Penal Policy
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-498, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on penal policy.
I welcome this opportunity to engage with Parliament on the Government's vision for a modern and coherent penal policy. Our aim is to work with Parliament and all those involved in the criminal justice system to create a safer and stronger Scotland for everyone. We will make every effort to reduce crime, but, sadly, we will never eliminate it, so we must create a system that deals effectively with all offenders. Today's debate is an opportunity to reflect on the challenges that we all face and to discuss the progress that has already been made over the summer towards achieving a progressive and coherent penal policy.
The Government refuses to believe that the Scottish people are inherently bad or that there is any genetic reason why we should be locking up twice as many offenders as Ireland or Norway. Why are the people who we lock up more likely to display certain attributes than the general population and why do they tend to suffer from problems associated with drink, drugs and deprivation?
A third of those who enter prison are assessed as having an alcohol problem on admission, more than half are assessed as having a drugs problem and a worrying 70 per cent have some form of mental health problem. One study indicated that half of our prison population comes from 15 per cent of Scotland's poorest council wards.
We need to face up to some tough questions. Who are we sending to prison and why? Is prison the most effective option in all cases? What do we do with offenders to stop them reoffending?
There are also some contradictions and tensions. The public feel that crime is rising and that prison is not used enough, but in the past 10 years recorded crime has fallen by 5 per cent and the prison population has risen by 15 per cent—there are now more than 1,000 more prisoners at any one time than there were 10 years ago.
Prison is considered effective and tough and community penalties are seen as soft, but three quarters of those who are sent to prison for under six months reoffend within two years whereas only 42 per cent of those who are given community service reoffend within two years. Statistics alone cannot tell the story, but that figure clearly demonstrates that prison is not the right place for many people, despite the efforts of our prison officers.
I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but I am concerned about the way in which this debate is already going.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that it would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people in this chamber if the discretion of sheriffs and magistrates to impose sentences of six months and less were interfered with? That would be an attack on the freedom of the judiciary.
Absolutely. I can give Bill Aitken and the rest of the chamber, including Pauline McNeill, who raises that issue in her amendment, an assurance that we do not and will not seek to interfere with the discretion of the judiciary in relation to sentencing. It is for the judiciary to decide whether someone should be given a sentence and what that sentence should be. If the judiciary feels that the sentence should be one of six months or less, they will have the right to impose that sentence. However, we can say that there are good reasons in relation to punishment, cost and safety why they might care to reflect on the possibility that that would not be appropriate.
It is not necessarily tough to make somebody lie in bed all day watching TV rather than repay the community for the damage they have caused, and it is more costly to have them locked up than to have them repay the community. If it is statistically more likely that they will reoffend if they go to prison, it may be better in safety terms to seek to address the problem. I assure the member that we will not interfere with the rights of the judiciary—if they feel that a custodial sentence is appropriate, that will remain their decision.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary could clarify an issue for me and for the chamber. I am a wee bit puzzled, as the SNP manifesto said that there would be a presumption against sentences of six months or less, except in exceptional circumstances. Can he comment on that? There seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I do not believe that there is. We are giving a categoric assurance that sentencing remains with the judiciary. That is part of the separation of powers that operates in our democracy and in democracies elsewhere.
When alternative sentences are available and when it is clear that they have merit in terms of public safety, cost to the community and the opportunity to try to stop the person reoffending—the rate of recidivism is the matter of most concern—I think that they are an option that our judiciary, who I think are eminently sensible, will take cognisance of before they impose a sentence. I make it clear that sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. Some offenders must be punished: if they are serious or dangerous offenders, that should mean prison, and for a long time. The protection of the community is paramount. When knives are being used, for example, we need to demonstrate that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
The Scottish Prison Service's ability to work with serious offenders to reduce their risk is being compromised by having to deal with the churn created by a large number of short sentences.
Prison staff, who are extremely professional and dedicated, work with offenders to tackle drug use, to address health needs, to provide education, to address offending behaviour through programmes and to assist in throughcare to the community. However, those things cannot all be done at once, especially if staff are just trying to keep a lid on a difficult situation.
Prisoners serving short sentences can be assessed for their immediate needs, but education modules or offending work lasting several months cannot be done with a prisoner who is in custody for only a short period of time. At present, more than three out of every five offenders who leave jail in Scotland reoffend, so something is not working.
There are no easy answers, but it is clear that we cannot keep perpetuating the same tired debate that labels sentences as "tough" or "soft". We must focus on what works. For a minor offence, a short custodial sentence that gives the offender no opportunity to pay something back for the wrong they have done does not in our view constitute a smart sentence.
Minor offenders should have the opportunity to right their wrongs by doing something for the community. Those who need help to turn away from a life of crime should receive that help alongside an appropriate punishment. We need to use our prisons effectively, so that they can do their work appropriately.
The Scottish Government is committed to delivering a world-leading prison service run by dedicated public servants. We believe that that model will best protect the public and reduce reoffending most effectively. I take the opportunity to commend the commitment and professionalism of the Scottish Prison Service.
In August, we announced the suspension of the procurement process for the new prison on the site of HMP Low Moss. The private sector will still be invited to bid for the design and construction of the prison, but it will be operated by public sector professionals.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Not at the moment.
We also announced that a new publicly run prison for the north-east will be built in the Peterhead area, to replace the out-of-date prisons at Peterhead and Aberdeen.
If Bishopbriggs had remained in the private sector with Kilmarnock and Addiewell, just more than a quarter of Scotland's design capacity places for prisoners would have been operated by the private sector. That would have been the highest proportion in the developed world—greater than in the USA or in any other nation that pursues private prisons.
There is more to the issue than buildings and staff. We need to take a fresh and impartial look at the challenges presented by the use of prison in Scotland today. We do not believe that the previous Administration's policies intended to break all records on the prison population in the face of falling crime figures, but that is what is happening.
We support the principle of ending automatic and unconditional early release and remain committed to delivering that in our offender management strategy, but we must ensure that any change does not compound current problems and put intolerable pressures on prisons and justice services in the community.
We have therefore decided to establish an independent commission to consider the purpose and use of imprisonment in contemporary Scotland. It will report by next June.
I welcome much of what Kenny MacAskill says about the need for an independent and impartial look at the purpose of prison, but something can be said for Margaret Smith's amendment, because we need also to consider the delivery agency's remit. If that is not appropriate for the commission—if the commission is to consider other matters—will Kenny MacAskill reassure the Parliament that the Government will consider under other aspects of justice policy whether the delivery agency's remit can be expanded to cover non-custodial sentences?
Absolutely—I am happy to do that. The SPS and the community justice authorities that have been created must be given an opportunity to bed in. The worst thing that we could do would be to embark on further structural change when they need an opportunity to deliver what is necessary. It is clear that change is needed to the method of delivery. I have discussed with Patrick Harvie and Margaret Smith such aspects, which the Government is happy to consider.
I am happy to tell Parliament that one of its former First Ministers—Henry McLeish—has agreed to chair the commission. That shows our view of how important the issue is. He has the blend of skills and experience that that testing role will require.
The commission's remit will be to discuss the purpose and impact of imprisonment in contemporary Scotland and to make a report. I have set the commission the following objectives. It is to consider how imprisonment is used in Scotland and how that use fits with the Scottish Government's wider strategic objectives. It is to raise the issue's public profile and provide better information to allow a deeper understanding of the options, outcomes and costs. It is to compare the underpinning rationale with current law and practice, including the impact on courts, prisons and community justice services of the early-release provisions of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007. It will report and make recommendations by 30 June 2008.
The full membership of the commission is being finalised and will be announced soon. The commission will comprise a wide range of interests that go well beyond the criminal justice arena. In the review of community penalties that is under way and in the commission, we see all the strands that are contributing to our development of a coherent penal policy.
The subject is complex. Dostoevsky said that the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. Scotland is undoubtedly a civilised society, but perhaps it relies on prison to do too much with too many. It is simple to say that we will build more prisons, but resources are not infinite and each new prison means one fewer new hospital, school or community investment that would benefit the people of Scotland.
You must wind up now, minister.
That is why we need a coherent penal policy and why I have pleasure in moving the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that Scotland should develop a progressive penal policy which improves public safety, delivers appropriate and proportionate punishment, ensures that the interests of victims and communities are given proper consideration, contributes to reducing reoffending and encourages rehabilitation in order to build a safer and stronger Scotland; recognises that, in the case of some offenders, custody is the only appropriate disposal, and welcomes the proposal to establish an independent commission to consider the purpose and use of prison.
I welcome the debate. Penal reform is a serious issue for the country and a central concern for communities. The fact that our prison population increases daily makes penal reform a necessary focus for the Government.
I have no doubt that reducing the prison population is a feature of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's day-to-day work. The motion in Kenny MacAskill's name is good for debate, but it does not reflect the SNP's policy position on sentencing, which I read as being to expose communities by moving away from short-term spells of custody to wholesale community sentencing. That was the SNP's manifesto pledge. It is simplistic and it fails to address the public's concerns. That policy would tie the judiciary's hands and could become a charter for people who know their way around the system. Kenny MacAskill referred to tired labels, but those are the issues that concern the public.
The amendment in my name notes the establishment of the independent commission to examine the purpose and use of prison—we await the detail with interest—but that seemingly inoffensive statement must be cross-referenced with what the SNP has said about justice. The SNP has proposed to move away from short-term sentences in favour of tough community-based punishments and the presumption that anyone who is given a sentence of six months or less will not go to jail in the first instance. That is a serious mistake, and Labour cannot support that approach.
Cost is not the central issue. We will not support a policy that we believe will seriously undermine public confidence in the judicial system. We know from previous debates that most offenders serve a sentence of six months or less. Sending this signal will empty our prisons. This administrative fix to justice will set back public confidence for centuries.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Six-month sentences are not for fine defaulters; they are for housebreakers, repeat bail jumpers, firearms offenders and many other persistent offenders. Abolishing short-term sentences would do away with the courts' ability to send a message to offenders. What about a second-time drunk driver who is not a career criminal but who has ignored previous warnings? Removing a judge's ability to give a short custodial sentence if they feel that that is appropriate would take away an essential and effective tool whereby our courts can send the message to society at large that certain behaviour will not be tolerated.
In response to Bill Aitken's question, I gave the assurance that that option is not being taken away from the judiciary. My colleagues and I give the assurance that we are not taking that right away. The member suggests that our prisons will be emptied by a reduction in the number of sentences of less than six months, but the statistical information that has been given to me is that, in any snapshot on any day, 70 per cent of prisoners in Scotland are likely to be serving a sentence of more than six months.
I will come to that point.
The problem with the cabinet secretary's assurance today is that it completely contradicts what the SNP said in its policy manifesto. I will listen with interest to the minister's reversal on that position, but he will have to admit that it is a reversal of policy.
What message does the Government's approach send to those who would carry weapons—an issue on which we have just passed legislation? Any signal that we would adopt such a policy would severely damage the purpose of sentencing. There are too many cases in which the offender is already out in the community when we sentence them to a community sentence. The Government must realise that there are problems in the community sentencing system. The best chance of making an impact on an individual who is to be sentenced is when they feel the impact of the court sentence without delay. At the moment, there are too many delays in the issuing of community service orders, which makes them not look like a tough sentence.
Let me be clear. I will work constructively with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on the issue, but I will not let the SNP Administration undermine Labour's record on standing up for victims. We need to learn the lessons of other jurisdictions that have similar problems.
The cabinet secretary is right to caution us about what would happen in our prisons if we abolished short-term sentences. For example, in Western Australia, the removal of sentences of three months or less led to longer sentences being given. Labour wants more offenders to serve their sentences in the community, but we believe that there should be robust, credible alternatives to custody in which everyone has confidence. We do not believe that it should be the other way round. Sending the signal to offenders that they will not go to jail in the first instance would be a serious mistake.
I call on the cabinet secretary to recognise that Labour's programme for government in every year since 1999 put justice at the heart of our policy. I ask him to build on our reforms, and I urge him to continue the work that we did in bringing honesty to sentencing. The provision that requires judges to explain in court why they made their decisions will remove some of the cynicism that exists among the public. The establishment of drug treatment and testing orders and specialised drug courts, the establishment of the 218 centre for women offenders and the establishment of domestic abuse courts are just some of the things that have helped to reform our criminal justice system for the better. Also, the youth court pilot schemes have shown that quicker justice impacts on youth offending. There is a strong case for rolling out that initiative to other parts of the country.
Labour today calls for the rolling out of another centre for women offenders on the same model. I am sure that the cabinet secretary agrees that too many women are jailed and that there are too few alternatives to custody. Furthermore, Paul Martin and I would like to ask the minister for a meeting to discuss the possibility of a similar centre for young men with addiction problems.
Rehabilitation and the desire to set policies that might reduce offending will be mentioned by many members this afternoon; I want to talk about the Justice 1 Committee's report on rehabilitation in prisons. Long-term sentences present a challenge to prisoners, but some constructive things can be done in the medium and short term. Rehabilitation can play an important role in turning around a pattern of behaviour before offending becomes serious. Dr Nancy Loucks, an independent criminologist, gave evidence to the Justice 1 Committee that the Prison Service should have a policy of integrating even offenders on short-term sentences. We know that there is no magic fix. The Justice 1 Committee report also points out that whatever sentence an offender is serving, the system must give that person their best chance to reform their life and deal with their problems.
The creation of the criminal justice authorities under the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration was a serious measure to bring joined-up thinking into the system and force the various services involved into working together for the benefit of the offender. There is no doubt that prison is a brutal and isolating experience for those who come into contact with it. It is simplistic to suggest, as the SNP manifesto does, that prison is just a place for offenders who present a serious danger and for serious offenders. It is extremely dangerous to found the proposed commission on that point. The public expect prisons to be a deterrent, however short the sentence might be. I hope that the proposed commission will consider that.
During question time, Johann Lamont reminded us of the need to roll out domestic abuse courts.
We are all concerned about conditions in prison and we will work with the cabinet secretary on such important issues. The plan for two new prisons is a huge step forward. The cabinet secretary must be clear in his thinking about the funding mechanism he will use to fund the new prisons at Low Moss and Peterhead. I call on the cabinet secretary to record his position on that.
As HM chief inspector of prisons for Scotland has pointed out,
"Prisoners are overwhelmingly young, overwhelmingly male and overwhelmingly poor … Compared with the population as a whole".
Unfortunately, prisons reflect many of our social challenges.
Labour's message this afternoon is that there are limits to what we will support, but I assure the cabinet secretary that I will work with him constructively on those things that we agree with.
I move amendment S3M-498.1, to leave out from "and welcomes" to end and insert:
"notes the proposal to establish an independent commission to consider the purpose and the use of prison; opposes any proposal to remove the availability to sheriffs and judges of short-term sentences, including sentences of six months or less, but supports the continuation of community sentences and other alternatives to custody."
I welcome this further chance to debate justice issues, which comes so soon after the debate on reoffending. The future direction of the Prison Service is vital to the reduction of crime because it is one of the places where rehabilitation work is done to stop people reoffending.
Sadly, as the minister said, at the moment, 60 per cent of those who enter prison will reoffend within two years. However, of those who do community service, only 42 per cent will reoffend within two years. As Pauline McNeill has just said, prison is a dreadful place to be; it was the most awful place I visited when I was a justice of the peace. It is clearly not a place where most people want to be. Making more use of tough and better-resourced community sentences would bring down the figures for reoffending. Although prison might work in some way as a punishment, it certainly does not work when it comes to ensuring that criminals do not reoffend.
It is accepted that short prison sentences do little to reduce reoffending. Many prisoners are fine defaulters who have no place in prison. Many of the women who are in Cornton Vale are there for defaulting on fines; I argue that that is no place for them. Short sentences mean that prisoners have no opportunity to enter rehabilitation programmes.
Does the member know how many women are in Cornton Vale for fine default, as of Tuesday this week?
I do not have that figure, but I suspect that it is not huge. However, if one woman is in prison for fine default, that is one too many.
We have lodged our amendment because the Liberal Democrats want a prison and rehabilitation service that deals with serious offenders in prison and with less serious offenders through tough community sentences. The SNP motion does not give us any specifics.
The Administration has been in office for four months. There have been some announcements, but we do not know all the SNP's policies on the issue. I welcome the minister's announcement of an independent commission. The SNP seems determined to give Mr McLeish a number of jobs.
Will the SNP give a commitment to implement the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, which it supported? I know how fond the SNP is of doing things without primary legislation—this is a perfect opportunity for it to replace the discredited system of automatic early release with a custodial and community element in all sentences of 15 days or more. Will it also increase prison sentences for knife crimes—a measure that all members want to be implemented?
Will the SNP tackle the size of the prison population, as it promised? It committed £35 million in savings from the prison estate to rehabilitation and community justice. We support that measure, but what sort of reduction in prison numbers will it yield? Does the SNP have any targets? If so, are those targets aspirational? Why has the SNP not mentioned in its motion reducing prison numbers?
What about Labour? How things have changed. Duncan McNeil claims that our policies for rehabilitation and reducing offending are "right-on nonsense", but Cathy Jamieson states that
"prison is not the best option for less serious offenders who stand a better chance of getting their lives back on track through community sentences."
What is it to be? I encourage all Labour members to side with Cathy Jamieson and to vote for our amendment, which is the natural outworking of that view.
What can we say about the Conservatives? Today they have not even lodged an amendment, but what they really want is to build another prison. Their manifesto tells us that we do not imprison enough people. Their three-strikes-and-you're-out approach would do nothing to improve prison rehabilitation and to reduce reoffending.
What strategies to reduce reoffending do we want to be implemented? We want to replace very short-term prison sentences of under three months with tough community sentences.
The member has referred twice to tough community sentences. Can he give me an example of tough community sentencing in his region?
Drug treatment and testing orders, supervised attendance orders and restriction of liberty orders are three examples of such sentences. They could be toughened up, as they are not used as often or as strongly as they should be. Clearly, there should be tough penalties for people who breach such orders.
We want dual sentencing to be implemented. Offenders should serve the community part of their sentence after completing the custodial part. Just before this session, I spoke to Andrew McLellan, who suggested weekend prisons. I suggest to Pauline McNeill that the Parliament and the SNP may want to consider removing at the weekend the rights of those who commit driving or similar offences.
We should support schemes that work, such as the community justice authorities. All agencies must work with CJAs to tackle reoffending and to ensure that prison numbers are reduced. Many people will not see that as tough enough, but I urge the Government to focus on schemes that reduce reoffending and punish criminals proportionately. Let our prisons carry on their work of punishing serious offenders and ensuring that they do not reoffend. Our communities will be safer, crime rates will fall and prisons will have fewer people in them. I am delighted that the SNP has gone some way along that path and encourage all members to support our amendment.
I move amendment S3M-498.2, to insert at end:
"believes that any commission should consider as a matter of urgency replacing the Scottish Prison Service with a dedicated Custody and Rehabilitation Service, introducing dual sentencing, rolling out community link centres on a statutory basis to co-ordinate rehabilitation and exploring new strategies to give offenders skills for work, backed by challenging targets for the number of new prisoners leaving custody with nationally accredited qualifications."
All of us are unhappy about the level of our prison population. Anyone who thinks that there is an easy solution to the problem is being at best naive and, more likely, dishonest. There are no easy answers, but there must be a clear understanding that penal and sentencing policy must be governed by only one thing: public safety. Any review that is carried out must not be an excuse to empty the prisons.
I am encouraged by the cabinet secretary's comments on short-term prison sentences, because I believe that the majority of members will find any interference with judicial discretion unacceptable.
I wish to suggest some constructive solutions to this problem. The fact is that many people are sent to prison simply because sentencers do not have any confidence in the available community disposals. Fines are not paid; community service is not carried out; and home detention orders and tagging are treated with contempt. That is no longer unacceptable. If we add to that the extent to which probation orders are being breached, we face a very real problem.
Indeed, worrying statistics illustrate the complete and blatant disregard shown by those who have been given community sentences. For example, in 36 per cent of community service orders, the work was not completed. This might be apocryphal, but social work departments regard 50 per cent compliance as acceptable. If that is the case, it is clear that community service orders are not biting.
Does the member agree that the outcome is what is important? Surely what really matters is the fact that the reoffending rate for those in prison is 75 per cent, while the rate for those who have done community service is 42 per cent.
Mr Neil can bandy statistics about, but the reoffending rate for those who have been given community service as a direct alternative to custody is terrifyingly high. Moreover, that figure does not take into account the number of offences that many commit while serving community service orders. Another genuinely worrying statistic is that 3,375 breach applications have been made to the court on the 8,402 probation orders that have been served this year.
I have been raising the issue of fines in this chamber for what seems like a long and weary time. I agree with the Liberal Democrats that if one person has been put in prison for non-payment of a fine, it is one too many. However, the obvious answer is not to set up an agency to collect money, as was provided for under the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007, but to deduct fines at source from salaries and benefits. By cutting out the middleman, we can ensure that no one will go to jail over an unpaid fine. If a person's offence merited prison, such a sentence should have been imposed at the time; if the court did not do so then, that person should not be jailed now.
Is the member saying that the Conservatives are against all community disposals?
Absolutely not. All I am saying is that any community disposal that is imposed by the courts must be realistic and tough. Members will have heard me say this before, but I believe that we should follow the practice of the community courts in New York, where community service is instant, visible and, to some extent, physically arduous if the person is fit to carry out such work. Our communities and sentencers would have much more confidence in the system than they do at the moment. They say that it is soft—and it is.
The previous Administration was right to introduce drug treatment and testing orders and there has been some progress in that respect. I realise that, yet again, I am preaching to the converted, but the intensive nature of the drugs court system has been of some benefit. Perhaps we need to roll out that system more comprehensively.
As for the question of the number of women in prison, when Cathie Craigie, Margaret Smith, Nigel Don and I visited Cornton Vale prison the other day, we were impressed with what we saw. There was a view that a number of the women whom we saw should not be in prison, but it is not easy to think of an alternative solution that would ensure their safety, apart from anything else. They could self-harm or harm the rest of society.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am in my final minute.
The answer is to toughen up community disposals and to make them visible and realistic. That way, the confidence of sentencers will be gained and there will be a reduction in prison sentences. Until the Government does that in a determined and focused manner, it will be wasting its time and in the years ahead we will face the same situation and have the same sterile debates that we have had in the past.
We move to the open debate. Speeches should be of six minutes.
I echo Bill Aitken's comments about our visit to Cornton Vale. I put on record the appreciation of all the members who went on the visit for the time and effort that the staff put in to show us round and to educate us considerably.
As a regional MSP for North East Scotland, I welcome the investment in a new Peterhead prison, which not only reflects the good work that is done by the staff in Peterhead and Aberdeen but has been widely welcomed by folk in the Scottish Prison Service. That is an extremely important point.
Before I get on to the substance of my speech, which is the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, I will pick up on an aspect of Pauline McNeill's speech, in which she seemed to talk about knife crime and six-month sentences at the same time. I hope that those two do not go together because, in my view, the only people who are qualified to use a knife are surgeons and that is not what we are talking about. I would like those people who carry knives and, in particular, those who use them not to be looking at anything resembling a six-month sentence.
I turn to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, which was introduced by the previous Executive. Over the summer, I took the opportunity to do some qualitative research on the issue. I am grateful to those local authority officers who responded to my inquiries. I will pass on to members some of their general observations about how the act has been working, many of which were highly encouraging.
I must be specific because time is against me. We need to encourage sheriffs, in particular, to make use of exclusion orders. Under the act, an antisocial behaviour order can, in effect, be a prohibition of almost anything. Local authorities and police warmly welcomed sheriffs preventing people from going to particular places in their communities where they would cause trouble. The fact that they could not go to those places meant that trouble did not happen.
Another issue that I want to raise is the youth justice system. I will quote from the Audit Scotland report "Dealing with offending by young people", which came out in August, because it deals with a matter of wide concern. It says:
"We found that the introduction of ASBOs for 12 to 15-year-olds has created tensions with approaches to dealing with offending by young people through the children's hearings system. Most councils have found it difficult, both strategically and operationally, to overcome the differences between the child-centred focus of youth justice under the children's hearings system and the community-focused design of the antisocial behaviour legislation. In essence, there is a tension between the approach which underpins the children's hearings system (and places the young person who has offended at the centre of the decision-making process) and the ASBO/community safety approach (which may place greater emphasis on the needs of the community within which the offending behaviour has taken place)."
There is a widespread feeling that that tension, which some have described as a philosophical problem, is a significant issue. It needs to be addressed because I am not convinced that social work departments know how to handle it.
I rush on to what are known in the trade as CRASBOs, which are ASBOs that are imposed—under section 120, I think, of the 2004 act—after someone has been found guilty of an offence. When they have been used, they have been widely welcomed across the judicial process, but I note that only 40 criminal ASBOs were issued in 2005-06—the only period for which we have figures—and that 24 of those were issued in the Scottish Borders. That suggests that in one or two places sheriffs have got their minds around CRASBOs but—more important for this debate—in most places, they have not. I think that CRASBOs have been well received where they have been made to work, but we must encourage sheriffs elsewhere to use them and the Government to use its good offices to make that happen.
I have two other thoughts to share. First, I understand that there was a lot of discussion about whether the proposals on graffiti in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill should cover flyposting. Obviously, I was not a member at the time, but I understand that, after debate, flyposting was removed. However, local authority officers think that that was a mistake. I appreciate that there are legal issues relating to who is responsible for flyposting, but the outside world would be grateful if we got the legislation to cover it.
My final thought is on funding, on which the process depends. A great deal of local authority staff who work on antisocial behaviour receive short-term funding. In such circumstances, those who can see the end of the line coming and are capable of getting out are the first to do so. It is important to maintain rolling funding and to ensure as soon as possible that it is seen that funding will continue.
I want to concentrate on Inverness prison, which was last inspected in October 2004. The inspection report clearly described the strengths and weaknesses of the conditions there. I should say first that my colleague Maureen Macmillan was one of the leading voices in the previous session in support of better facilities at Inverness prison and it would be wrong of me to speak without paying tribute to her work.
The inspection report highlighted the problem of overcrowding in Inverness prison. A written answer from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service made it clear that the prison was designed to have a capacity of 104 people, but it is contracted to provide 150 prisoner places. Of course, that does not represent the full story. The other week, the Inverness Courier, which is to be congratulated on highlighting the problems that are caused by overcrowding, reported that the prison is operating at more than 50 per cent over capacity. It reported that three inmates were sharing a cell that was designed for one person and that, during one week in August, 170 prisoners were held at the prison. Will the minister say how many prisoners are being held there now? There is no doubt that such overcrowding puts serious pressure on prison officers, who are trying to manage prisoners in a building that is not fit for purpose.
The follow-up report in 2005 showed that some progress had been made. Toilets in segregation cells and recreational facilities had been provided, and there was better support for people with drug addictions and better access to work and gym facilities for vulnerable prisoners. However, the issue of overcrowding still needs to be addressed.
The previous Government sought to do several things. It planned to build new prisons and brought forward new systems of community justice for those who did not pose a risk to the public. What has the new Government done? One day, it announced the retendering of the new prison at Bishopbriggs; the next, it announced replacement prisons for Aberdeen and Peterhead. However, it ignored the problems at Inverness. I am disappointed that it has not included Inverness prison as a priority, particularly in the light of what the SNP said in opposition. After the initial inspection report back in 2004, the SNP's then justice spokesman, Stewart Stevenson, demanded that the previous Government
"bring forward … capital spending plans for the next round of prison upgrades as soon as possible."
Do the Government's announcements on Bishopbriggs, Aberdeen and Peterhead represent its strategy on prisons, or does it propose to continue with its piecemeal approach? I urge it to bring forward a considered strategy for the whole prisons estate. I had hoped that the debate would have provided an opportunity for it to do that but, unfortunately, it has left us wondering how we will tackle the problems at Inverness and elsewhere.
In the Inverness Courier article that I mentioned, the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing, highlighted what he described as a "conveyor belt"—he spoke of spending vast sums of taxpayers' money on offenders while reoffending rates for those who had been released from prison are getting worse. I am all for improving rehabilitation and community sentences, but sentencing is not in the gift of politicians, nor should it be. The judiciary has to be convinced of the benefit of community sentences; it is the Government's duty to ensure that robust community sentences are available. I urge the Government to take seriously some of the points that Pauline McNeill made and to meet her to discuss how we roll those out.
Instead, the Government proposes an across-the-board solution that means that anyone with a six-month sentence will not go to prison. There is no mention of rehabilitation or a robust community sentence to follow. The Government will have no credibility if its only response is to blame the previous Government for the problems at Inverness prison. The SNP made statements when it was in opposition—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not. The SNP led voters to believe that it would take action when action was required, but nothing is forthcoming from that party in government. It has missed the opportunity to publish its strategies on Inverness and nothing is being done to address the problem.
I suggest that the Government looks at the situation as a matter of urgency. We need a new prison in Inverness; we also need a new courthouse. A new build for both the prison and courthouse could ensure that they were situated close together, which would cut down problems of prisoner transportation. It would also free up the Inverness courthouse, which is in the castle, to become a visitor attraction.
I ask the minister to make a clear statement about how he will address those concerns in an overall review of the prisons estate. Will the Government fund improvements at Inverness prison on the existing site, or will it build a new facility incorporating a court? When will the Government put its proposals out to consultation to allow the local community in Inverness to play its part in influencing those decisions? How will the Government improve community sentencing to ensure that it is robust and provide rehabilitation? I look forward to the minister's response.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on the way in which he has rolled out his strategy for dealing with such a serious policy area over the past two or three months. I welcome in particular the announcement that the replacement for Low Moss prison will not be a privatised prison like Kilmarnock, but will be run as part of the public sector prison system. My experience of Kilmarnock is that we cannot reconcile profiteering with community safety. I also welcome the establishment of the independent commission on the penal system and the role of prisons, and I welcome the appointment of the former First Minister, Henry McLeish, who is ideally placed to lead the review.
In the five minutes available to me this afternoon, I will concentrate on two areas that it would benefit the commission to research and consider in great detail, building on the excellent report of the Justice 1 Committee in the previous parliamentary session.
As a non-expert in the policy area, I am struck that the people who go through the penal system consistently share three major characteristics. As Pauline McNeill mentioned, the vast bulk of the people in the system tend to be young males between 16 and 30. The second major characteristic is that a drink or drugs problem is involved. The third is that such people come, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, from one of the small number of postcode areas that have the worst poverty and deprivation in Scotland.
Does the member recognise that some of those people might also have an undiagnosed learning disability?
I accept that mental health problems are also involved. They are often related to the drink and drugs problems.
I hope that the commission's remit will be wide enough to consider what can be done in the communities in those postcode areas to help, in particular, young men with drink, drugs or other problems that might lead them naturally into a life of crime. We can also build on a number of current initiatives that are being undertaken in a way that is spasmodic, unfocused and lacking in strategic direction.
I draw the chamber's attention to research that the Justice 1 Committee undertook into the social crime prevention strategy model that is followed in the Nordic countries. Under that model, resources for education, drug treatment and rehabilitation services are concentrated on areas with a heavy concentration of budding criminals in order to tackle deep-rooted problems such as the consequences of learning difficulties.
I commend the work of organisations such as the Prince's Trust Scotland in that regard. I also draw attention to Working Rite, an organisation that has been going for only three or four years, but which now plays a major role in stopping young men in particular from getting into trouble by placing them with a tradesman on a one-to-one basis. Working Rite has an 80 per cent success rate in Leith, Govan and Perth, where it operates at present. Rolling out that kind of programme into areas of greatest need would pay enormous dividends.
Will the member give way?
Unfortunately, I do not have time to do so.
We must never forget that a place in a young offenders institution costs £30,000 a year. Under the Working Rite programme, young men get £100 a week for six months. On completion of the programme, 80 per cent end up in a full-time job or training and go on to have a normal non-criminal life. The Working Rite programme is not only a much cheaper option but a more humane one. Instead of dealing with the symptoms of the problem, the programme gets to the root causes. I hope that the commission will consider what can be done for such young people before they get into trouble.
At present, the return to the community of long-term prisoners is not planned until a few months before they are due to leave prison. We need to start planning for return almost from the first month of sentence. From day one, services such as education, mental health support and drug treatment could be brought together to prepare the prisoner for the day that they leave prison, get a house, find a job and all the rest of it. If we were to put resources into that area, it would pay back and bring enormous benefits by further reducing reoffending rates among those who have served time in prison.
I hope that the new commission will examine all those issues in detail.
I speak in support of the Labour amendment, but I will contain my remarks to trying to persuade the justice minister to think again about extending specialist domestic violence courts to the whole of Scotland.
My colleague Johann Lamont raised the matter at First Minister's question time today. The First Minister said that the justice minister would make an announcement in "the next few days" and that Johann Lamont would not be disappointed by what he would have to say.
Indeed, an answer that Mr MacAskill gave yesterday to parliamentary questions—again, from Johann Lamont—gave us a flavour of his announcement. In the answer, he set out how the minority Scottish Government intends to deal with domestic abuse. Clearly, there is consensus on the issue: I believe that no member of the Scottish Parliament thinks that domestic abuse is not a serious crime and that it should not be treated as such.
I commend Mr MacAskill for repeating that the Scottish Government's attitude to domestic abuse is one of zero tolerance, but let me put things in context. The previous Labour-led Executive introduced the specialist domestic abuse court that covers Strathclyde Police's G division area. The court sits daily from 10 am to 2 pm and deals only with domestic abuse cases that are perpetrated by men or women against men or women. It covers all stages of the court process from first appearance to trial and disposal. Other services are involved in the pilot to provide assistance to victims. In addition, there is a dedicated procurator fiscal, with four dedicated sheriffs—so that they can acquire greater knowledge of what is involved. The social work service plays a role, and the excellent new assist service provides support to the victims of domestic violence after the event.
The aims of the pilot domestic abuse court were set out in an evaluation that was published earlier this year. They included:
"Increase effectiveness and efficiency in dealing with cases of domestic abuse.
Increase victims' and witnesses' participation in cases.
Increase victims' and witnesses' satisfaction with the criminal justice system."
The evaluation says:
"Overall, it was clear that the pilot made a number of improvements to the process / practice for dealing with domestic abuse and there was a high level of satisfaction with the criminal justice response … The criminal justice response was seen to have been effective, and had many benefits compared to traditional courts".
The evaluation continues in detail, mentioning
"a higher proportion of cases in which there was a guilty plea … a higher proportion of guilty pleas at the first appearance … a higher proportion of pleas changed to guilty at or before the intermediate diet".
Overall, the pilot was viewed as a great success.
The benefits of the pilot were also recognised by the minister in yesterday's written answer to Johann Lamont's questions. He stated:
"The court has clearly brought benefits to victims and families."
However, his answer went on to say:
"Yet the research does not recommend replication of the pilot model across Scotland: it proposes that local solutions should be developed to meet local needs … I do not expect to see specialist domestic abuse courts in all parts of the country."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 19 September 2007; S3W-3782-84.]
That is a pity. I ask Mr MacAskill to reconsider. Page 5 of the evaluation clearly states:
"Overall, there was overwhelming support for a specialist court approach to domestic abuse amongst participants of all types, a high level of support for the pilot project to be rolled out across Glasgow and for the roll-out of a specialist court approach to tackling domestic abuse in the rest of Scotland."
The justice secretary has commendably extended the financial backing to enable the Glasgow pilot to continue until March next year. He has also set up a working group—I am not sure whether Henry McLeish is chairing it—to tell him, by January, how the minority Scottish Government can best support a domestic abuse court that serves the whole of Glasgow. Domestic abuse does not just happen in Glasgow, however. Sadly, it occurs all over Scotland.
As the member correctly says, we are seeking to extend the pilot to the whole of Glasgow. Glasgow sheriff court is the busiest criminal court in western Europe. Does the member realistically believe that what is suitable and necessary in Glasgow would work in Lochmaddy? I have had the privilege of attending Lochmaddy sheriff court, and I must say that what works in Glasgow will not necessarily work in Lochmaddy, just as what is needed in Lochmaddy will not necessarily be appropriate for Glasgow. Surely what we need is an approach that works on the ground, not a court that, given the size and specific problems of Glasgow, might not be capable of replication in jurisdictions such as Lochmaddy.
I hope that the minister is not suggesting that there is no domestic abuse in Lochmaddy. I know that he does not like comparisons with the rest of the United Kingdom, but there are, I think, 64 domestic abuse courts in England and Wales, and some of them are in rural areas—like Lochmaddy.
As I said, the minister has set up a working group to tell him, by January, how the Government can best support a domestic abuse court that serves the whole of Glasgow. I want the successful lessons that have been learned in Glasgow to help roll out domestic abuse courts across the country. How will the minister enforce his zero-tolerance approach—even in Lochmaddy—if it is left to sheriffs principal or criminal justice boards in different parts of the country to set their own standards? The standard has been set—the pilot project is a success, as the minister himself acknowledges. I urge him to get his working group not just to consider broadening the domestic abuse court to cover the whole of Glasgow but to report on how such courts might be rolled out across Scotland. In particular, the Government should consider how to extend the assist service to all victims of domestic violence throughout Scotland.
I understand why the minister says that he wants to develop a cost-effective, sustainable model. That is a worthy aim, and I am sure that our party would support it. However, I take it from his comment that he is worried about cost and that he wants to find out whether it is true that domestic abuse courts, with their specialist support staff, are more expensive.
The minister said in his speech that we should focus on what works. Domestic abuse courts work, and I urge him to extend them across Scotland.
There is an adage in business that perception is the truth, even if it is not the reality. The Labour Party will probably embrace that as a way of rationalising its defeat in May. It is certainly true of the events of the past week during which we have seen the first run on a UK bank in 140 years. The perception that savings were at risk was what mattered, not the reality that they were secure.
However, with penal policy in Scotland we have a rare beast, where the perception is both the truth and the reality. There is a complete loss of confidence in the integrity of sentencing and the use and effectiveness of community service orders, and a prevailing sense of chaos surrounds the implementation and management of almost all other supervised sentences.
I have said before that the new Administration is in an enviable position, because it has no record to defend. What it does now in Government will create the record on which it will be judged. However, that is not the case in relation to penal policy, because although the SNP was not in power over the past eight years, it certainly offered little opposition; rather, it marched to the same failed, prison-release drum beat. That impression is reinforced by the announcement that the man who was presider-in-chief over that failed policy is to chair the prisons commission.
In this chamber there is an arc of responsibility for the collapse of public confidence; it starts opposite me on the Labour seats, sweeps right round and, naturally, stops right here, at the Conservative seats. Time and again, the Scottish Conservatives have brought key issues before the Parliament only to find that, despite all the heart-felt expressions of concern for victims, the votes stacked up against victims and in favour of those who committed the crimes.
Although I understand the sentiments behind the motion, the fact is that the situation is being considered not from a position of strength but from a position of weakness. The Scottish Conservatives do not oppose community sentences, but we oppose sentences whose principal motivation is to avoid the need to build a new prison, to reduce the prison population per se or to reduce the cost. The public's perception is that the system is designed to disguise the extent of the problem. We have a state driven to devalue the tariff because of the scale of the problem underpinning it.
It is a case of apocalypse now with Jackson Carlaw. Does he think that rehabilitation is at all possible? He seems to be arguing the contrary.
I was making the point that the Labour Party and others have been in denial about the need to have tough, effective prison sentences.
I want principally to discuss rehabilitation. What do we do to address that issue? As an employer for more than 25 years in the motor industry, which involves many disciplines and employs people with all levels of skills and ability, I believe that it was part of our duty to offer employment, when appropriate, to those who had served their sentence. That typically included young males aged 16 to 30, to whom Alex Neil referred, many of whom had demonstrated a fascination with cars. Crucial to our approach was our belief that those whom we were considering had paid their penalty and were willing themselves to seize a better future. It was not always easy and we did not always pick winners. At one time, we employed the late Arthur Thompson Jr; there are some tales about that that I have yet to read in any book and would still be reluctant to discuss. Generally, there were issues of anonymity, and colleagues had some legitimate concerns, but we had our successes too.
If our system is to work, employers throughout Scotland must accept their responsibility to bring those who have served their sentence back into the workforce. However, that is barely mentioned as a priority in our penal policy. How many proactive initiatives have there been to reassure, encourage or incentivise employers? I did not see one in 25 years as an employer in a business that operated throughout central Scotland and employed several hundred people.
I acknowledge the role of the Prince's Trust and the other organisations that Alex Neil identified, but we need a bolder vision of working with employers to reduce reoffending. But—here is the but—for rehabilitation to work, everyone must have confidence in what has gone before, not just the public and potential future employers but those caught and sentenced. If they believe that for most crimes they will be out and about within a football season, they will think, "Why bother?" The reoffending rates prove that point.
If we are to make our penal policy progressive, we must act from a position of strength. That is why early release and the new early-release-by-another-name scheme are wrong. We must be prepared to build an additional prison. If the public and the criminal have confidence about the certainty of the outcome, and the sentence is custodial, yet measured, and served, the public need for protection and justice will be met. If we act from that position of strength, the prospect of genuine, employed rehabilitation will be more credible in the minds of those seeking their release.
There is one other link in the chain. We now know that the previous Administration starved Scottish police of funding on any comparable basis with England. Some advantage has been made of a moment of candour in my maiden speech, when I queried why the Conservatives had arrived at a figure of 1,500 for the number of extra police officers needed, while the SNP had promised 1,000. I went on to answer my question, citing consultation, but I said that, with such common ground between the two parties, the key was that we needed to get on with it. Since then, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has referred to strategies being worked up. In my day, we put an advertisement in the paper. How difficult is it? I tell the cabinet secretary to get on with it.
I believe that everyone in the chamber knows of people who are in prison but should not be there. If the SNP is allowed to implement its penal policy, it will let dangerous criminals off too lightly—more lightly than communities expect. Ending six-month sentences will tie the hands of our judiciary and give government direction to our courts. Ultimately, that will let dangerous criminals walk from court. Pauline McNeill and Bill Aitken have already highlighted the importance of people leaving court having seen justice done and knowing that justice was done.
The figures that I obtained from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice this week show that 623 fine defaulters are imprisoned in Scotland—623 people in 623 cases in which a court found that a custodial sentence was not necessary. Are those people, for whatever reason, thumbing their nose at the justice system, or have they ended up in prison because of their inability to pay? I do not know the answer, but although I believe that fine defaulters should be compelled to pay their fines and given community sentences rather than prison sentences, we should be aware that the six-month sentences that the SNP proposes to cut are not just for those who do not pay their fines. They are also for class A drug pushers. The SNP will let those who blight communities in my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, and who destroy young lives, walk from court. The cut will also affect those imprisoned for firearms offences. In truth, they could be given six-month sentences, and in truth the SNP is a soft touch for the perpetrators of the violence that scars too many areas in Scotland.
I appreciate the point about firearms that the member is genuflecting towards. On that basis, perhaps she will support the Government's desire to take measures against the use of firearms, particularly air weapons, and our call for the powers on that matter to be repatriated, as it is clear that nothing adequate is being done south of the border and it is about time that we took powers and took action in the Parliament.
I get the minister's point but, unfortunately, people who use firearms do not recognise borders. The issue is rightly one on which we should work with the UK Government.
In my opinion, the SNP is most certainly a soft touch for people who are violent in our community. The SNP manifesto states that one of its prime objectives is to reduce the size of the prison population. However, penal policy should not be about massaging prison numbers by ending six-month sentences; it should be about ensuring that sentences fit the crime and that people who are a danger to our community and to society are removed.
I draw the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's attention to those who find themselves in the criminal justice system and in prison not because they are criminals, but because they have serious mental health problems—I am sorry that he spent so little of his time speaking about that. From my experience and from information that has been provided by people who work in the Prison Service and for mental health organisations, I know that too many people are in prison who should not be there, but who should be supported in the community or in a national health service facility. People with serious mental health problems are living in conditions that are not conducive to addressing or treating their problems and people with learning difficulties are living in an environment that they do not understand and where they receive little support to improve their life chances. Bill Aitken, the convener of the Justice Committee, mentioned a visit that the committee made earlier this week. I am sorry to say that, on that visit, we met many people with those conditions.
I want to quote from Sacro's manifesto, which says that prison is damaging for people with such conditions, and that we need new approaches. The quote is from a woman called Sarah.
"The courts should not send people like me to prison. I see the same faces coming and going here all the time. Prison is not the right place for people with mental health problems."
Sarah has found herself going in and out of Cornton Vale since she was 17. If people saw what I saw on Monday and knew what that young woman was going through, they would agree with her.
Some people are remanded in custody not because they have committed a serious crime but because they have mental health problems. They are usually arrested for a minor crime under the heading of breach of the peace, and are picked up by the police for their own protection or for the protection of a family member. Those people should be receiving medical help and most likely should be sectioned for their own good. However, such people are regularly being dealt with by the court system. Fiscals do not want them to go to prison, but when the courts look for support from the national health service, it seems to turn its back. That leads me to believe that psychiatrists might be making assessments based on their resources rather than on the needs of individuals. Prison is a very poor substitute when social service provision is inadequate.
Links must be made between the NHS, the courts and the Prison Service. I urge the minister to make those links and to address those points in his summing up.
I welcome the timing of this debate. Other members of the Justice Committee have spoken about our visit to Barlinnie prison on Tuesday. I, too, went on that visit, along with Stuart McMillan. Tuesday was the day on which we were informed that, once again, prison numbers were at a record level.
I would like to put on record my appreciation for the informative tour of the prison and the services that it delivers from David Abernethy, the depute governor, and Gordon Pike, from the Prison Officers Association. The tour included a visit to the prison block cells and an opportunity to talk to staff who operate the link service in the prison. The link service introduces newly admitted prisoners to the prison regime and offers those prisoners counselling and other support services. The link centre also works towards preparing prisoners for their release by linking with Jobcentre Plus and other agencies—including organisations in the voluntary sector—and by bringing together a number of support services in preparation for prisoners' release.
We also visited the workshop where prisoners are introduced to construction skills and can achieve a nationally recognised certification level. That increases the opportunities for released prisoners to find employment in the building trade, although in many respects, the construction industry has failed to engage with the project. We have to address that failing.
Two of the main issues that staff identified in relation to prisoners' release were housing and employment. In Glasgow, prisoners are put in direct contact with housing providers, and they mainly find accommodation in city centre hostels; but prisoners returning to other local authority areas are issued only with a telephone contact number for a housing provider. That is a disgrace in this day and age. We are releasing prisoners straight into the community without any roof over their head.
Over lunch during the visit, we were able to discuss frankly with staff some of the issues that they identified, such as the high number of prisoners who come from deprived areas. That issue has been raised time and time again in this chamber. The staff highlighted the fact that poverty plays a part in some people finding themselves involved in activities that lead them to become involved in the criminal justice system.
We also discussed with staff some of the alternatives to custody, such as home detention curfews. Such schemes could be extended, in particular for those who have been put on remand. It was felt that, for some individuals, that would be a better option than prison and would allow them to carry on with work and to remain with their family. Many people on remand lose a lot more than their liberty. They can lose their job, income, home and family. However, I accept that, in the interests of community safety and where relevant, certain individuals should be remanded.
Although concern about crime is nothing new, the concept that prison works is also nothing new, which is why I welcome the proposal to establish an independent commission to consider the use and purpose of prison. I am hopeful that such an independent commission will be as successful as the Kilbrandon committee, which was established in 1961 to examine issues of juvenile justice and children's welfare. The Kilbrandon recommendations gave a radical edge to policy development in the area of justice and built the foundations for the children's hearings and panel system. By putting lay members at the heart of the process, the Kilbrandon report still has lessons for today's justice agenda. To date, 10,000 lay members of children's panels have been appointed. Putting the public at the centre of such penal policy initiatives means that people take ownership of their communities.
I find it difficult to disagree with Mr Wilson's analysis that there should be robust alternatives to custody. However, he mentioned the commission that we have still to hear more about. Is it his view that we should ask the commission to consider the abolition of short-term sentences, or is it the view of the SNP, as stated in its manifesto, that we should do away with such sentences?
I would hope that the commission would take an holistic view of our present penal system.
Was that a yes?
I said that I hope that the commission will take an holistic view of the current position.
Scotland needs to take measures to reduce offending and, more important, reoffending. Overcrowding in the prison system is putting the public at risk and does not help to reduce reoffending. The links between poverty and crime are well established, and anyone with even a brief knowledge of prisons will be aware that a significant percentage of the prison population come from deprived areas. As a matter of course, the independent commission that is being set up by the cabinet secretary needs to consider the links between poverty and crime. The Howard League for Penal Reform has launched a commission in England, chaired by former prison governor Professor David Wilson, to chart a course for the penal system for the 21st century.
The approach taken by the Scottish Government should be contrasted with that taken by the United Kingdom authorities. I would welcome a penal policy that considers the principles and limits of penal policy. Alternatives to prison custody should not be viewed, in some sort of media shorthand, as the soft option. It would be remiss of any Administration to ignore the fact that prison capacity continues to hit record levels. The average daily population of Scottish prisons for 2006-07 totalled just over 7,000—that is clearly unsustainable. In its research, the Howard League for Penal Reform has consistently highlighted the fact that community sentences that engage victims and their communities have achieved quality outcomes.
I welcome the motion. I look forward to the findings of the commission and to a justice policy that is fit for the 21st century and which does not rely on incarceration as the only way to deal with the problems faced by many individuals and communities in Scotland.
I commend the previous Executive and the former Justice 1 Committee for their work on penal policy in the last session, and I urge the Scottish Government to build on that work. I also welcome Pauline McNeill to her new role as Labour spokesperson on justice.
Many areas of penal policy have been covered, but I want to concentrate on the specific issue of women offenders. I trust that the proposed commission will pay particular attention to that aspect of penal policy—indeed, I hope that the commission's make-up will be gender balanced.
A number of reports over the past few years have strongly linked women's offending with the three As—addiction, anxiety and abuse—all of which, in turn, are rooted in women's experience of poverty. Although women account for only a small percentage of the prison population in Scotland, as Cathie Craigie said, the number who find themselves in and out of Scotland's only women's prison, Cornton Vale, is concerning. Too often for those women, breaking the law seems not so much a choice as a necessity for survival. Most have not committed serious or violent offences, and therefore pose little threat to the public. Further, many of them are mothers. Not only is the impact on children a personal tragedy, it affects society as a whole. When women are imprisoned, their children might be placed in care, which increases their chances of becoming offenders.
In 1998, the Government set a target of limiting the inmate population of Cornton Vale to 100 or fewer by the end of 2000. However, today, there are around 300 female prisoners in Cornton Vale, many of them repeat offenders. Too many of those women are victims rather than criminals. Dr Andrew McLellan, the chief inspector of prisons, concluded in a recent report that, of the inmates, 98 per cent had drug addiction problems, 80 per cent had mental health problems and 75 per cent had a history of abuse and very poor physical health.
Undoubtedly, policy on women in the justice system needs to be more focused on addressing the problems that lead to offending. It is inefficient and counterproductive to continue to focus heavily on jailing women who are guilty of minor and non-violent crimes. No one benefits from that approach and too many people, including children, suffer.
What do we do, then, with persistent offenders? What happens when all of the alternatives to custody have been exhausted? I agree that there are cases in which custody is the only option. In those instances, attention must be focused on providing support services that offer sufficient help to ensure that, following release, the women are not trapped in a situation in which criminality seems to be their only choice. Women who leave custody desperately need help to reintegrate into the outside world and break the cycle of offending that they are caught up in.
Studies show that the period following a woman's release from prison is vital in determining whether she will reoffend.
I was at Cornton Vale the other day with colleagues, and we heard positive news about the work that is being done there with local employers. In fact, local employers want to employ more women than are able to access work placements. However, Cornton Vale's role as a national prison poses a difficulty in that regard. The scheme has worked well for women who are local to Cornton Vale, but it has not worked well for women who have travelled hundreds of miles from the north or wherever. I echo what Elaine Smith is saying, and I hope that the minister will take on board my point.
It is worrying that some women emerge from jail with only the price of a bus ticket and a few pounds to help with resettling. Many of them are not familiar with a settled existence as they are used to living chaotic lives. Intervention is desperately needed in those cases in order to divert them from prison and provide them with the tools that they need to cope with a normal life.
The needs of those vulnerable and damaged women are complex. The best chance of tackling persistent reoffending is afforded by adopting an holistic approach that addresses the difficulties that women face and investing sufficient resources in support services that allow community-based alternatives to custody. Many of those women need long-term professional help for everything from coping with mental illness and addiction problems to acquiring parenting and vocational skills. I was interested to hear the cabinet secretary say that people should receive help to turn away from a life of crime. I am interested to know exactly what kind of help is being proposed.
A new study by the charity Circle, entitled "What Life After Prison: Voices of Women in Cornton Vale", reinforces the idea that women are leaving prison with insufficient help to prevent them from reoffending, despite the efforts that Margaret Smith outlined earlier. The 107 inmates who were involved in the study were all mothers, but many had lost custody of their children, and most of them had mental health and addiction problems. One in three had already been inside more than three times, and only four said that their experience of support following release was good. To quote one of the pleas for help in the study, one woman said:
"I'll need help managing money, I won't manage on benefits and will go back to prostitution and then I can't get my son back."
The study indicates that the current system is not working. Of course, there are successful projects, such as 218 in Glasgow, which is supported by Glasgow City Council and was supported by the previous Scottish Executive. The purpose of that project is to address the root causes of women's offending and take an holistic approach to changing offending behaviour. It is important that such services are extended. Pauline McNeill asked the cabinet secretary to comment on that. I hope that he does so when he sums up.
Innovative projects for women in custody, such as the storybook mums project at Cornton Vale, should be supported and encouraged. I would like to go into that a bit more, but I do not have time. However, I ask the Scottish Government to take an interest in that project. It is primarily self-funding, but it could benefit from financial support.
In conclusion, many people regard alternatives to custody as soft options. They dismiss women in prison—a lot of whom are addicts and prostitutes—as failures, criminals and a waste of space. The reality is that those women make up one of the most marginalised and vulnerable groups. They have been used, abused and abandoned, and it is likely that their children could meet the same fate. Punishment is not what they need; they need help, support, an opportunity to participate in society and a chance to provide a better life for their families.
We are all too aware of the overcrowded, overstretched and underresourced state of our Scottish prisons, which are kept afloat only by the sterling work of their staff. As Rhoda Grant said, in the most recent HM inspectorate of prisons report, from 2004, the staff at Porterfield prison in Inverness were highly praised. Considering the outdated infrastructure and high levels of overcrowding, that is true testament to Scottish Prison Service staff. Of course, Inverness is not alone. Prisons throughout Scotland have had excellent reports on their staff but lacklustre evaluations of facilities and infrastructure.
Porterfield prison is a good example of the problem that we face after years of neglect by the Executive of Rhoda Grant's party. Labour, along with the Liberals, had almost 3,000 days to solve the problem, compared with our SNP Government's 100-odd days so far, yet this Government has already announced £120 million a year for prison improvements, which will include a new prison at Peterhead—the current prison would have been closed if nothing had been done.
The long-standing problem at Porterfield was highlighted recently by Alastair MacDonald, a former governor of the prison, who stated:
"Recently, Porterfield Prison has been bursting at the seams and something may give soon. Despite the ongoing forced transportation of Highland prisoners of all ages and genders to overcrowded prisons in the central belt numbers have frequently exceeded 170."
On his retirement, which was not that long ago, he said:
"The prison population has gone up by 40% in 30 years and it is accelerating. How soon are we going to see 10,000 people locked up in Scotland? What is driving us as a nation to lock up so many people?"
He also said:
"When I started in the prison service, 96 in every 100,000 of the population in Scotland were in prison. It is now 135 per 100,000. Overcrowding is getting worse and nothing has been put in place to help the situation."
Finally, he said:
"There has been practically no investment in Inverness Prison since the early 90s."
Labour and the Libs have a lot to answer for.
The answer is not simply to build new prisons; we must also strive to reduce the prison population. It is important that jail is reserved for dangerous offenders and for the punishment of serious offences. A clear line must be drawn between serious criminals and minor offenders. We must realise that prison is not necessarily the best solution for all offenders. Lesser wrongdoings should merit tougher community penalties rather than short stints in prison, which achieve little and can exacerbate existing problems. In many cases, community punishments are far more effective and help offenders to re-engage with their communities.
Notwithstanding that, I am pleased that the Government has announced a new prison at Peterhead to replace the prisons at Peterhead and Aberdeen. I am also pleased by the announcement that the replacement prison at Bishopbriggs will now be publicly run. There is no doubt that public money is better spent on public projects. If we are to deal with the overcrowding in and poor infrastructure of our prisons, it is important that we ensure that public money is spent in the most effective way. We do not need new buildings that create an environment of resentment; we must create an environment of rehabilitation. Why should taxpayers' money go towards keeping criminals under lock and key when they will reoffend the second that they get out?
Year after year, the Scottish Prison Service sees the same faces, with a reoffending rate of epidemic proportions. Too little has been done in the past to address that revolving-door effect. Latest Government figures show that about 60 per cent of the current inmate population are reoffenders. That is neither acceptable nor sensible. Given the strain caused by overcrowding in prisons such as Porterfield in Inverness, there needs to be a focus on ensuring the success of rehabilitation, to ease the problem. As has been said, many prisoners have poor literacy skills, which holds them back from gaining useful employment and reintegrating into society. Alastair MacDonald said that in Porterfield
"a third of inmates … could not read or write their own name, with 50% not even at the academic level of a primary 6 child."
That is shocking. If those offenders are given the ability to contribute to society through better education while in prison, we will all gain.
We need to maintain strong relationships between local police officers and residents in our communities. Local bobbies should be trusted and well-known figures. Their role is not only to fight crime but to build a relationship that breeds confidence in and co-operation and comradeship with their communities.
Despite a rise in crime in the past year, Inverness remains one of the safest cities in Scotland, because Northern Constabulary has a positive bond with its community. Officers in the Highlands and Islands are a visible, trusted and dependable force. Residents feel that they can talk to the police about their concerns—whether vandalism, knife crime or drug abuse—and the police are perceived positively, in the main. Of course, all is not perfect. More needs to be done to allow police officers to stay in their communities for longer, to help them to build local bonds.
Our culture of drink, drugs and deprivation needs to be replaced by a culture of hope, responsibility and respect. Offenders should come out of prison positively changed by the experience. We need to give prisoners the ability to go on and make something out of their lives. Prison needs to become constructive and to have a more practical purpose than just keeping criminals off the streets. I hope that the cabinet secretary and the Government will continue the good progress that has been made, and that they will take into account some of the more practical solutions that have been offered today.
I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague Pauline McNeill, whom I welcome to her new position.
In his speech to Parliament on 6 June, in the debate on creating a safer and stronger Scotland, the cabinet secretary said:
"We need a coherent penal policy. Prisons should be for serious and dangerous offenders … we need to shift the balance, with the less serious offenders who currently clutter our prisons being sentenced to community punishments."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 408.]
There is little disagreement with his support for a coherent penal policy. Indeed, much of the Government's motion, which talks of
"a progressive penal policy which improves public safety, delivers"
condign punishment, protects
"the interests of victims and communities"
and "contributes to reducing reoffending" and promoting rehabilitation, is common ground. How we achieve all or any of those desirable outcomes is where the challenge lies and where the debate should be focused.
We all need to acknowledge the previous Labour-led Executive's work in laying the foundations for a stronger and more resilient justice system and a safer Scotland. To be fair to Mr MacAskill, he accepted that in his speech on 6 June, when he said:
"Tougher laws on prosecution and weapons, much-needed reforms of the courts and enhanced support for victims and witnesses were all brought in by the previous Administration … and we acknowledge its efforts."—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; c 406.]
For completeness, I readily recognise that those reforms had most of the Parliament's support. Of course, members will accept that more work must be done, and that the problems that confront all of us as legislators are complicated. As Bill Aitken and the cabinet secretary said, there are no easy answers.
One of the more difficult questions is how we strike a rational balance between custodial and community sentences, and there is the related problem of how to develop a consensus on the symmetry between punishment and rehabilitation that can be accepted by the people whom we all seek to represent. That is no easy task.
The SNP's stated policy of ending six-month sentences other than in exceptional circumstances is superficially attractive, but I still worry that it will not improve matters for Scotland's communities. I accept that the cabinet secretary said that sentencing is absolutely a matter for the courts—we all agree with that—but that does not mean that the SNP will not implement such a policy. If implemented, the policy would not forbid sheriffs from imposing such a sentence, but it would restrict their scope to act.
If the cabinet secretary wishes to intervene to clarify the position, I will give way. If he does not clarify it, my view is that such a policy would be unnecessarily prescriptive and would bind the judiciary's hands a little more than at present. Equally worrying, it would send out entirely the wrong signal to the public. Sentences of less than six months are imposed not only on fine defaulters: they cover those who push class A drugs in our most vulnerable neighbourhoods; housebreakers who leave behind a trail of damage and heartache; common fraudsters who prey on the old and the weak; and thugs who employ physical violence that can leave innocent passers-by hospitalised and permanently disfigured. In my view, the policy would be a serious misjudgment. Sheriffs must retain the ability, having weighed up the circumstances of cases, to impose custodial sentences if appropriate.
I accept Bill Butler's suggestion that an oversimplistic approach to the issue might be inadvisable, but is there not a clear reason for considering the policy? If we all agree that prison should be used to confine those who are a genuine threat to the community, surely we are left with a problem, because a sentence of a few weeks or a couple of months gives no long-term protection to anyone. Surely we should design sentences to change behaviour and reduce the long-term threat, instead of merely giving people a couple of weeks' breather.
I agree that sentences should change behaviour and reduce the long-term threat, but what the SNP seems to propose in its manifesto would, as I have just outlined, lead to people who had committed serious offences roaming the streets. The public should be protected from such people.
We all recognise that the cabinet secretary is as sincere as his predecessor in his desire to build a safer Scotland. We are all committed to that goal. However, I ask him and Mr Ewing to reflect on the efficacy of a measure that would produce the opposite effect to what is intended and, in reality, diminish the public's confidence in the rule of law. Let us, instead, work together where we can in developing sustainable measures, such as the innovative work of domestic abuse and drugs courts, which take action to address the underlying causes of reoffending and ensure that cases are dealt with expeditiously and appropriately.
I support the amendment in the name of my colleague, Pauline McNeill.
This has been an interesting debate. The only point that we are all agreed on is the fact that there is no easy option in considering penal policy. I agree with a great deal of what the cabinet secretary said. Rather more worryingly, I agree with a great deal of what Bill Aitken said as well. Pauline McNeill might not be the only person to see a change in her portfolio as a result of today's debate.
I agree with Bill Aitken that it is crucial that, in making progress, we toughen up community sentences. Some big questions must be considered in doing that. Scotland's prison population is at a record level despite a fall in the level of crime, and we know that we have not cracked the key issue of reoffending. More than 60 per cent of those who enter prison reoffend within two years, and 42 per cent of those who serve community sentences reoffend in the same period. That is worth looking at.
There is an obvious need for us to examine the use of prison and other disposals and to ask the questions that the cabinet secretary asked in his opening speech: who is going to prison and why? The challenge is to deliver a system that punishes, protects and—crucially—tackles reoffending and rehabilitation.
We would be happy for the proposed commission to investigate short-term sentences, but I make it clear from the outset that public safety should be paramount. As the motion acknowledges, there are times when custody is the only appropriate disposal, but there are many other occasions on which individuals currently are not disposed of appropriately. For example, individuals are sometimes sent to prison for their own safety. Members of the Justice Committee have mentioned our visit to Cornton Vale prison this week. There, we met women with severe mental health problems, some of whom were on suicide watch, living in very stark conditions for their own safety. Those women should not be in prison; they should be in medium-secure units and mental health facilities. It is a disgrace that prison is being used as a place of safety for such women. We should all be determined in our efforts to address that situation.
We must tackle addiction issues, and the need for appropriate mental health services for the 70 per cent of prisoners who require them. I asked one prison officer with 20 years' experience whether things were better in the prison service now than they had been when she entered it. She said that facilities for staff and inmates were better, but that the people with whom the staff have to deal have much more serious mental health and addiction problems than they had 20 years ago. We have to face those big challenges.
Like the SNP, our manifesto presented plans to review the use of short-term sentences, and although we agree on the need for a review, the difference is that our proposals were about replacing sentences of less than three months with appropriate community punishments. In setting a lower limit, we were mindful of the sorts of offences involved. The SNP Government's proposals set a six-month limit, which obviously covers more serious offences. We are keen that the proposed commission should consider such limits and their possible impacts and, for example, the situation in Western Australia, which Pauline McNeill mentioned. However, it should be made clear that any decision will remain with the judiciary, because its members take on board all the evidence and reports on offenders, and the need to bear public safety in mind.
Is the Government still committed to doing away with short-term sentences of less than six months and replacing them with alternatives to custody? Will the Government rely on the proposed commission to suggest a limit? Understandably, Pauline McNeill said that we do not want to expose communities; we want to protect them from those who offend and reoffend. That is why we need to ensure that when we are dealing with the problem we have properly resourced community sentences without the delays in the system that happen at the moment. We also want sentences to be carried out within communities, so that people can see that offenders are being held to account for their actions that blight the lives of their neighbours.
I welcome the minister's comments about our amendment, which tries to put some flesh on the bones. He might not want to make any structural changes, but the rebadging of the Scottish Prison Service into a custody and rehabilitation service is already happening inside and outside our prisons.
We must tackle reoffending. We all know that those who enter our prisons for short terms of incarceration are not given the chance to tackle their reoffending behaviour in the same way as those who serve longer sentences. Our amendment acknowledges the good work that is being done in prisons by link centres and it encourages the setting up of community equivalents, such as the pilot that is being undertaken by Sacro. The centres are one-stop shops that help those who are leaving prison to access education, work, housing, benefits and national health services.
Alex Neil made a thoughtful contribution about the importance of learning skills and of working with employers to ensure that people come out of prison with the right skills to give them a future in work.
A great deal of progress was made during the past eight years, as the minister acknowledged previously. We cannot get away from the issue of value for money. It costs more than £30,000 a year to keep someone in prison. Community alternatives can be much cheaper, and they can be effective, but we have to be sure to ask the kinds of question that Bill Aitken and others have raised today. We are not talking about an easy option; we need alternatives, whether they be addiction services, medium-secure units or tougher community sentences in which communities and offenders can have faith and confidence.
The debate has made for some interesting listening as members have addressed the issue that penal policy needs to move forward to ensure that it fulfils its duties to society.
Prison has four functions: to protect the public and to deter, punish and reform criminals. The removal of dangerous and violent people into a prison for the purpose of public safety is the most important function of prison. Public safety is paramount. If our prisons are full, the Administration should not contemplate the early release of prisoners who have served only part of their custodial sentence, but should pursue even more vigorously the building of another prison.
Those with a custodial sentence should serve the full term: the public want those who have been convicted of a crime to spend their whole sentence in prison. I echo Jackson Carlaw's comments that the proper use of prison will eventually lead to a reduction in prisoner numbers, but that will happen only when more police are in our communities. We should properly end the scandal of early release, adopt a zero-tolerance approach to drugs and put in place effective services to ensure that criminals do not reoffend.
There has been a dramatic and worrying rise in the number of prisoners recalled from licence or supervision, proving that early release has been an unmitigated disaster, that too many prisoners do not leave prison seeing the error of their ways and that they remain on the conveyor belt of crime. Until those dangerous individuals have been removed from contact with the public and have been punished for their crimes, prison will not have served its fourth purpose—to act as a deterrent—and there will be no dramatic decrease in crime figures.
Although it is necessary to send to prison those who pose a risk to the public, options for those who commit other crimes exist. As Bill Aitken suggested, those who default on paying fines should not face imprisonment at the taxpayer's expense. Instead, the fine should be deducted directly from their wages or benefits.
I put the same question to John Lamont that I put to Bill Butler. The member recognises that prison should be used for those who pose a genuine threat to the public and that other sentences are appropriate for those who do not. If someone poses a genuine threat to the public, what is the point of relieving that threat for a month?
The member is making a point about community service orders, of which we should make better use. If we need to put someone in prison to remove them from the public, we should not be afraid of doing that. At present, community service orders are seen as a soft option. The fact that in 2005-06 a quarter of such orders were breached and many were not completed is evidence that the system needs serious review and toughening up. Those subject to community service orders must be visible—the public must be able to see that they are facing punishment—and complete compliance must be enforced. Until non-custodial sentences are no longer seen as an easy option, short jail sentences remain inevitable.
The Scottish Conservatives are not against reducing the number of people in prison, but we are not prepared to do that if it means not protecting the public. First and foremost, we must fulfil our duty to protect the public and to ensure that all those who pose a threat are in our prisons. The proper use of prison is fundamental to ensuring that we put an end to the growth in crime figures.
Given that the Conservative position is that judges' discretion in sentencing should not be removed, will the member support the Labour amendment to ensure that taking away that jurisdiction is not included in the proposed commission's remit?
No. Early release must become a thing of the past. Tougher non-custodial sentences must be introduced and more must be done to reform criminals, to enable punishment to be effective and to deter offenders from reoffending.
We must also ensure that more police are available to patrol our streets and to keep our communities safe. Only then will the Scottish penal system offer the correct punishments and act as a deterrent to those who have previously led a life of crime. It is interesting that the motion mentions reducing reoffending, but that will not be possible until the Administration realises that early release continues to pose the threat of reoffending; for that reason, it should be abolished.
The motion also mentions improving public safety. If we are to do that, more criminals must be taken off the streets and put into our prisons, which means building another prison to accommodate those offenders and the introduction of more police on our streets.
Although we welcome this debate, the current Administration must acknowledge that developing a progressive penal policy alone will not cut crime. We must also examine existing legislation to ensure that we give our penal and prison systems the best chance of reforming and deterring criminals whenever possible.
We will support the Government's motion tonight.
I thank the cabinet secretary for mentioning that, as a result of eight years of a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition, there has been a reduction in crime. When Labour members made that very point, he did not support it.
Alex Neil made the case against the proposed commission when he referred to the Justice 1 Committee's comprehensive and significant work on this issue. The fact is that Scotland's elected representatives have already collated statistics, and I am concerned that the Government finds itself unable to move forward on that basis.
Moreover, the proposal for the independent commission lacks detail. I cannot imagine that, in their previous life as members of the Opposition, Fergus Ewing and Kenny MacAskill would have accepted such an announcement without any detail. I wonder whether Fergus Ewing can confirm the timescale for the commission's report.
We support the principle of rehabilitation and having alternatives to custody; indeed, members on these benches have said as much a number of times. However, we also realise that our communities need to be protected from some very dangerous individuals. I will be more specific about certain statistics that Cathie Craigie and others referred to. Under the proposals about six-month sentences, 600 housebreakers, 1,600 individuals convicted of common assault and 60 people convicted of serious assault and robbery will be set free. I do not know whether the minister wishes to intervene to tell me that those statistics are incorrect, but—
The only thing I would say is that I do not know where the member gets the phrase "set free". I have told Mr Aitken and, indeed, have reassured Mr Martin's executive colleague sitting next to him that we have not said that. That matter is, and remains, one for the courts. Any suggestion that those people will be set free is factually wrong.
I thank Mr MacAskill for clarifying that point, to which I will return in a moment. He has also made it very clear that he is unable to deliver the prison places to deal with those individuals, which gives them a passport to freedom.
The SNP manifesto says:
"The presumption will be that an offender given a custodial sentence of less than 6 months will have that sentence turned into an equivalent punishment in the community."
As I said, that is not from one of my press releases or from any other Scottish Labour Party website. The SNP's manifesto makes it very clear that the individuals to whom I referred will be set free.
I realise that we face challenges in respect of the prison population. After all, 50 to 80 per cent of prisoners have difficulty with writing and numeracy skills and they are 13 times more likely to be unemployed than the general population. We also know that they face drug misuse and rehabilitation issues. However, the cabinet secretary's proposals are heavily dependent on the participation of offenders, and he must recognise that, despite record investment in rehabilitation, the offender has to take part in these programmes in the first place.
As Mike Pringle mentioned, the SNP's manifesto says that it will provide £35 million of additional funding through changes to the Scottish Prison Service. When will that funding be provided? It is not good enough for the cabinet secretary simply to advise the chamber that he will provide additional funding; he has to tell us when it will become available.
I again refer to the SNP's manifesto, which outlines the early actions of an SNP Government. We know that one of those actions has been to change the name of the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government. I appreciate that commitment, but we must question how serious the SNP is, given that, in the section of its manifesto on its early actions in government, it said:
"We will introduce a Criminal Justice Bill, which will include new arrangements for tough community sentences and steps to increase transparency, consistency and fairness in sentencing."
I ask the minister to clarify what is meant by early action. Does that mean next autumn, 18 months after the election?
A wide range of views were expressed on automatic early release, but the will of the Parliament was to scrap it. However, this Government is dragging its heels in ensuring that the will of the Parliament is delivered. During the stage 3 debate on the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill, Kenny MacAskill accepted the principles of the bill, which had been subject to a number of amendments, but said:
"We must ensure that the resources are in place before the bill is implemented."—[Official Report, 15 March 2007; c 33325.]
The bill was passed on 15 March 2007. It is now—unfortunately, from our point of view—the cabinet secretary's job to ensure that the necessary resources are provided. When will he do that?
When Fergus Ewing makes his closing speech, I urge him to give us no more preamble. I want to hear from the Fergus Ewing we saw in opposition—the straight-talking Fergus Ewing who accused many Executive ministers of being the toothless tigers of Government and who, on a number of occasions, referred to himself as the Celtic tiger. I ask the Minister for Community Safety to answer the questions for once. Will he provide the £35 million that the SNP committed to rehabilitation in its manifesto—yes or no? Will he apologise for the way in which the proposal for a commission has been introduced? Will he deliver the funding for the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007—yes or no? On a more constructive note, will he meet me and Pauline McNeill to discuss issues relating to the success of the 218 programme in Pauline McNeill's constituency—yes or no?
I close on a consensual note by asking members to support the amendment in the name of Pauline McNeill.
I warmly welcome Paul Martin to the Opposition benches. His desire to see the return of the Fergus Ewing of yesteryear did not seem to be shared by all members. This wide-ranging debate has been full of heat and light and darkness and shade. Thoughtful speeches have been made by members of all parties.
There is a growing recognition inside and, in particular, outside the Parliament that we simply cannot continue with the existing system. Over the past 10 years, the level of crime in Scotland has remained largely static, but there has been a substantial rise in the daily average number of people in our prisons. If the rise in prisoner numbers that we have seen over the past few years were to continue, the main element of our penal policy would have to comprise the building of more and more prisons.
There is agreement that it is clear that there are some people for whom prison is absolutely the right place. Despite the controversial tone of some speeches that have been made, it seems clear to me that there is little substantial disagreement between the parties about the types of crime for which a custodial sentence is appropriate. As Margaret Smith and Bill Aitken wisely said, it is clear that there are no easy answers. If there were, they would have been found long ago. The job of members of all parties is to try to find a better and more effective policy.
The Labour Opposition has based its arguments on a false premise, or a false interpretation of what has been said. Its starting point is that our approach is simply to scrap all sentences of under six months, but that is simply not true. Parliaments legislate; the courts sentence. It is not for legislators to interfere with judicial discretion and the work of the courts. We do not do so. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice gave that assurance during the opening speeches, and I see no reason to repeat what he said. It is unfortunate that the Labour contribution to the debate has proceeded on the basis of dancing across a pin on a false premise.
I am not dancing on the head of a pin. You must come to the chamber and be clear with us. Your policy position was a presumption against six-month sentences and thus interference with judicial discretion. Are you saying that you have reversed that position? Please tell us, because we want to know.
I remind all members to speak through the chair, please.
The facts are clear. At the moment, three out of four of those who are sentenced to six months or less in prison will reoffend within two years. The Labour Party may not like that, but that is the reality. If the current penal policy is so effective, why is there a failure rate of 75 per cent for those people? That fact alone has led most commentators inside and outside the chamber to believe that the right way forward is to have a fundamental look at the purpose of prisons and their effectiveness.
Many members—notably Bill Aitken, Margaret Smith and Mike Pringle—underlined the fact that we need to come up with more effective and workable community options. That those options are not currently effective in the way that they should be is common ground. The question is how we can make them more effective. By working with politicians in other parties and with those who belong to no party, the Government has already agreed that we will develop drug treatment and testing orders, which are highly effective. From memory, where such orders are undertaken—voluntarily, as they must be—by drug addicts, nearly half of those addicts become clean of drugs. The Government believes that if something works, we should try to replicate its success. The Conservatives have campaigned for a long time to extend the use of DTTOs so that they can be used by other courts beyond the High Court and the sheriff courts, and they have said that more women drug addicts should have access to them and that drug addicts who have committed fewer offences should not be prevented from having access to them. It has been suggested that they should be used by the district courts. We have said that we will develop a version of the orders. To be fair, I think that the Liberal Democrats agree with us, so there seems to be a majority. I hope that the Labour Party agrees that that would be one effective way in which we could tackle the real problems.
Many thoughtful speeches have been made. In particular, I refer to what Elaine Smith, Bill Aitken, Nigel Don and Margaret Smith said about women offenders. We accept that extremely difficult cases are involved and that it is extremely difficult to provide effective help. Speeches touched on the difficulty of the issues, but also on some solutions. We recognise that the 218 time-out centre, which opened in 2003, works. We welcome that centre's existence and congratulate all who were involved in setting it up. Replication of that project throughout the country is plainly not in itself the answer, but we nonetheless want to develop and build on it.
I thought that, when we announced that the commission on prisons would be chaired by Henry McLeish, there would be an unchurlish and unqualified welcome from the Labour Party for the fact that its former leader would lead that vital task. I say to Pauline McNeill that we have confidence in Henry McLeish's ability to undertake the task with which he is entrusted. The fact that he has agreed to undertake it without remuneration shows his continuing commitment to public life in Scotland. He will bring his experience and expertise to bear on the task. We are delighted that Henry McLeish will chair the commission and we hope that the Labour Party will support him when it comes to voting on the commission at decision time.