introduce the proposed measures. In some instances, patterns of offending behaviour by sex offenders mean that a considerable time might pass between offences for which they are caught and punished—although that does not mean that they are not necessarily a risk to the public. I stress that that is why we are introducing our proposals.
I mentioned the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. It is important that we encourage offenders to face up to the consequences of their offending behaviour whenever we have the opportunity to do so. Section 13 of the bill will give the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority powers to recover from offenders the cost of the compensation that is awarded to the victims of crime. I believe that, when a crime has been committed and when compensation has been paid from the public purse, it should be possible for the authority to claim that sum back from the offender.
A stronger, safer Scotland needs a criminal justice service that protects the public and punishes offenders, but it must also offer a second chance to those who would benefit from that and who are prepared to take the chance. I believe that the bill will support those aims by creating a stronger system for management of offenders and by reducing reoffending.
I thank the members of Justice 2 Committee, and of course the committee's clerks, for conducting their careful stage 1 consideration of the bill. I followed the evidence sessions with great interest and I have read the committee's report thoroughly. I am glad that so many people who are involved in criminal justice services took the opportunity to come along and present their views. I recognise that there exists a range of views and opinions on a number of issues, which is why it is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise them. I believe that the committee did that job extremely well at stage 1 and I have no doubt that it will continue its thorough scrutiny at stage 2. I am pleased that the majority of committee members endorse the principles of the bill, although I appreciate that some members felt that they could not do so. I will of course be considering closely the recommendations in the committee's report, and I will try to respond to them in writing prior to the commencement of stage 2.
I hope that we will have a useful debate this morning. Previous debates have shown quite a degree of consensus in Parliament that the time is right to do something. We must move forward, tighten up the processes and ensure that we have a better system for managing offenders, whether they are in custody or in the community, and we must balance punishment and rehabilitation and keep public safety at the heart of our concerns. That is why I am delighted to move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Management of Offenders etc. (Scotland) Bill.
I start by welcoming the aims of the bill. The real question is whether it will make a difference in practice. There is a shared belief, in Parliament and in society, that we must reduce reoffending. Whether we do that is the absolutely key test of sentencing policy and practice. The minister alluded to the fact that in 2000, 30,000 people in Scotland were convicted of crimes, nearly 20,000 of whom were already offenders. As I said during my intervention on sex offenders, that is only the tip of the iceberg because we will not detect all those who reoffend and we will certainly not reconvict all those who reoffend.
It is important that we keep in mind the fact that sex offenders are uniquely difficult to reform. We might be able to put them through programmes to reduce their tendency to offend, to help them detect any return to offending behaviour and to seek the appropriate help, but we are unlikely to change sex offenders from people who have aberrant attitudes to sexual matters into people who have normal attitudes. Generally, however, there is more hope for prisoners.
Are we making progress? Our prisons had, on average, 300 more prisoners inside them in 2004 than in 2003. At £35,500 per year per prisoner, that had better work. At some point in 2004, more than 7,000 Scots criminals were banged up. We must indeed be a lawless nation, although we are clearly not a nation without laws. The bill is yet another attempt to add to our laws, but will it subtract from our prison costs and will it reduce crime? Only Portugal, which has 127 prisoners per 100,000 population, and England and Wales, which have 124 prisoners per 100,000 people, lock up more people than Scotland, which locks up 115 people per 100,000. The last resort, imprisonment, has for rather too long seemed to be our first response.
Imprisonment does, of course, protect society—for a while. If six out of 10 prisoners say, as Oliver Twist did,
"Please, sir, I want some more",
we have to question whether prison actually works. The minister has a target of reducing reoffending by 2 per cent. That is welcome, but I must say that it is modest.
I assume that the member has been following the evidence during the Justice 2 Committee's deliberations and is aware of how difficult it is to set a target and to make it meaningful in practice. International experience confirms that. Will the member agree, as I hope he will, that although 2 per cent is the target that has been set, it would be for the proposed national advisory board to consider whether that is the appropriate target for the future, and whether further targets should be set at a later date?
I welcome the fact that there is a target, and I thank the minister for her intervention. I suspect, however, that the target's modesty will continue to exercise us for a while. The bill can deliver its bit, and that is a good enough reason to support it.
I turn to community justice authorities and home detention. My colleague, Tricia Marwick, who is on the case as far as this subject is concerned, will talk in particular about the Colyn Evans case, in which she has a special interest.
Does the Scottish National Party have any concerns about the practical effect of the bill, in that it will let certain convicted criminals out of prison even earlier than is the case now?
The home detention curfew will let people out up to 135 days earlier. If that aids their reintegration into society, reduces estrangement from their families—which is a key element in their remaining part of society—it will be good news. That must be balanced, as I am sure the Conservatives will be aware, against the level of protection that comes from the knowledge that people are banged up away from society. The argument must be about the balance of increased risk and increased advantage. So far, we are quite convinced that the earlier we reintegrate people into society, the greater the benefit will be.
We welcome the minister's change of heart on community justice authorities. She was persuaded by the vociferously expressed opinion of local authorities in particular that she should not proceed with a national community justice authority, but instead go for local justice authorities. The establishment of a national authority would have been seen as yet another centralising move, which would run counter to the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, through which we delivered more power to local authorities to take control and to deliver against local needs. The minister's response to those opinions is welcome.
However, do we need a chief executive and extra staff—however few—to undertake responsibility for all those community justice authorities, given that fire boards and joint police authorities can be managed simply by integrating responsibility for those bodies into the responsibilities of senior local government office bearers? I would have to give a not proven verdict on the current suggestions, but that matter can be addressed as our consideration of the bill continues and is no reason to oppose the bill. We will hear what the ministers have to say on the matter.
Other countries—Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland spring to mind—have structures that bring together prison and community offender services, and we welcome moves to build on that experience. Such structures can improve lines of communication, enhance information sharing and build more coherent and organised structures to help offenders and the community as a whole.
The CJAs must do what it says on the tin. The different cultures, structures and skills mixes of local authorities, police, the national health service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Courts Administration and registered social landlords and the vital role of the voluntary sector can be melded to increase effectiveness or—if we get it wrong—merged in a Pol Pot-style year zero situation that will set back the cause of community justice for a decade. I am inclined to believe that we will achieve the former, but we must be alert to the danger of the latter.
Ministers will know that I have been a vigorous critic of the Scottish Prison Service and I share much of the frustration that ministers have experienced with it. The bill may represent an opportunity to do something about its performance.
I turn to home detention curfews. Maggie Thatcher—the Tories should listen up—said that prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse. HDCs might help. Of course, Jonathan Aitken, a former Tory, has some experience of them, so he might give the Conservatives advice about their worth. The evidence from England on whether they work is mixed.
The bill is a work in progress, rather like too many bills that we have seen of late. We can see that at least one minister is finding the ministerial seat quite hot today. My whip will not let me take my jaicket off whatever the temperature.
Alternatives to prison can work, but that is far from automatic. Reform in society is just as important as reform in the criminal justice system, so we have to address societal needs. Finland, with its low offending and incarceration rates, has much to teach us about handling crime and on how and when criminals and countries take responsibility for their affairs and improve their performance.
I make it clear at the outset that I speak in this debate on political issues as the Conservative spokesman on justice, not as the convener of the Justice 2 Committee. However, as convener of that committee I express my appreciation to my colleagues on the committee, our clerks and the various witnesses, including the minister, who came before the committee, for their collective and respective efforts in producing information, collating it and being prepared to debate it so that we could reach a majority committee view. I thank the minister for her kind acknowledgement of the work that was undertaken.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
For political reasons, on which I shall expand in the course of the debate, I was unable to support the majority committee view and dissented from supporting the bill at stage 1 in the committee. I accept that the spirit of the bill is well intended and my party acknowledges that the management of offenders is a vital aspect of our justice system that must be given more time and consideration. If we really want to rehabilitate criminals and deter people from committing crime, they have to know that they will serve a sentence that both reflects the gravity of the crime and gives them the chance to be rehabilitated. I think that Mr Stevenson acknowledges that the question how we achieve those objectives in practice raises serious questions about the proposals in the bill.
In the limited time that is available to me, I propose to concentrate on the two major aspects of the bill that present problems to me. The first is that the bill is to be enacted within the existing regime of automatic early release from prison of convicted criminals. We know that the public at large are bewildered by automatic early release. They regard it as confusing. Given recent high-profile cases in which persons who were at liberty through automatic early release have committed serious crimes, both the public and victims have good cause to question why the regime continues.
In my party's view it is irresponsible of the Scottish Executive, and unacceptable from the standpoint of public safety, to introduce a bill that contains provisions that will allow persons who have been convicted of serious crimes, but who will already get out of prison early under automatic early release, to get out even earlier.
Will the member give way on that point?
Will the member give way?
I give way to the minister.
Does the member accept that I have made it clear in the information on the bill that I submitted and in the evidence that I gave to the committee that a number of offences for which people had been convicted and imprisoned would not come under the home detention curfew scheme? That point is important.
Yes. I accept what the minister says, but I draw to her attention a comment that the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, made in 1999 about home detention curfews. He said:
"We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 29 November 1999; Vol 340, c 27.]
Yet, as we already know from the experiment in England, matters have not proceeded in a positive way.
Will the member take an intervention?
No—I am sorry.
The Scottish Executive might be able to explain away that strategy. It is, no doubt, driven by a desire to reduce the prison population by seeking to improve the lot of prisoners. However, the Scottish Conservatives consider that the priorities must be the safety of the public and the best interests of victims. It seems to me that neither of those paramount considerations will be protected by the bill.
In short, if the Scottish Executive will not stand up for public safety and victims, the Scottish Conservatives will. I make it crystal clear that we cannot support the bill for as long as automatic early release applies to prison sentences. We are prepared to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to end automatic early release and if the Executive is prepared to support it, we will support the bill.
The other area of serious concern that I had when listening to the evidence that was presented to the Justice 2 Committee by the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is the proposed statutory creation of community justice authorities. A useful co-ordination of activity and co-operation between agencies has been achieved since 2002 by the 14 funding and planning units that were constructed on the basis of local agreement and consensus.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I really am pushed for time. I apologise.
There is a bit of time in hand this morning, so you can have another two minutes if you wish.
In that case, I will take the intervention.
Ending of automatic early release would mean that there were more people in prison. I have done a quick sum: I think that would cost between £100 million and £150 million extra a year. Does the member think that that is the best way of spending money in the criminal justice system?
I think that that is a question that Mr Stevenson should pose to the public and to victims and their families. My clear impression is that there is huge concern in Scotland about public safety and, equally important, about confidence in our criminal justice system. To me, the political priority of the Scottish Executive has to be to have regard to that fundamental public concern, which is what I am addressing. If the way of addressing that concern is to increase prison capacity, then it is the political imperative of Government to achieve it.
On the existing structures, I would have thought that there was significant merit in allowing the current partnerships to continue because they meet the aspirations of, and provide the necessary flexibility for, different areas in Scotland.
In evidence, COSLA stated:
"structures of themselves will not deliver either improved outcomes or worse outcomes. It is the … activity that goes on that is important."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 12 April 2005; c1493.]
That is a sensible observation.
We ask our social work departments to bear an intensifying workload and to discharge an exacting level of responsibility. Much of that is attributable to legislation that has been passed by Parliament. I would have thought that a period of consolidation and assessment would be preferable to imposing further statutory bureaucracy on those hard-pressed departments.
The member talks about a period of good co-operation—which is working well—and about further co-operation and consolidation. We have heard the arguments that say, "Give us a bit more time" and "Give us a bit more money". Despite the time and money, we hear month after month and year after year about cases in different parts of the country where the system, not individuals, is letting the community down. What does Annabel Goldie propose to do about the systemic and systematic failures that threaten communities?
There is a considerable advantage in listening to the views of the people who are working in the sector, which I consider to be authoritative.
It seems to me that when the partnerships to which I referred have been in operation only since 2002 and we have a devolved Parliament, a Scottish Executive and a Justice Department, there is ample opportunity to implement the process of consolidation and assessment to which I referred. There is a clear ability, particularly through Audit Scotland, to test what is happening and then to make any necessary adjustments through administrative change. However, I find the proposed imposition of a statutory framework to be alarming because I think that it will exacerbate problems.
In relation to what Mr Stevenson said, the inescapable conclusion that I have reached is that the Executive's original suggestion—it was subsequently dropped—for a single correctional agency was unpopular and provocative. The suggestion has now been revived, by another name, in little local bits. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that the estimated running costs of each community justice authority, of about £200,000 a year, could be better used to fund front-line services and to enhance programmes that are already being delivered. For those reasons, I do not find that a convincing case has been made for the creation of those authorities; I dissented in committee from supporting their creation. Unfortunately, the strictures of today's debate constrain the opportunity for extended discussion, but for the reasons that I have stated, my party will not support the bill at stage 1.
I welcome the publication of the bill and the debate this morning. I also welcome Miss Goldie's clarification in her speech that she speaks on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives rather than the Justice 2 Committee. I hope that she might instruct her party to remove from its website the headline, "Justice two convenor refuses to support management of offenders bill." That might clarify her position further.
There should be little doubt that one of the biggest factors in the crime rates in Scotland is that people who have committed an offence commit another offence within a relatively short period after their release from custody. The minister outlined the figures this morning.
There is double concern for the communities that have had to put up with a further offence being committed in their area because, although the offender had gone through the justice system then the prison system, the state has in effect failed to rehabilitate that individual. In many cases, it is hard to rehabilitate successfully, as Mr Stevenson said. Often, however, the system actively discourages rehabilitation as a result of long delays in cases being brought to trial and an unfortunately high level of short—in some cases, very short—prison sentences being imposed.
Just as we must ensure that our justice system is transparent, fair and efficient, so we must ensure that it is effective in reducing the number of offenders who commit an offence for the first time and the number of those who reoffend once they have been punished. I am certain that the measures in the bill will help in that endeavour.
In our stage 1 inquiry, the committee explored many of the complex issues associated with the subject and inevitably, given that the bill is about structures, we gave much consideration to inter-institutional issues between social work, the police, the court service, the Executive and local authorities. I do not deny that those issues are important—of course they are—for morale and for leadership at the top of the organisations right through to all the staff who work in their fields, who are often extremely committed individuals doing their best. However, that means nothing to our constituents, who simply want the system to deliver better justice.
Community justice authorities will give a focus to what the Justice 1 Committee asked us to do in its recent report on rehabilitation in prisons, which was to give a clearer definition of rehabilitation, what it means and what is required to make it more effective.
We will fail to reduce reoffending if we continue to deny a greater emphasis on equipping individuals with some of the structure that is missing from their lives and on giving them the skills and support that they have not had. With a statutory duty on all agencies to work together, however, they will do so. It could be argued that, until now, the scene has been patchy. There are some examples of excellent partnership working in Scotland, as I know from my Borders constituency, and many areas are leading in partnership working. However, other areas could benefit from learning from best practice.
I understand that the Conservatives will not support the bill because they believe that the case has not been made for statutory change to structures. That is the ground on which they dissented from the committee's report. David Croft, the governor of Edinburgh prison, said in evidence:
"On the quality of the partnerships, one of the questions asked was why it is necessary to create a structure to make all this work if it is working okay just now. There is nothing in my management experience that contradicts the view that without a structure we will never get anybody accountably delivering anything. I am talking about the size of the present reoffending problem in Scotland. That is where I believe the proposed structure would be a benefit."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 19 April 2005; c 1538.]
Structures are important and they will be effective if we can ensure that all agencies have a duty to work together. The Conservatives seem to oppose that duty. That will not be understood by my constituents or indeed by the communities that the Conservatives claim to represent.
In February, the Justice 1 Committee's report on rehabilitation in prisons quoted professionals as saying:
"There is a sense that rehabilitation deals with recent matters … [but] some of the people with whom we work have long-standing problems since their early childhood. The ‘re' in rehabilitate is not an option for many people who have had long-standing problems."
I am aware that the Justice 2 Committee's work on the bill has been limited, inevitably, to the scope of the bill. However, without a proper and mature debate on earlier intervention we will not begin to address the problem.
Paragraph 13 of the Justice 1 Committee's report, which we debated in Parliament, states:
"offenders may never previously have been integrated to society."
I welcome Mr Stevenson's comments about integration into society. Trying to turn away the tide, as the Conservatives seek to do, is neither progressive nor will it be effective.
Although many individual offenders have not integrated into society, it is unlikely that those individuals will not have been known to public agencies such as the police, social work departments, education authorities or the hearings system—all the agencies that will work together in community justice authorities.
Information from the Scottish Prison Service report, "Young People in Custody in Scotland, An Occasional Paper", showed us that 76.2 per cent of all young people in custody had a history of regular truancy; 43.6 per cent had attended special schools; over 9 per cent had reported previous contact with the children's hearings system; over 63 per cent had close friends who were involved in criminal activity; and 52 per cent had at least one member of their immediate family who had served a custodial sentence. Without understanding that such triggers happen early in people's lives, we will continue to be too late to rehabilitate individuals and that rehabilitation work will be much harder when we begin to undertake it. Therefore, the community justice authorities, which will ensure best practice and a statutory duty to co-operate, will build on the work of criminal justice social work groupings rather than undermine them, as the Conservatives seem to state.
The member speaks of a statutory duty to co-operate. Does that phrase not ring hollow with him? Surely co-operation depends on flexibility and that is precisely what we propose should be allowed to happen rather than structures being imposed by diktat.
Conservative members cannot argue that the system has to be structured to provide support for the communities that they claim to represent and then deny the fact that the organisations in question—which are paid for out of all our taxes and which work for our communities—should have a duty to work together. When it comes to co-ordinating justice, of course there should be a duty on the police, the hearings system, social work departments and all the other organisations to work together. Frankly, it is ridiculous to say that criminal justice must be more effective, but then not to provide the tools that will enable that aim to be achieved.
Mr Stevenson said that home detention curfews can be a tool to make the rehabilitation of individuals more effective. I support those comments, and I hope that at stage 2 we will build on the evidence that we received with regard to the conditions that can be applied to home detention curfews. For example, there is potential with regard to the alcohol and drug programmes that begin in prison when a sentence is long enough for that to happen but do not continue in the community, or with regard to the individual attending interviews with housing officers and learning about financial management. Structures will be put in place to afford such work to be done and the conditions of home detention curfew can be shaped around the needs of the individual. We can use the structures that are outlined in the bill to provide active support to individuals in our communities. That will make a real difference and the Conservatives' approach simply will not.
We move to the open debate. There is time for speeches of six minutes plus time for a couple of interventions.
As the deputy convener of the Justice 2 Committee, I support the motion in the name of the Minister for Justice. I place on record the thanks of all committee members for the efforts of the clerking team in supporting us in our scrutiny of the bill.
Given the dissent that was registered by the committee's convener in respect of the committee's recommendation that Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill, I speak for the committee. The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill aims to reduce levels of reoffending and to improve the management of offenders by greater integration of the work of the criminal justice agencies. The Justice 2 Committee welcomes the bill, because it provides the basis for a more coherent, integrated approach to addressing offending in Scotland.
In 2004, the nationwide consultation on reducing reoffending, "Re:duce, Re:habilitate, Re:form", arrived at a broad consensus in recognising a number of serious deficiencies in the way that offenders are managed; those weaknesses contribute to unacceptably high rates of reoffending in Scotland. The consultation revealed a lack of shared objectives and strategic direction in tackling reoffending; a lack of communication between criminal justice service deliverers; inconsistency in the provision of offender services throughout Scotland; and a lack of accountability for reducing reoffending.
The bill's provisions are not a panacea—they will not in themselves reduce reoffending—but the Justice 2 Committee hopes that the bill, as part of a broader package of reforms, will ensure that local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service focus on consistency, quality and co-ordination. Given that, for example, in the two years from 1999 60 per cent of offenders who were released from prison were reconvicted of other offences, it is imperative that the Parliament acts.
"Supporting Safer, Stronger Communities", which was published in December 2004, was the Government's response to the consultation. The majority of the Justice 2 Committee welcomes the creation of community justice authorities, which are new local government bodies that will ensure the co-ordinated delivery of community justice services by local authorities throughout authority areas. That proposal is sensible. My committee colleague Jackie Baillie will go into greater detail on the issues relating to the creation of CJAs that were explored by the committee and which are outlined on pages 5 to 11 of the committee's stage 1 report.
Section 1 of the bill concerns a matter that is closely associated with the establishment of CJAs; I refer to the creation of an obligation on Scottish ministers—presumably through the SPS—CJAs and local authorities to co-operate with each other in performing their functions with respect to the management of offenders. The Justice 2 Committee believes that good practice dictates that CJAs should encompass a wide membership. Paragraph 79 of our report notes our belief that there should be an emphasis on
"the importance of ensuring an effective interface between SPS and CJAs."
Mr Stevenson alluded to that important element. I hope that the minister will accede to the committee's request and ensure that the SPS clarifies in detail how that will be achieved in practice. That is essential. Such interaction between the SPS and CJAs is core to achieving improvement in the management of offenders.
I am sure that other members will refer to other important and welcome points in the bill, such as the provision to enable the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to recover from the perpetrators compensation that it has paid to the victims of crime—the minister mentioned that in her opening speech—and the improved information-sharing requirement in respect of the assessment and management of the risks that are posed by serious and sexual offenders, which has already been referred to but which I am sure will be referred to again.
The Conservatives mentioned the reservations that they incorporated in the stage 1 report. Another committee member, from the socialists, has also expressed concerns. Since that member is not here to raise those concerns, will Bill Butler comment on their validity and take this opportunity to rebut them or agree with them?
I would not be so impolite. The member in question is not in the chamber. Stewart Stevenson will see from the stage 1 report that the member was concerned about the structure of CJAs, whereas Miss Goldie and the Conservative party are concerned about their structure and the proposal for home detention curfews. As a democratic socialist, I would not presume to speak for a Trotskyist organisation.
Section 11 seeks to introduce a new discretionary power for the SPS to release certain prisoners on home detention curfew, which is a matter of some contention. Such prisoners would be released a short time before they were eligible for automatic release. The issues have been referred to in the debate. Most of the evidence that we heard suggested that there was merit in home detention curfew for certain low-risk prisoners.
I say to Miss Goldie that we are talking about low-risk prisoners, and she should not conflate them and other types of prisoners. The paramount concern for the Government and this Parliament remains the safety of our communities. That is non-negotiable. Therefore, as the minister said in her speech, only certain levels of low-risk prisoners will be eligible. Sex offenders who are subject to notification requirements, prisoners who are subject to extended sentences and, as the minister clarified in her evidence to the committee, prisoners with a history of domestic violence will be excluded and ineligible for home detention curfew. That should be crystal clear.
All releases on licence will be remotely monitored. Time on HDC will depend on the length of the sentence, but cannot be more than 135 days, as Mr Stevenson said. It is estimated that at any one time about 300 prisoners will be on HDC for an average period of 55 days. It should also be emphasised—perhaps this will comfort Miss Goldie and the Conservative party—that the police, in evidence, were generally supportive of HDC in the circumstances that are proposed by the bill. If the guardians of law and order are generally supportive, I hope that the Conservatives will find some way to change their opinion of HDCs.
The Justice 2 Committee believes that HDC is not a soft option and is not, as the minister stressed in evidence,
"a get-out-of-jail-free card or an alternative to a sentence."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 10 May 2005; c 1624.]
The committee by majority is of the view that
"Provided there is robust assessment of the suitability of individual offenders for release on HDC … HDCs are a welcome option"
as
"part of a package of wider measures."
HDCs are not a cure-all, but the committee by majority believes that they will provide a measured, coherent option and better management of offenders in an attempt to reduce reoffending, which is what the bill is all about. That is the serious business of the Parliament today. We should not succumb to the temptation of soundbites that conflate serious issues. That is to be deprecated.
The Justice 2 Committee believes by majority that the provisions of the bill are positive and that, in consequence, the general principles of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill should be agreed to.
The bill allows for the establishment of community justice authorities; seeks to place an obligation on ministers, local authorities and community justice authorities to co-operate; provides powers to intervene where there is a failure on behalf of the local authority; and at sections 9 and 10 seeks to establish joint arrangements for the assessment and management of sex offenders. To the outside observer, it seems to be a dry and technical bill that is mostly concerned with process, but it has the potential to put in place mechanisms that could prevent a repeat of the tragic circumstances that occurred in Tayport in January.
Last week, Colyn Evans was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Karen Dewar, who was 16 years old. She was strangled, mutilated, and her body dumped in a rubbish skip and set on fire. Colyn Evans is now 18 years old. He came to the attention of social work, the police and the children's reporter when he was 10. Between the ages of 10 and 16 he committed 14 offences, six of which were sexual offences. Of the sexual offences, five related to shameless or indecent exposure. He was never placed on the sex offenders register.
Fife Council and Fife constabulary produced their own internal report on the day that Colyn Evans was sentenced. They examined their involvement with Colyn Evans and admitted that there were shortcomings in communications and written procedures, but concluded that the murder of Karen Dewar could not have been predicted. What could have been predicted, because there were two psychiatric reports to say so, was that Colyn Evans was at high risk of reoffending.
In October 2002, Colyn Evans was reported for an attack on a young boy, and in November 2002 he was reported for indecent exposure to a 31-year-old woman. In April 2002, he was placed in Geilsland residential school, where he was expected to take part in an intensive programme but did not co-operate. Before he was returned home, a report concluded that he was still at high risk of offending. That report was never submitted to the hearing in April 2004, when he was discharged from his supervision requirement. He was given a flat in Tayport, round the corner from Karen Dewar. The police were never formally advised that Evans was in Tayport. Social work asked the police to carry out an assessment. That assessment was never done, but no one asked why. There were two further incidents in Tayport before Karen's murder, but despite police involvement they were not linked to Evans's previous offences.
Fife Council and Fife constabulary's internal report reveals a catalogue of failure—failure to communicate within authorities, failure to communicate between authorities and, most important, failure to protect a young woman and a community. I often say how lucky we are in Fife to have a local authority, a police force and a health board that all share the same boundaries. Margaret Mitchell says that what we need is flexibility. Flexibility does not work. That flexibility failed Karen Dewar. If communication and joint working cannot happen naturally in Fife, which has those huge advantages, it cannot happen anywhere in Scotland, unless there are statutory obligations on authorities to work jointly.
On Friday, I wrote to the Minister for Justice asking for a full, independent inquiry into the Colyn Evans case.
I am aware of the letter that Tricia Marwick and some other MSPs wrote to me. This morning, Tricia Marwick has again, very concisely, outlined many of the concerns that were raised in the report prepared by Fife Council and Fife constabulary. I spoke to Ms Marwick just before the debate to indicate that I have sent letters this morning to the conveners of the justice committees and the Education Committee, explaining that I have asked the Social Work Inspection Agency and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary—which are independent of ministers but which, crucially, have an understanding of the systems—to scrutinise the Fife report, to work with Fife Council and Fife constabulary to expand that report, to look in more detail at some of the issues that have been raised and to come back to us with their findings. Ministers will then meet the chief constable and the chief executive of Fife Council to consider what further lessons may be learned.
I have asked my officials to examine in more detail the crossover between the youth and adult justice systems to see whether there are any lessons that can be learned, particularly in relation to young people who have committed sexual offences. I am concerned about consistency in the way in which such local inquiries are carried out. It was right and proper that Fife Council and Fife constabulary undertook that inquiry. There are more issues that need to be resolved, so I have asked my officials to consider drawing up guidelines to ensure that such inquiries—if any should be required in the future—are undertaken in a consistent manner.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for your indulgence in allowing me to put that on the record.
I very much welcome the minister's short statement, and I thank her and the Minister for Education and Young People for agreeing that an independent inquiry should be set up. That will bring comfort to Karen Dewar's family, who felt dissatisfied with the conclusions of the report from Fife Council and Fife constabulary. There must be the fullest inquiry, and I hope that the inquiry will look at the whole history of Colyn Evans, including the period when he was at Geilsland residential school and his failure to co-operate. If the inquiry is conducted quickly but fully, the lessons that are learned from it could inform the bill at stage 2 and stage 3, and the bill will be better for that. For the sake of a community and a family, the lessons must be learned quickly, so that other communities and families will be protected.
Like many other members, I welcome the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill. I believe that, by bringing a renewed focus to tackling offending and improving co-ordination, the bill will provide a sound basis for reducing the number of people who are convicted of a further offence.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the scale of the problem that we face. In Scotland, between 1995 and 2000, of those who were released from custodial sentences, up to 66 per cent—that is two thirds—were reconvicted within two years. It is because of that scale that I am, frankly, astonished that Annabel Goldie and Colin Fox are opposed to the bill. In answer to Mr Stevenson's oblique question, I suspect that Mr Fox is away starting a revolution, while Miss Goldie is undoubtedly trying to quell one in the Tory ranks—what strange bedfellows!
However, although structural change in the absence of policy substance is never the answer, I think—unlike Annabel Goldie and Colin Fox—that community justice authorities have a key contribution to make, largely because they are set in a much wider package of reform, with ministers clearly taking a strategic approach to tackling reoffending across the criminal justice system. Although it is acknowledged that the proposed structural reforms will not, in and of themselves, reduce reoffending, they will provide us with solid foundations on which to build.
I, for one, am persuaded by comments that were made by one of the committee's witnesses, who said that, although existing criminal justice relationships may indeed work well,
"It is probably too important to be left to chance … many of the good relationships that exist are based on good will and a willingness to work together professionally. If good will does not exist and there is no requirement to form a relationship and to agree on targets, objectives and areas to work in partnership, the chances are that it might not happen."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 19 April 2005; c 1537-8.]
Let us not, as the Tories would do, take any chances. Community justice authorities will ensure that we do not simply rely on good will to promote some Tory notion of flexibility.
Perhaps Miss Goldie has forgotten last year's national consultation on reducing reoffending. I shall remind her of it. A general consensus emerged about the key weaknesses in the existing system. At that time, we were told that there were no shared objectives, no strategic direction, little communication, lack of communication between criminal justice service providers and inconsistency in the quality and range of offenders services across Scotland. That is not to diminish the work that is undertaken by some criminal justice social work partnerships. I know that the partnership that covers my patch in Dunbartonshire is excellent, but the picture is not the same across Scotland. We need better consistency, better co-ordination and better quality in some areas.
If the Tories' desire is to listen, I would welcome an acknowledgement that the status quo is not working.
If the partnership in Jackie Baillie's neck of the woods is working well, is not there a case for using that example to find out what is happening and for using that information to replicate that work throughout Scotland—something that we fail to do in this Parliament—rather than saying that one size fits all, which is effectively what the bill does?
If Margaret Mitchell had spent any time on the Justice 2 Committee listening to the evidence, she would not have made that comment. The Tories on the Justice 2 Committee have ended up doing what they all do so well. It reminds me of the behaviour of a small child. Basically, they know only one word, which they repeat several times, and that word is "no". We have yet to find out what the Tories actually think. I would welcome further interventions if I thought that we would hear the Tories setting out their proposals, but I suspect that they will remain sedentary.
I want to focus on two issues that were raised with the committee, the first of which concerns the ministerial powers of direction and intervention. I confess to the chamber that there was genuine confusion in the committee. We thought that we knew the difference between the power of direction and the power of intervention, and who the powers were aimed at, but we were confused. We were not alone; there is still uncertainty among stakeholders. I know that the minister intends that the power of direction will apply only, as set out in section 2(10), to community justice authorities, but sections 5 and 6 give ministers a power of direction to require action in the event of failure, either by a community justice authority or by a local authority.
It is fair to say that there is concern among local authorities about the scope and intention of those powers. Although I welcome the reassurance that the minister gave to the committee, I urge her further to clarify the matter. In particular, sections 5 and 6 refer to the exercise of power if there has been failure and it would be useful to know what circumstances would constitute failure. The minister indicated that any power of direction would be exercised following guidance. I assume that section 2(10)(b) will need to be amended to enable the Scottish ministers to provide wider guidance and I hope that such an amendment will be lodged at stage 2.
I ask the minister to consider two other matters before stage 3. First, will she consider ensuring that the power can be used only following an order that is subject to affirmative resolution by the Parliament? Such an approach would provide greater transparency and opportunity for scrutiny. Secondly, will she consider the possibility of including in the bill reasonable limits on the use of the power, in relation to the power's scope and purpose and the time and nature of any intervention? I acknowledge that that would be difficult, but such a measure would reassure stakeholders of the minister's intentions.
Finally, I echo Bill Butler and say a few words about the interface between the Scottish Prison Service and the community justice authorities.
Please be brief.
I accept that it is difficult for the Scottish Prison Service to work with 32 individual local authorities, but the service will need to make a considerable effort to engage meaningfully with CJAs. The SPS is a single national system, but CJAs will inevitably be much more local. The committee was astonished to hear that basic information was often not exchanged, despite positive work in link centres. We heard of examples in which the police and local authorities were unaware that prisoners had been released into the community, so it should come as no surprise to the minister that the committee believes that there is considerable scope for improving the collection and sharing of basic information.
I look forward to considering some of those points with the minister at stage 2. In the meantime, I urge the Parliament to support the general principles of the bill.
Green members welcome the bill—we very much agree with its general thrust and principles. We congratulate the Justice 2 Committee on its work so far and wish it well in the work that it will do on the bill in the future.
Members might expect me to mention the Airborne Initiative, but I will do no more than thank the minister for the detailed letter that she sent in response to my criticisms of the Executive. The matter rests there, although I still have reservations.
If we take the view that high-tariff offenders are the most in need and if we acknowledge that such offenders do the most damage to their communities, we must surely accept that in the long run it is worth investing the most money in that section of the prison population, to try to enable them to adapt to life in the community.
I accept what the member says about long-term prisoners and the problems that they cause in society. However, the bill's purpose is surely to consider offenders who serve short sentences in prison for low-level offences, so that they are not allowed to progress to commit more serious offences, as some do as they proceed through what is in effect a criminal career.
Indeed. I listened carefully and with considerable interest to the speeches of Jeremy Purvis and Tricia Marwick and I thoroughly concur with their observations on the necessity for early intervention. My experience on the children's panel taught me that early intervention is absolutely necessary. Twenty years ago, Lord Scarman said that there can be no criminal justice without social justice; the children's hearings system attempts to provide an element of social justice for young people. Despite the continued carping about the children's hearings system from the Conservative benches, the system's only problem is the fact that social work in Scotland remains underfunded. The situation would improve if we could put more funding into social work and associated institutions that help children, such as Barnardo's, which the Parliament considered yesterday in an extremely instructive debate. Early intervention is essential.
I am particularly impressed by the idea of community justice authorities. I draw the minister's attention to a speech that Baroness Vivien Stern gave to the Howard League for Penal Reform last year—I am sorry, I should have declared an interest at the start of my speech: I am a member of the Howard League for Penal Reform. I will give the minister a copy of Baroness Stern's speech. The minister is indicating that she already has a copy—perhaps I sent it to her—but I will quote from it nevertheless, for the instruction of other members. Baroness Stern described a community justice centre in one of the poorer areas of New York:
"It is a good class building, a former school, in a very disadvantaged area, of redundant docks, public housing … The Centre is run by the District Attorney, the local prosecutor. It contains a low level court (a problem-solving court). The judge is a judge, and a community development manager, and a local personality who gives away prizes at the local school fetes and community events.
Also in the building is an education centre, a childcare centre, the office of the drug treatment, mental health and other community organisations. Legal services for that disadvantaged community (eg housing rights, repairs) are provided there by lawyers. There are cells under the court like any proper courtroom. There is a mediation service. Quality of life classes run every hour as an alternative to a fine for a small anti-social act. There are community service organisers."
Baroness Stern continued by setting out some of the system's advantages. She states:
"First, this is a system that does not divide offenders and victims … from the whole community in which they live … Second, justice is not divided into criminal justice and legal justice"—
indeed, the system operates at all levels, very much as the children's hearings system does.
"Crime is dealt with under the same roof as access to justice services for those who need to get their roofs repaired … Third, the outcomes are positive rather than negative. The judicial approach is based on the needs of the community and geared to an outcome. The judge tries to solve the problem. Drug treatment can start the day the defendant comes up in court."
The Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill is an enabling bill that will allow community justice authorities to develop along such lines, by uniting social provision and justice provision under one roof. I wish the bill well in its progress through the Parliament.
The Parliament has debated reoffending on numerous occasions. It is clear that none of us regards the status quo as acceptable. However, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of why the reoffending rate is so high. The reason is quite simple: people who have been in custody have committed either a serious crime or a large number of minor offences. It is therefore inevitable that such people are more likely to reoffend. That should be more clearly understood.
Of course we must do something, but, frankly, the bill is not the answer. The public interest must come first in all aspects of the criminal justice system, but time and again the actions of the Executive leave us with the impression that more consideration is given to clearing prisons than to the public interest.
The proposals in the bill have not been properly thought through. If members are not prepared to take my word for that, they should consider the reservations of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Social Work.
If Bill Aitken is so keen on responding to public opinion and considering the public interest, he will be interested to know that an NFO System 3 poll two years ago showed that most people agreed that prison has a negative effect on offenders. More than half of those polled agreed that most offenders come out worse than when they went in. The public think that prisons are not the best way of preventing reoffending.
This is becoming a speech, Mr Harper.
I am sorry, but there was some distortion in the sound at the beginning of Mr Harper's intervention. I will perhaps follow up the matter with him later, privately.
We cannot get past the problems of early release and the message that it sends out to those who are likely to reoffend. That is our principal concern. Let me give an example—I am sure that the minister will agree that it is not an extreme example, but it falls within the criteria that she is proposing. An offender is arrested in somebody's house. He has that person's property ready to be taken away, but no violence is involved. He has a bad record. He is taken to the police station, fingerprinted, photographed, cautioned and charged, and then either is kept in custody or appears on a petition warrant at the sheriff court. After due process, he pleads guilty. The sheriff says that the appropriate sentence, given the offender's record, is 12 months in prison. However, the sheriff reduces the sentence to eight months because of the plea. The sentence then becomes four months because of automatic early release. The minister now proposes that that person would get out after only two months in custody.
The judicial guidelines are quite clear. There are clear arguments in favour of reducing sentences in respect of pleas, although it is arguable whether somebody who is caught red handed in the manner that I described should benefit in that way. The European convention on human rights makes early release automatic. The person does not have to behave himself in prison; release is automatic. That is quite wrong. As Annabel Goldie said, there have been some high-profile cases—and I understand that many more are in the pipeline—in which people who have been released early have then committed some very serious crimes.
Until today, the minister had been somewhat vague about the categories of people to whom early release would apply. I accept that she has now been a lot more specific. She has stated that sex offenders and violent offenders will not be subject to early release.
I suspect that Mr Aitken has missed something if he thinks that that point has been made only today. The point has been made consistently and was part of evidence that was given to the Justice 2 Committee.
That is as may be, but ministers still have a real problem in this respect. Under article 26 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the minister cannot apply criteria to sex offenders and, arguably, violent offenders that are different from the criteria applied to other offenders. If the minister is not prepared to take my word for it, she should take the word of Lord Macfadyen, who is obviously much more qualified in constitutional law than either me or, with respect, the minister. There is a real problem.
There are attractions in home detention orders, but we have to consider what has happened elsewhere. The criteria in England might not be quite as tight as those proposed by the minister but, in the 18 months following their introduction, 3,748 crimes were committed by people who were subject to the orders. Those crimes included 10 sexual offences and 569 crimes of violence. Does that show that the public interest has come first? If we consider our own local experience, we can see that the figures from the Lanarkshire youth court are a cause for concern. There are many more problems associated with the idea than the minister is prepared to admit to.
As I say, we do not regard the status quo as acceptable. However, any proposals to remedy the situation must make the public interest paramount. The bill does not do that.
As I am not on the Justice 2 Committee, I have not had the benefit of hearing all the evidence. I will therefore stick to general principles rather than the nitty-gritty on which we have had an interesting debate so far.
I want first to pursue the same line of thought that Jeremy Purvis pursued when he gave various figures about the background from which offenders come. We have to address that issue. Interesting work is being done by people such as those in Strathclyde police's violence reduction unit.
For reasons that we all know about, more offenders come from certain communities than from others. Instead of having well-meaning people like me going along in a suit and telling people in those communities what they should do, we have to help them to do their own thing. A great deal of energy and enterprise often go into crime because there is nothing else worth doing locally. We should nourish and encourage enterprise, whether it is the enterprise of individuals who are trying to make a living in some way or whether it is the enterprise of people who are setting up a co-operative to provide a service that the local community needs. People need help, advice and a little bit of money just to get started. That can allow them to help their communities from the bottom up, if I may use that cliché. We have to set about helping communities in that way.
We also have to help families in which there are clearly going to be problems. We have to get in at the nursery stage, helping the children and the families. Very good work is being done in Denmark and other countries to help the kind of young people who history shows are likely to have problems and to cause problems later on. If children, families and the communities around them can be helped as early as possible, we will prevent a great deal of offending. Logically, the best way of preventing reoffending is by reducing the amount of offending in the first instance. We should make strong efforts in that regard.
Because of a provision inserted by the Parliament into the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, councils have to state in their strategies for dealing with antisocial behaviour what they are doing to provide good recreational, community and sports facilities in their area. I ask the ministers to ensure that that happens and that councils take the provision seriously. Providing good activities for people is one way of helping them not to get involved in bad activities.
In our endless debates on this subject, it has become a cliché to say that short sentences do no good whatever. I know that the minister cannot tell judges what to do, but can something be put in the bill to facilitate discussion between Government and the law industry on short sentences? If short sentences are proved—as I think they have been—to be counterproductive and a complete waste of time, it is surely common sense in a civilised society to do something about it.
It was extraordinarily depressing to read in the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report on the bill that there is
"no co-ordinated network of support on release."
The evidence from Dr Andrew McLellan covered very well the wide range of problems that we have to deal with—our Government is still not good at dealing with wide ranges of problems rather than narrow ones. Dr McLellan referred to
"the corrosive effects of addiction, the destructive experience that some people have of education, limited access to jobs and the gamut of issues that are related to poverty."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 3 May 2005; c 1547.]
As I say, if we can deal with such problems in families and communities, that will be of great benefit.
I ask the ministers to ensure that continuing funding is available for voluntary organisations that do good and relevant work in this sphere. In a previous debate, there was a slight disagreement—although not with Cathy Jamieson and Hugh Henry—about the phrase "core funding". If words are the only problem, we can get around that. There must be continuing funding so that people who do good activities can continue those activities without having to temper them to suit the latest whim of the powers that be in project funding. There must be continuing funding on which good organisations can rely, as long as people are satisfied that they are doing good work.
The bill contains many interesting proposals and I look forward to better debates in the future. Perhaps we will have a good stage 3 debate in due course.
I welcome the fact that justice issues have been and continue to be a priority for the Scottish Executive, which reflects the level of concern in my constituency and others about the impact of crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. We all want to make our communities safer and to reduce crime levels. As part of that effort, an important task is to reduce recidivism.
The Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report is clear in pointing out that too many people leave our prisons only to reoffend within a short time. It also points out that reconviction rates for offenders who receive community-based sentences are slightly lower. The measures in the bill aim to address those two key points.
As a starting point, we must ensure that all the agencies that deal with offenders work in partnership and in synergy. I welcome the bill's proposal to set up community justice authorities. Although the committee's report says that there is much good practice among our local authorities and many examples of good partnership and interagency working, I agree with its conclusion that there is a need to firm up such partnership arrangements and to put them on a statutory footing. I believe that the proper management of offenders is far too important to be left to informal partnership arrangements.
Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service all agree that the establishment of community justice authorities, along with the introduction of a duty to co-operate, will help to create a more consistent and effective system for managing offenders. However, there are significant issues relating to community justice authorities that need to be addressed, such as the number of authorities that should be established and the role of the chief officer. It is possible that the chief officer could be placed in a difficult position. As an employee of a community justice authority, he or she will have responsibility for reporting any failings of his or her employer and/or of local authorities to Scottish ministers, which could be a delicate task.
I note the committee's recommendation that CJAs should "encompass a wide membership". I agree with that conclusion and suggest that broadening the CJAs' membership might help to provide security and support both for councillor members of CJAs and the chief officer.
I do not intend to say too much about the bill's measures to improve the management of serious sex offenders. The need for improved and effective inter-agency working is once again vital and I am pleased that the bill introduces a requirement for all the responsible authorities in a local authority area to establish joint arrangements to assess and manage the risks that such offenders pose. Over the years, there have been too many cases in which sexual abuse—especially of children—has continued because of a lack of information sharing between and, it must be said, within the various relevant agencies.
Like the Justice 2 Committee, I welcome the introduction of home detention curfews as part of a package of measures to facilitate the transition of offenders back into the community. However, like the committee, I recognise that HDCs cannot stand alone; other appropriate support measures will need to be put in place for offenders who are on HDCs. The other side of that coin is that such offenders must take responsibility for their actions and must be aware from the outset that conditions that are over and above the standard conditions for release are attached to HDCs. That point is vital if we are to gain public support for the measure. As Cathy Jamieson said to the committee, HDCs should not be seen as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
There has been broad support for the measures that the bill contains. It is regrettable that Annabel Goldie felt obliged to show her opposition to many of the bill's central proposals by failing to agree to the committee's stage 1 report. To me, those proposals seem both rational and reasonable. The aim of improving partnership working between all the agencies that are involved in the management and rehabilitation of offenders is perfectly sensible—except to Annabel Goldie and the Tories. Perhaps that is why Bill Aitken wrongly criticised the youth court in Lanarkshire, which is widely acknowledged to be an excellent example of inter-agency working that has been bought into not only by the police, the procurator fiscal and social work services in North and South Lanarkshire, but—most important—by the community, which thinks that the court is making a significant difference.
The aim of using HDCs as a bridging mechanism for reintroducing offenders into the community towards the end of their sentence has been welcomed by almost everyone, except Miss Goldie and her colleagues in the Tory party. The Executive is taking a reasonable and balanced approach to tackling offending and modernising the criminal justice system in Scotland. Unfortunately, it seems that the Tories are more intent on using an important issue as a political football than they are on improving the situation; they are more interested in rhetoric than in facing up to their responsibilities as legislators.
I am pleased to be able to support the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill and I look forward with interest to the outcome of the detailed scrutiny of the bill that will take place at stage 2.
I express my regrets to Paul Martin, but we must now move to the winding-up speeches.
Last December, we had a good parliamentary debate on reducing reoffending. As usual, it was the Tories who said that simply scrapping the early-release scheme would solve the problem of reoffending. Annabel Goldie has reiterated that view today. The Tories' position is wrong—the bill will address the problem.
In December's debate, I admitted:
"The current figure of 55 per cent for those sentenced to between three and six months in prison is too high. The figure of 60 per cent for those who reoffend within two years is also too high."—[Official Report, 16 December 2004; c 13018.]
Jackie Baillie cited a figure of 66 per cent, but whether the reoffending rate is 60 per cent or 66 per cent, it is too high and we must tackle the problem. I think that the bill will do just that. The Executive has the policies to do something about the situation and the bill is part of the solution. It is a shame that, since last December, the Tories have offered no practical alternatives and it is disappointing that Annabel Goldie dissented from the Justice 2 Committee's stage 1 report simply because it did not advocate the scrapping of early release.
Whether someone has been in prison for three months or three years when they get out is irrelevant to reoffending; what they need is effective rehabilitation and monitoring on release. The bill represents a significant step forward in the management of offenders and seeks to focus all parts of the criminal justice system on reducing reoffending.
Stewart Stevenson said that the aim of the bill was to reduce reoffending by 2 per cent. The committee's report states:
"The Committee notes that the Executive believes that the Bill could reduce reoffending by 3% and considers this goal to be reasonable."
The member may not be aware that the Minister for Justice has written to the Justice 2 Committee to clarify that there was a small error in that statement and that 2 per cent is the correct figure. In other words, the report contains a mistake.
I accept that; I did not know that that was the case because I had not seen the minister's letter.
I can provide further clarification. It is important that we do not get caught up in the notion that the bill is the only thing that will matter when it comes to the target for reducing reoffending. As I said earlier in the debate, the target that has been set is preliminary and I would like the national advisory board to reconsider it in the future.
As the minister has said, the bill is a step forward, but we need better joint working.
The Liberal Democrats support the aims of the bill, but if we are to make a significant impact on reoffending, we must use social and economic policies to bring to bear on the lives of offenders a wider range of services, such as those that are provided by housing, health, education, employment and financial service agencies.
In closing the debate for the Liberal Democrats, I will focus on some aspects of the bill that I whole-heartedly support and which will, with hard work, reduce the high levels of reoffending in Scotland to which I have referred. As Donald Gorrie said, short sentences just do not work. Some 80 per cent of the women in Cornton Vale prison are on very short sentences. I believe that the home detention curfew scheme will offer them and many others the chance to get out early, which must be positive.
We have to admit that there are people in our prisons who should not be there. Eighty-two per cent of prison sentences are for less than six months and there is no statutory aftercare or supervision for those sentenced to less than four years. Prison is not working. Twenty per cent of people who are in prison are there for fine defaulting—that is ludicrous. Prison is a place of punishment and reformation for those who have committed the most serious of crimes.
I hope that the HDC scheme will relieve the pressure on our prisons, although I note that, to be released on the scheme, prisoners must already have served a short prison sentence. As the minister said, they must earn the right to get an HDC. Bill Butler and my colleague Jeremy Purvis outlined which prisoners will be eligible and how they will be eligible. That is clear and it must be welcomed. I would like those currently given ineffective short prison sentences to receive strong restorative sentences in conjunction with the curfews. The scheme has been shown to be a strong link between the support agencies and the Prison Service.
The bill provides for the establishment of community justice authorities, through which, as has been mentioned, councils will work together on a statutory basis to improve the consistency and quality of the service throughout local authorities. The sharing of information and implementation of best practice are also needed. Obviously, there are concerns about the CJAs but, as long as island authorities are respected in any structure, councils will have nothing to fear. As smaller authorities work together, that can only improve practice. Moreover, I suggest that there may not be a huge change in the large urban areas. Ministers will be able to ensure compliance, but I would like an assurance from the minister that that power will not be used lightly—it should be used only after serious problems have been identified and all other avenues have been exhausted.
Finally, I highlight the measures enabling the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to recover assets from criminals. Nothing deters people more from an activity than if the consequences will hit them in their pocket. That is one of the most effective punishments. If someone profits from criminal activities, they should pay the money back. That measure has been successful in England and in Northern Ireland and I look forward to seeing the recovery of millions of pounds from criminals in Scotland.
The bill offers a real chance to create a culture in our local authorities and our criminal justice system of tackling reoffending. In any system, the primary concern is for justice for the victim. That will remain the case, but true justice can be achieved by ensuring that a strong restorative sentence is put in place and that the offender is managed so that he or she does not reoffend. As Robin Harper said, the issue is all about early intervention. I support the bill and encourage members to support the motion, thereby rejecting the failed policies of the Tories and sending a strong signal of our commitment to reduce reoffending.
There has been consensus in the chamber this morning in so far as everyone wants improvements in the rate of reoffending in Scotland. However, the main proposals in the bill are not the way to achieve that objective. Changing the structure will not solve the problem. That is not just the view of the Conservatives but—crucially—the view that is shared by COSLA and others in the front line of the management of offenders, who stress—
Will the member give way?
I am precisely 37 minutes into my speech.
Seconds.
Thirty-seven seconds. If the member does not mind, I will make a little progress.
That view is shared by most people in the front line of service delivery, who stress that the emphasis should be on activity that works, rather than on putting in place a structure that is aimed at delivering that activity.
Like my colleague Annabel Goldie—
If the member does not mind, I will press on.
Like my colleague Annabel Goldie, I find it difficult to understand why the Executive is so reluctant to allow the existing criminal justice social work units to bed down. Then there could be a proper assessment of how they are working and any future plan would be devised from informed comment, which is a crucial point. Instead, the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition is railroading its way through genuine and reasonable concerns, while proclaiming that its now well-documented addiction to consultation is born out of a desire to listen.
The member will have read the evidence that the committee received from Councillor Eric Jackson from COSLA. He said:
"We are saying that the bill is a positive piece of legislation, which we broadly welcome, but it is only part of the answer."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 12 April 2005; c 1494.]
That is exactly what the minister said, and what the Executive coalition is stating.
Equally, the general thrust from the Association of Directors of Social Work was that the existing system is working well and should be given time to bed down. As always in the Parliament, there is a rush to legislate where legislation simply is not needed. This is another example of that, and people in Scotland and in my party are absolutely fed up with it. Now is the time to say that enough is enough.
In short, people in Scotland are being offered the worst of all possible worlds: on the one hand, a Government that claims to listen through consultation and then does nothing; and on the other hand, a Government that acts in a high-handed manner—as with the present bill—without bothering to listen.
On that point—
I am sorry, I really have to move on.
Section 9 of the bill states that information is to be shared among all the responsible authorities. That is not only sensible but is being achieved at present without creating the new community justice authorities, whose responsibilities will potentially conflict with those of existing organisations, and which—more important—will incur costs that would be better spent supporting real action to deliver front-line services.
Jackie Baillie and others have asked what the Conservatives would do. We would allocate sufficient resources to ensure continuity of rehabilitation programmes such as literacy and numeracy programmes, drug and alcohol programmes and debt management programmes, which start in prison and which must continue in the community to ensure the greatest chance of a successful outcome.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry; I must press on.
Confidence in the criminal justice system is being constantly eroded by the failure of a sentence to mean what it says. I am baffled that Stewart Stevenson and the Scottish National Party do not appear to have any reservations about the introduction of home detention curfews, which will merely serve to aggravate the problem with automatic early release by releasing prisoners even earlier.
The concerns about home detention curfews do not stop there. To address the point that Bill Butler made earlier, when HDCs were introduced in England, the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, made it clear that he had no plans to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. However, as we know, under the home detention curfew scheme in England, people convicted of manslaughter, actual and grievous bodily harm, assaulting a police officer, drug dealing, cruelty to children, sex offences, burglary, robbery and theft have all been released.
While being vague about the specific categories of prisoner who would be eligible for the scheme, the minister has said that sex offenders and violent offenders will not be included. She must now give a cast-iron guarantee that that will be the case. It is legitimate to ask for such a guarantee given the experience in England.
In conclusion, I very much regret that our discussion of this important subject fails to concentrate on the delivery of front-line services, which is an essential aspect of the rehabilitation process.
I begin by referring to Tricia Marwick's speech, which I thought was absolutely excellent. It brought together clearly and concisely the reasons why it is important that we put these structures in place. It is vital, in cases such as the one that she detailed, that we ensure that we have co-operation among all the bodies that members have mentioned. I would have expected the Tories, having listened to Tricia Marwick's speech, to begin to wonder whether they have made a mistake and to change their minds about their opposition to the bill. Clearly, structures play an important part.
Will the member give way?
No, not just now.
I am sure that the minister agrees that the bill in itself will not make any difference to reoffending rates; but it will put in place the structures that will allow organisations such as the SPS, local authorities and others to co-operate closely in an organised and structured fashion. That is extremely important. As Jackie Baillie said, the current situation is partly reliant on the good will of those in charge of the various bodies throughout the country. That is fine where we have willing, able and motivated individuals who go the extra mile to work together and to integrate services. However, where that is not the case, we are letting down individuals and the communities that they come from. That must change.
The creation of CJAs will mean that there are bodies that are directly responsible for ensuring that various groups work together, that a high standard of service is maintained and that all groups work together to cut reoffending. It is entirely logical that bodies that deal with offenders, such as the SPS, social work, housing, health, education, employment, family services and other support providers, should all be involved in working together to address offending behaviour. However, it seemed to me and to other committee members that the sharing of information among the various bodies was somewhat haphazard. Therefore, it is crucial that, as soon as the CJAs are set up, all participating bodies ensure that information is shared speedily and accurately across the board. Only then will CJAs have the ability to work effectively.
On balance, I support CJAs, but I have certain caveats. Margaret Mitchell's statement that the SNP unreservedly supports the proposals is not true; we have some issues with HDCs. For example, Stewart Stevenson said earlier that Jonathan Aitken was released on an HDC. That led me to change my mind on the matter; I cannot possibly support such a terrible measure. Seriously, though, unlike the Tories, I can see some merit in HDCs, but only if additional support services are either included as mandatory conditions or available as voluntary options.
There are three standard conditions of the curfew agreement that must be met: the curfew condition itself; the requirement to be of good behaviour; and the requirement not to commit an offence. There is no disagreement about the need for there to be standard conditions that apply to everyone who is released on an HDC. However, the committee felt that, if we really wanted to cut reoffending, there ought to be a package of additional support measures that address an offender's behaviour and which, like the standard conditions, are mandatory. Jeremy Purvis and Karen Whitefield both mentioned that point.
The committee heard that view expressed in evidence when, for example, Sue Brookes from Cornton Vale said that HDCs would be particularly useful for female offenders, to assist stability and allow better access to services in the community, particularly if conditions requiring access to particular services are attached. Those additional conditions would be tailored to suit the individual, as some people would clearly be helped by an additional drug rehabilitation course or a course to help them to deal with their alcohol problems, while others might require help with literacy or perhaps even employment training.
In some cases, it might be felt that there is no need for additional conditions. If that is the case, that is fine. However, each case must be dealt with on its own merits. By making the supplementary conditions mandatory in those cases where that is appropriate, HDCs would be much more effective. There is evidence to support that.
Professor McManus of the Parole Board for Scotland said that the most successful schemes that he had seen were in the United States of America. He said that those schemes
"all started off by pretending that they could work by keeping the person in a house, but every single one of them had to give in and use some form of supervision to assist the person in addressing the issues that come up in the domestic situation and those that gave rise to offending in the first place."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 3 May 2005; c 1551.]
When the minister gave evidence to the committee, she did not seem convinced about the need for additional mandatory conditions and said that it was up to individuals to take responsibility. I agree that people should take responsibility, but one of the problems with the group of people about whom we are talking is that they are the very people who do not take responsibility for their actions. That is why I believe that it is important that we include additional mandatory conditions where appropriate. Over and above the standard conditions and the use of additional mandatory conditions, support services should be available for those who are being released that they can choose to take up voluntarily.
It is rather unfortunate that the Conservatives have had a knee-jerk response to the idea of HDCs. If risk assessments are carried out, only low-risk prisoners are allowed on to the scheme and we ensure that, where it is deemed appropriate, additional mandatory conditions are added to the HDC to address an individual's offending behaviour, HDCs could be the best option for some prisoners. Further, if they help to cut reoffending, they will also be the best option for society and communities.
It is imperative that there is no public perception that HDCs are a get-out-of-jail-free card, which is how some Tory members have described them, and it is incumbent on the Executive to ensure that the use of HDCs is not seen as a soft option. Certainly, they must not be used as a quick way of cutting prisoner numbers.
What has been said about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is most welcome, although I have some concerns. Mike Pringle said that he would look forward to the millions of pounds that would come back to the public purse. I would welcome that if it happens but, frankly, some of the people about whom we are talking will not pay or cannot pay and the system might not be as successful as we hope that it might be. However, it is absolutely right that we establish the principle that the people who are responsible for offences should pay compensation if they are able to.
I welcome the fact that the Executive intends to tighten up on sex offenders. That is an important part of the bill and I was glad to hear what the minister said on the subject in her opening remarks.
Before I conclude, I apologise on behalf of Stewart Stevenson, who missed some of the closing speeches as he was called away at short notice on urgent business.
I support the general principles of the bill and feel that, although punishment must always play a part in sentencing, society benefits much more by ensuring that those who commit crime are given the opportunity to see that there is another way. Only by giving them that opportunity can we hope to address the alarming recidivism rate among offenders in Scotland. We must also remember that HDCs are not a get-out-of-jail-free card and remain a part of the sentence. The sentence is not concluded when the offender is released on an HDC; they can be recalled immediately to prison if it is felt that that should happen.
This has been a useful debate. It is interesting to note that, in the course of the Justice 2 Committee's deliberations, a consensus has developed that we cannot afford to tolerate the status quo, despite the things that the Conservatives have said. Member after member—many of them committee members—has outlined the desperate problems that Scotland has with reoffending. The rate of reoffending is unacceptable and I think that it would be a dereliction of our duty if we failed to take action.
The committee has done a thorough job in attempting to advance a considered opinion on the wide range of issues that are associated with the bill. I thank all the individuals who participated in the process, including all those associated with the committee, for their work.
This morning, we have heard some eloquent, considered, passionate and thoughtful speeches, which enhance the Parliament's ability to do its job. That is why I say, with all sincerity, that I am profoundly disappointed that the Conservatives continue not to be influenced by the quality of the speeches from around the chamber on a range of justice-related matters. I know that there are some thoughtful, intelligent and compassionate people in the Conservative party—
Name them.
Individually, when one talks to them, they reflect intelligent thoughts, but when they come to the chamber collectively, they somehow fail to rise to the occasion. They consistently diminish themselves as individuals, and they diminish their party and, I would argue, the Parliament by not rising to the challenge in the way that other members do. The type of speech that they make contributes little to the process of having a constructive debate.
I know that the minister does not intend to be patronising, as that is not his nature, but surely he accepts that, if the Parliament exists for any purpose, it is for the articulation of views that might be different from those of the Executive and for the advancement of arguments that might be opposed by the Executive and other parties. Surely the proposition that, in this Parliament, it is flawed for a party to articulate a differing view, on the basis of representations that have been made to it by the public, and, in doing so, to create the very debate without which that view would not be heard, is nonsensical. Is the minister seriously condemning that as an unacceptable mode of parliamentary behaviour?
Would that that were what is happening, but it is not. If only the Tories were able to advance some intelligent arguments against what we are proposing and to marshal some evidence and statistics that would prove their case. In many justice debates, I have heard speeches in which members have opposed what Cathy Jamieson and I have been saying but have done so in a measured and thoughtful way. Being opposed to our proposals does not mean that members have to come in and parrot two slogans in a thoughtless manner.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
The Tories are unable to back up and justify their arguments. They diminish themselves and they diminish the Parliament.
Does the minister agree that it is a bit strange that although Ted Brocklebank—a member for Mid Scotland and Fife—is as concerned as I am about the Karen Dewar case, the Conservatives cannot understand the need for a statutory obligation for the police and local authorities to work together? If Ted Brocklebank was here, I am sure that he would recognise that if there was such working together we might not be in the situation that we are in.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I must question whether it is acceptable conduct for a member to include a specific reference to a member who is not present in the chamber and so cannot rise and explain his position if required.
I am not sure that Tricia Marwick asked Ted Brocklebank to rise and explain his position, but I take your point. I advise Tricia Marwick to watch out next time she is speaking.
I do not want to go into the point in respect of the individual, but the point that Tricia Marwick touched on is critical. Margaret Mitchell asked why we should not simply allow the co-operation and flexibility that exist at present to continue. Tricia Marwick—in a measured, concise and moving speech—explained clearly why the status quo is not an option. Even if no other argument was put forward for why our proposals are right, her comments about the need for us to ensure action would suffice. We cannot allow the argument of those who say, "Give us more time and more money," or, "There need to be co-operation and flexibility."
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you.
We would be failing the public if we did not take steps to ensure that action is taken. The tragic case in Fife and the cases that have taken place in recent years in Edinburgh, Lanarkshire and Glasgow are evidence of the need for us to take action.
Will the minister give way?
Yes, certainly.
Please be brief, Mr Martin.
I have asked the minister before about a number of reviews of housing allocation in respect of registered sex offenders. I ask him, once and for all, whether we will reach a stage at which a policy is in place for all authorities in Scotland in respect of that allocation.
A number of practical steps have been put in place. In September, there will be an update of the 1999 practice note on housing sex offenders. We are progressing joint training on enhanced risk assessment of sex offenders; we are providing accredited programmes both in prison and in the community; and we are preparing guidance to embed protocols for sharing information in local practice. I hope that Paul Martin will find some reassurance in the fact that those things are being done.
We believe that the argument for action has been made. Therefore, I must agree to disagree with many friends and colleagues with whom I have worked over the years, and Cathy Jamieson is in the same position. We are not prepared to say, "Leave us alone and things will turn out all right in the end." The evidence is not there to justify that.
We will come back on a number of specific points at stage 2. Bill Butler asked for clarity on the interface between the SPS and the proposed community justice authorities. There is on-going work on that and we will provide guidance, but we will return to the matter. Jackie Baillie asked for clarification of section 2(10). This is not the time to give specific commitments, but I say to Jackie Baillie that although we will have further discussions with COSLA on the powers of direction, we will do nothing that will constrain our ability to act effectively if that is required. Some of the points about social work funding were misplaced. More money is going in than ever before. I do not have enough time to go into the other detailed arguments that were made.
The case for action and change has been made. If we take the opportunity that is afforded us, we can make changes and improvements for a difficult section of the population; Stewart Stevenson outlined some of the difficulties very well. The Executive is committed to taking action and I hope that the Parliament will support us in that process.