Law and Order
The first item of business this morning is a non-Executive debate on motion S1M-316, in the name of Phil Gallie, on law and order, and amendments to that motion. I call Phil Gallie to speak to and move the motion. You have 20 minutes, Mr Gallie.
The Conservative party stands in a position of strength. We have a track record in law and order issues of which we can be proud. [Laughter.] Those who mock—particularly those Liberal Democrats who have shown treachery in the past, by turning their back on their principles and objectives and abandoning the ideals in which they believed, to join the Liberals—should feel ashamed when they mock our track record on law and order.
There was a significant improvement in the tackling of crime during the Tory Administration of the past 18 years, in spite of the curse of an international explosion in drug misuse. Under the Tory Government, crime figures fell by the largest number since records began, and over the longest period. That could be explained, perhaps, by the fact that the Tories had 18 years of uninterrupted government, with no opportunity for the Opposition—now the Government—to step in with its wishy-washy policies and ruin the changes that were made during those 18 years.
Between 1979 and 1997, police spending doubled, in real terms. Scottish police numbers rose by 2,000. We encouraged the use and development of new technology, such as closed circuit television, which we regarded as a powerful weapon in the battle against crime, for the protection of the public. We facilitated the progression of the process of DNA testing and its use and production in courts as a means of attaining true and proper verdicts. We did much to improve court procedures, so that the time spent in court could be reduced and the time that was wasted by the police in court could be cut down.
Frequently, in debates such as this, the Opposition can be charged with being critical for the sake of it. It can be charged with offering pious hopes based on a lack of responsibility and unjustifiable claims. I suggest that that is one way in which the electorate was conned by the present Administration in 1997.
Our 1999 manifesto was clear in intent, and our track record shows that we could have delivered on it. What is the current situation, and how does it contrast with the Executive's manifesto dreams? The Labour manifesto for the Scottish Parliament, which was published in 1999, tells us that
"Scottish New Labour believes that individuals can prosper in strong and secure communities."
In their manifesto, the Liberal Democrats promised to
"keep the police service up to strength."
What has happened since then? Police numbers are now down by almost 400 on the number that was inherited from the Tories.
Worse still, in the budget statement prepared and issued by Jack McConnell, we see at best a hold at current levels of funding for the police. Although there is room for inflationary increase in local authority provision, the central Government contribution is set to fall. Let us remember that the sum of cash that is provided for local authorities is not ring-fenced, and evidence suggests that local authorities are not enthusiastic about providing funding for the police.
As I said, police numbers are down by almost
400. At current budget levels, the Scottish Police Superintendents Association reports a substantial shortfall on this year's budget. With the budgets effectively at a standstill, pressures will increase. The Scottish Police Federation forecasts a shortfall in police numbers by the end of next year of between 500 and 1,000 officers. How does that contrast with the manifesto pledges of those who participate in the Scottish Executive? Douglas Keil, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, said:
"There is a direct correlation between the number of officers on the street and crime figures. In the light of the bleak financial future, I can only see a bleak future for levels of crime."
Police officers are leaving the force. That puts another burden on the revenue available to those who fund the police because it adds the burden of pensions, which are provided directly from revenue. There is no money for recruitment. We recognise that 92 per cent of the police budget is currently spent on manpower. That leaves little room for manoeuvre with respect to efficiency savings, provision of equipment or maintenance of police buildings.
Will Phil Gallie comment on a question asked in the House of Commons earlier this year by my colleague, Sir Robert Smith? He
asked what was the year-on-year change in central Government funding for police in Scotland between 1979 and 1999 in cash and in real terms. Henry McLeish's answer showed that there were four years in which the year-on-year percentage change in real terms was a cut—1985, 1990, 1994 and 1996. How does that square with Mr Gallie's earlier comments?
If one considers the 18-year record of the Tory Government, one sees an overall increase in real terms in provision for the police. [MEMBERS: "Facts."] Mr Rumbles may wave his notes in the air, but he cannot deny the fact that we doubled expenditure. We increased real-terms expenditure by a substantial amount over those 18 years. I accept the fact that there were special payments in particular years, leading to a reduction in the following year. Overall, however, there was a real-terms increase.
Police numbers in Scotland increased by 2,000 over the period of Tory government. Perhaps Mr Rumbles can come up with a question that Robert Smith asked in the House of Commons that denies those figures—figures that the Conservatives are proud of.
There are further facts that Mr Gallie may be interested in listening to. I would like to hear his comments on them. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, 346,000 crimes were recorded annually. When they left office in 1997, there were 420,000. That is an increase of 74,000, which equates to an increase of eight more crimes per hour in 1997 than there were in 1979. How does that square with what he has just been saying?
The major problem was the fact that there was an international expansion in drug- related crime. Members may laugh, but that fact is recognised. I foresaw Mr Rumbles's comments and I mentioned drugs right at the beginning of my speech. I note that he did not challenge my figures and simply went off on another line in an attempt to justify his comments.
Prior to the 1999 election, people who are now members of the Executive commented on the prison situation. They said:
"We will rid Scotland of the problems that weaken our Society. That means being tough on crime and criminals who blight our communities."
"We will crack down on violent crime."
What do they do? They determine to reduce the number of prison places. They determine that dropping the number of prisoners will be a longer- term objective, although their own forecast shows that the prison population is liable to rise from 6,100 today to something like 6,400 over the next two years.
How does that add up? HM chief inspector of prisons for Scotland's report for 1998-99 shows substantial overcrowding in the major prisons. How does that equate with taking prison places out of the system? It shows improvements in reducing slopping out and in it Jim Wallace claims that by 2004 that practice will be ended. That contrasts with the evidence Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Prison Service, gave the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday. He acknowledged that that target would not now be achieved, thanks to Jack McConnell and Jim Wallace's raid on £13 million of prison funding.
Mr Gallie is quoting HM chief inspector of prisons for Scotland's report for 1998-99. Has he read the part where the chief inspector says that an end to overpopulation will mean that much needed additional refurbishment can be effected throughout the prison estate and that consideration might even be given to closing one or two of the more isolated establishments?
I accept that as an aim, but a time of rising prison populations hardly seems the time to cut prison places. Bearing in mind the situation in prisons, the report, the drug taking and the overcrowding, how will the reduction by 400 in the number of prison staff aid the minister in seeking to improve prisons? That raid has, I suggest, been made necessary by the Government's miscalculation of the cost of setting up the drugs enforcement agency—which has the support of every party here. An additional 200 police to serve in the drugs enforcement agency were promised. That is being delivered, but there was talk of an extra 100 police to work in communities. That must be folklore now, given the reductions in the police force—
I will give the Deputy Minister for Justice a chance to come in, in a minute. He may recall that when we debated the drugs enforcement agency he gave a figure of something like £4 million for funding the agency. I said at the time that on my calculation it would be more like £12 million, which he said was typical Tory back-of-the-fag-packet, made-up figures. Jack McConnell acknowledged in his financial statement that the cost of the drugs enforcement agency will be above £12 million. On that basis, I was right and the minister was wrong.
I am unclear whether Mr Gallie is welcoming the commitment, through the financial statement, of £5 million per year for the drugs enforcement agency and the additional 200 officers, or not. To clarify a point Mr Gallie made: we have always said 200 additional officers, probably 100 at the centre and 100 in the forces,
but that that would be an operational decision. Will Mr Gallie confirm, however, that once the 200 additional officers are operational, police force levels in Scotland will be within less than 1 per cent of the highest level ever in Scotland?
Of course we welcome the drugs enforcement agency—I thought I had made that clear. The minister got his sums totally wrong in the earlier debate. If the 200 police officers are in addition to the established recommendations for police numbers in Scotland, we welcome them. We will put the minister on trust and watch the figures. If he can bring police numbers back up to what they should be and add the 200 who are due to go into the drugs enforcement agency on top of that, he will be given credit by Conservative members. Let us not have promises; let us have action. When the minister delivers, he will receive our compliments.
With regard to victims of crime, I understand that today we will have a statement on the freedom of information bill. If the Government is dead keen to pass out more information, why do we need to legislate for it? It is in the Government's power to provide information as and when it should. Irrespective, we will wait to hear what is said on the matter.
Mr Wallace should be assured that we will welcome the bill if it improves the situation for victims of crime and provides for them to receive explanations about the downgrading of charges. For example, victims are told that a charge will be brought, but by the time they get to court, without having been told, they find that that charge has been decreased to a much lesser offence. That happens in the High Court and solemn and summary courts. It is a cause of concern for victims. If the minister's statement later today announces an improvement in the information that is provided to victims of crime and their families, it will be welcome.
As I have suggested in the past, there has been a policy of downgrading charges to take pressure off the courts, but what is the current situation? There is a shambles surrounding temporary sheriffs and in the district courts with respect to the stepping down of councillor justices of the peace. I say to the minister, there are no doubts that the fault lies clearly with the Labour Government. It signed up to the European convention on human rights and incorporated it into law. The Government must take responsibility for the resulting shambles. The present difficulties could be the tip of the iceberg. We will see where we go from there.
I will allow the minister to intervene on that point in a few minutes' time. I will move on and, being aware of the time, I will skip a few things.
I say to Angus MacKay that with respect to drugs, which was a major crime and punishment issue in the run-up to the election, I welcome his visit to Ireland to establish what can be done to enhance the Tories' policy of confiscating drug dealers' assets. If in Ireland he found a means of improving the situation and he implements it here, it will be welcomed by all of us in this chamber.
There are several points that I wish to be addressed. I would like legislation to be introduced that allows for the seizure or freezing of assets of alleged drug dealers at the time of their arrest. I would like the automatic refusal of bail for anyone accused of drug dealing. Ultimately, if someone is found guilty of peddling in drugs—peddling in death—I would like to see, just as is the case with the Inland Revenue, that the individual has to prove their right to have their assets, rather than the prosecution having to prove that those assets were gained from dealing in drugs. On that point, I ask the minister to assure me that the fact that the Irish Government has not incorporated the ECHR into its law will not affect his intention of dealing with drug dealers in Scotland.
I can clarify that members of the Criminal Assets Bureau in Ireland and members of the Irish Government confirmed to me their confidence that, even if they were challenged under the terms of the European convention on human rights, they would win any such challenge in the European courts.
Does Mr Gallie support the European convention on human rights?
As always, the Conservative Government in office supported the aims of the ECHR. Where it was wise and the Labour Administration was not, is that the Conservative Government did not incorporate it into our law. It allowed our judges to make their decisions and take the ECHR into account. That is the right way and that is also the approach that the Irish, from whom the minister sought to gain knowledge, have taken.
I have spoken for 20 minutes, so I will come to a close. I was intent on taking the minister to task about his comments on young offenders. That is an area of serious aggravation for many members of the public and his words, which suggested that the Liberal-Labour Administration will go soft on young offenders, cause some concern.
Finally, I return to Labour's woeful attempt to comply with its pledge to be tough on crime. The most recent crime figures from the Statistical Bulletin of March 1999—[Interruption.]—not 1985, as Mr Rumbles is indicating. Those figures show that offensive weapons crimes are up 13 per cent;
assault with intent to rape is up 12 per cent; nonsexual violent crime is up 10 per cent; serious assault is up 9 per cent; robbery is up 9 per cent; sexual assault is up 9 per cent; and drug-related crime is up 7 per cent. If ever there was an indictment of an Administration, it is those figures. The Administration should plead guilty to the charges and accept our motion.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses concern over the substantial drop in the number of serving police officers over the last two years, the reversal of the falling crime rates inherited, the rising number of drugs related deaths, the shortsighted and ill considered prison closure programme and staff redundancies instigated by the Executive's £13 million raid of Scottish Prison Service funds, the Executive's lack of emphasis on and support for the victims of crime and the shambles in our courts resulting from Her Majesty's Government's decision to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into Scots Law, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to live up to its Partnership Agreement promise to be "tough on crime and the criminals who blight our communities".
Mr Gallie began his remarks by saying that he was starting from a position of strength. It takes a lot of courage to do that in the week in which Lord Archer has blazed a trail for truth and justice for the Conservative party. With such strength, who needs weakness?
Mr Gallie finished his speech by talking from a position of strength and ignored an intervention from Mr Rumbles, who pointed out that crime had increased throughout the years of the Conservative Government, to the extent that at the end of its period in government, it was higher than when it took office. As Mr Gallie was trading statistics at the end, we should note that the crime clear-up rate in 1997 in Scotland was 39 per cent and that it rose to 41 per cent in 1998. The figures depend on the type of crime—60 per cent of serious assaults and 71 per cent of sexual assaults were cleared up in 1998. In general, clear-up rates have been rising throughout the 1990s.
I will respond in due course to the specific criticisms levelled by Mr Gallie. First, I will make general comments about the Executive's position on law and order policy.
Our policies were set out in "Making it work together". They provide a practical but visionary way forward in tackling crime. We said:
"We want a secure Scotland where individuals and communities are free from crime and free from the fear of crime. We will work together with the police and with communities to make our streets and neighbourhoods safe. That means attacking the drugs menace that threatens to blight our society. It also means having a police force that is rooted in our communities and spends its time on front-line duties. We will promote effective measures to support the victims of crime. We will further protect our communities through the rehabilitation of offenders. We will be tough on crime and on criminals."
The fact that we have a justice department symbolises our commitment. If we are to consider ourselves a just society, our justice system must be ever more effective in dealing with victims and offenders alike.
Justice, of course, embraces social justice, which is a key element in tackling the root causes of crime. Earlier this week, the key milestones in our programme for social justice included a historic challenge and opportunity to eradicate child poverty, to move towards full employment and to guarantee financial security for older people. This is a long journey—we have made no bones about it. However, by tackling the root causes of crime, we are more likely to break the vicious cycle of deprivation and crime that exists in too many of our communities.
The whole Parliament would agree that effective policing is crucial in combating crime. We want to encourage stronger links between the police and the communities in which they operate. To that end, we want to maintain—and, where possible, increase—the number of police officers who are available for front-line duties. Mr Gallie gave us a range of statistics on police numbers that he had gathered. It is only accurate to point out that at the most recent count, in September this year, the number of serving police officers was higher than at almost any time during the Conservatives' 18 years in office.
Police numbers fluctuate because of retirements and resignations, and forces have to recruit accordingly. As Mr Gallie rightly pointed out, recruitment cannot be done simply by turning on a tap or by putting an advertisement in a jobcentre. It is not an exact science. Mr Gallie said that at the moment the police had no money for recruitment, but according to the information that I have, nearly all the eight forces in Scotland are recruiting at present. Let me make it clear that the Executive does not determine police force strength. That is an operational matter for chief constables, based on the resources that are available.
Is that the same recruitment policy that Jack Straw had when he said that 5,000 more police officers were being recruited down south, although numbers were declining there as well?
I have made a perfectly simple point: the most recently available information—and it is days old—indicates that nearly all Scotland's police forces are currently recruiting. That is a very welcome sign, because it indicates that they believe that the resources are available for them to
recruit.
Mr Wallace said that nearly all police forces in Scotland were recruiting. Can he advise us which are not?
All bar Grampian are recruiting.
In 1999-2000, police forces received grant-aided expenditure totalling £719.4 million—a 4 per cent increase on the previous year. Next year, forces will receive £741.9 million—an increase of 3.8 per cent. Those increases contrast with the figures that Mr Rumbles gave for the years of Tory government—in four of those years, spending fell. They should enable forces to maintain numbers at a relatively high level compared with earlier this decade.
I deride the minister's opening remarks with respect to Jeffrey Archer. I did not pick up on personalities—had I done so, Mandelson, Cook, Robinson and Davies would all have come to mind. The minister's comments do not seem to be in line with the principles of this chamber.
Moving on from that, does the minister deny the worst fears of the Scottish Police Federation, which estimates that by the end of this year the number of serving police in Scotland will be down on preferred figures by between 500 and 1,000?
I am not quite sure what science is attached to preferred figures. I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the Scottish Police Federation, by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) and by the superintendents, and I have indicated my willingness to meet them and discuss their concerns.
However, it is important to point out that the increases that I have mentioned are substantial. We should also not lose sight of the fact that there has been a considerable growth in the number of support staff—a move towards civilianisation. That means that the work of police officers who were previously in charge of control rooms or who worked in personnel and liquor or firearms licensing departments is now being done by civilians.
Mr Gallie referred to the point that was made by Douglas Keil of the Scottish Police Federation about officers on the street. Because a move towards civilianisation has taken place, more police officers have been freed up for the front-line operational duties that the public expect them to carry out. Since 1979, police support staff strength has increased from 2,747 to 4,725. However, I recognise the concerns of the police staff associations and I have agreed to discuss the matter with them.
As Mr Gallie acknowledged, the Executive is intent on tackling the menace of drugs. The Scottish crime squad, Customs and Excise, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the eight Scottish police forces do sterling work in stemming the tide of drug trafficking. We believe that the creation of the new Scottish drugs enforcement agency will provide an even more focused and strategic approach. It will bring together all the information from Scottish forces and other organisations about the threats from outwith and within Scotland; the new agency will use that to determine where the Scottish enforcement priorities should lie.
The agency will be up and running by June next year. The £10.5 million that we are making available over the period of the comprehensive spending review will fund significant additional manpower—up to 100 extra officers for the Scottish crime squad and up to 100 extra officers for drug squads in local forces.
We recognise that our enforcement measures must be combined with a range of effective preventive measures, and we are examining our strategy on youth crime. Contrary to the rhetoric of Mr Gallie, recent research indicates that youths involved in structured sport and leisure pursuits are less likely to offend than other young people. That has a major impact when young people might be more exposed to the range of high-risk factors that lead to criminality. Earlier this year, based on evidence that we had gathered, a number of local authorities were invited to apply for funding for four drug diversion projects in Scotland, where the focus would be on sport and leisure.
Today, I am pleased to announce that the Scottish Executive will fund projects based in Aberdeen, Dumfries and Galloway, Glasgow and South Lanarkshire. Each of the projects will receive £12,000 for two years—a total of £96,000. Individuals invited to take part in those projects will be either known offenders or in a group that has a high risk of becoming involved in drug taking. We want to get young people out of a cycle of negative activity and into a pattern of positive activity. An important element of the projects will be to gauge the impact of leisure interventions on drug taking and offending, with a view to demonstrating to local authorities the likely wider cost benefits that will accrue from such interventions. That will be done through an evaluation programme, which will track the offending patterns of individual young people who participate in the projects during the two-year period.
It is important that we examine a wide range of innovative approaches to divert our young people from the lure of drugs and criminality. I look forward to learning how the individual projects
progress.
Understandably and predictably, Mr Gallie focused on the issue of imprisonment. Scotland has one of the highest prison populations in Europe. The Scottish Prison Service estate has over 6,400 prisoner places and a current population of 6,000. The increase in the prison population is expected to slow down.
Mr Gallie seemed to dismiss the comments of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons on the possibility of consideration being given to closing one or two of the more isolated establishments. However, that report was laid before this Parliament in August this year, so it is relevant. During the summer, statisticians predicted that the prison population for the year 1999-2000 would be 6,100. At the moment there are fewer prisoners than that, and the average will probably be 6,000.
Will the minister explain how the prison population is predicted to fall at a time when crime is rising? Common sense would suggest that, if serious crime is increasing, as Mr Gallie said and official statistics show, the prison population should also rise, unless the Executive is operating a deliberate policy to ensure that the punishment does not fit the crime.
The number of crimes is not necessarily related to the number of criminals. That is an important point. A disproportionately high number of drug-related crimes and youth crimes are committed by a small number of people.
Serious crimes will always attract prison sentences, to ensure public safety and to mark society's displeasure. We want to try to ensure that there are alternatives to custody for far less serious crimes. Those are the things that we, as an Executive, will work out. They are not soft options; many of the alternatives to custody are very tough and are the kind of options that we want to introduce.
To assist Mr Wallace in dealing with Mr McLetchie, in Clackmannanshire, 17 youngsters committed 60 per cent of the drug-related crime—17 individuals who cannot be jailed repeatedly. Those 17 youngsters are in jail because they are repeat offenders. The crime levels have risen, but the number of people committing crimes has not. It is simple, Mr McLetchie.
Each one of the 17 youngsters cannot be jailed over and over again—Mr McLetchie fails to grasp a fairly basic point.
On that point—
I have been fairly generous in giving way.
No, he has not.
I have spent more of my speech giving way than on my own comments.
Penninghame is geographically remote from the central belt, provides little flexibility and accommodates most prisoners in dormitories. The decision to close the prison is no reflection on the excellent work of the staff, but the opportunities provided for prisoners in Penninghame can be provided in Castle Huntly or Noranside. The number of places at those prisons is sufficient to cater for all prisoners who qualify to be held in open conditions.
It has been recognised for some time that Dungavel is unsuitable for its purpose: it has inadequate dormitory accommodation and minimal scope for redevelopment. Recent investment in perimeter security systems to approved category C standards, allied with fully upgraded prisoner accommodation of single cells and two-person dormitories, makes Friarton a more suitable candidate to take over Dungavel's role as a top- end category C prison for long-term prisoners.
In evidence to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, in discussing Dungavel with Mr Tony Cameron, I quoted from the chief inspector's report, which said that
"there has been a remarkable transformation at Dungavel, partly due to changes in management, efforts by staff and finally, some much needed clarity about the establishment's future. Whilst a drug sub-culture had previously flourished in an environment recognised to be boring, we sense that it should now be possible to create a drug-free establishment. Drugs and other key issues are now being addressed in a structured, cohesive and realistic way, by a closely knit and enthusiastic management team."
I hardly think that the prison's reward for that should be to find that it is subject to closure. Mr Cameron made it clear that the decisions are the Executive's, so why did the Executive choose that prison for closure?
The first thing to make clear to Ms Grahame is that I did not choose it. It is important that she recognises and understands that those are operational matters for the Scottish Prison Service. I do not in any way detract from the work that has been done by the prison staff at Dungavel; I wish to pay tribute to that work.
As I have already indicated, the prison has inadequate dormitory accommodation and minimal scope for redevelopment, while Friarton is suitable to take over the role as a top-end, category C prison for long-term prisoners.
Will Mr Wallace give way?
I have been quite generous.
You must wind up now.
I have been asked to wind up, which means that—because I have given way so many times—I cannot cover all the points.
I say to Mr Gallie that information to victims is an important part of our strategy of improving the support and service that are given to victims. The introduction of more information technology, linking the fiscal service with the Scottish Court Service, should enable that to happen more effectively.
Mr Gallie seems to dismiss very lightly the European convention on human rights—to which this country has been a signatory since 1951—and the fact that individuals have had the right to take a case to Strasbourg since 1966, although yesterday he was praying it in aid to help landowners who might be affected by the community right to buy. We should be proud that we have brought rights and justice home—I do not make any apology for that. It is worth pointing out that, since May, while more than 170 criminal cases have been raised that deal with ECHR points, all but three of those challenges have been dismissed.
The sheriffs principal, permanent sheriffs and staff of the Scottish Court Service have responded positively to the need to plan and deliver a court programme without the use of temporary sheriffs, thanks to some astute contingency planning by the sheriffs principal. The courts were ready to make the necessary adjustments to the business programme, the main aim being to prioritise urgent criminal cases and civil cases involving vulnerable witnesses, including children.
It is undeniable that there will be delays in handling non-urgent business, and some court users, particularly in civil cases, will be disappointed by having their cases deferred. However, the permanent judiciary is working to maintain a service to the public and we all ought to be grateful to it for that.
A measure of relief will come from the appointment of 10 new floating sheriffs, who will be allocated to the areas of greatest need when they begin to take up appointments around the turn of the year. There may well be a need to consider further appointments, but we will reach a decision on that once the Lord Advocate has considered his response to the High Court judgment.
There is so much more that could be said. I have set out clearly the Executive's position that our communities should be free from crime and the fear of crime. The Executive has the will and commitment to ensure that that happens.
I move amendment S1M-316.1, to leave out from "expresses" to end and insert:
"supports the Executive's policies on law and order and the principles and initiatives set out in the Partnership for Scotland agreement and the priorities identified in the Programme for Government and in particular the measures being taken to combat crime and drugs, to support the victims of crime, to encourage stronger links between the police and the communities in which they operate, to tackle the problem of persistent re-offending, to rehabilitate offenders through training, education and work and through alternatives to custody, and in putting in place effective community safety strategies."
I welcome the opportunity to consider crime and the Scottish criminal justice system.
We all recognise that the criminal justice system has come under considerable scrutiny in recent weeks, in relation to policing levels, Scottish Prison Service closures and the implications of the European convention on human rights.
The Conservative motion contains an implied criticism of the European convention on human rights. I was not too sure whether Phil Gallie, in his reply to Angus MacKay, said that he welcomed the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our criminal justice system, or whether he is happy just to refer to it.
We are quite clear that we do not welcome incorporation. It was badly thought out and was the wrong thing to do. The terrible situation that we face in our courts shows that we are right.
I thank Mr Gallie for clarifying that, although I do not think that most people in Scotland will welcome it.
We welcome the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our criminal justice system. The convention is not the problem. The problem is the advice and the manner in which the Executive has handled the implications of the convention. Responsibility lies with the Executive.
Jim Wallace correctly pointed out that Clive Fairweather, in the annual report on prisons, recognised that some prisons could be closed. However, Clive Fairweather's views were predicated on the assumption that the prison population would remain stable. Unfortunately, the evidence is that the prison population will rise, which brings into question the thinking behind the Executive's closure programme.
I want to refer to our amendment and, in particular, the issue of policing. For several years, pressure has been growing on police budgets. The problem for our police service is twofold: financing
and resourcing. While the pressure on budgets has increased, recorded crime has also increased in constabulary areas across Scotland. It is increasing in Strathclyde. It is up by 9 per cent in Central, and by 3 per cent in Grampian, Lothian and Borders, and Northern. Only Tayside, and Dumfries and Galloway have shown a decrease. It would be wrong to give the impression that things are improving or will improve in the short term.
The concerns of the Scottish Police Federation have been mentioned. Earlier this month, it gave a clear warning that the Government's proposed budget for policing in Scotland in 2000-01—£741.9 million—means that there will be a cut in real terms. I quote James Fraser, chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, who said:
"We are in a dire situation as far as the police budget is concerned, and if that situation is not greatly improved very quickly then it will become a crisis."
We should listen to that voice. Although members might argue that it is a cash increase in real terms, effectively, it is a cut in real expenditure.
We politicians can easily get caught up in the argument about figures and the allocation of budgets, but we must also remember that the individuals who are responsible for policing our streets, day in, day out, are under ever increasing pressure, because of growing problems of manpower, demands on services and sickness levels.
The most recent annual report by the chief inspector of constabulary highlighted that the sickness level in the police force is increasing; it is currently running at more than 7 per cent. There is little doubt that one of the major contributing factors to the growing problem of sick leave is stress-related illness. The real danger, with decreasing numbers of officers, rising crime and more police officers on sick leave, is that greater pressure is placed on officers still in service.
I refer to the Government's reallocation of £13 million of the Prison Service budget. Not only is our police service under considerable pressure, but as a result of that decision there will be increasing pressure on prisons and prison officers. The announcement on the closure of Penninghame and Dungavel prisons, alongside the reallocation of that funding, is seen by those working in the Scottish Prison Service as a betrayal of their efforts. That is nothing more than a short-term approach to dealing with the prison problem in Scotland.
Does the member agree that the programme of prison closures comes directly from the Government's withdrawal of £13.5 million? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that a new prison executive, who took up his post in September, was forced to call a review in October and to declare prison closures in November?
My primary concern about the Executive's action relates to whether there is appropriate medium to long-term thinking behind it. There are major questions to be asked.
As Mr Matheson has touched on the views of Mr Clive Fairweather, perhaps I can ask him to comment on Mr Fairweather's specific statement on the announcement, that
"as circumstances change—and in this case where the population appears to have steadied, at much the same time as 500 more spaces have been created by the new prison at Kilmarnock, (plus a new block in Saughton)—then perhaps it is time to close some prisons."
He went on to say:
"Consideration could also be given to closing one or two isolated or less cost effective establishments. It would appear therefore, that the closures and the consequent reorganisations announced today by the SPS should not affect its primary role."
Those are Mr Fairweather's words, not mine.
I refer to the comments about Clive Fairweather's earlier statements, which were that his views are predicated on the basis of reducing numbers. However, the evidence that has been given to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is that prisoner numbers will increase. On that basis, I have grave concerns as to whether the closure programme will cause overcrowding.
It is also clear from the Scottish Prison Service press release that the service anticipates that there will be overcrowding as a result of the reallocation of funding and the closure of two prisons. The consequences of the Executive's actions will be job losses in the Prison Service, which will be another blow to the morale of prison staff.
An issue that seems to have gone somewhat unnoticed during that change in policy is the mothballing of the special unit at Peterhead prison. I am sure that no one in the chamber would disagree with getting drug dealers off the street, but we also have to accept our responsibility to ensure that prisoners who have a drug problem are provided with the support and rehabilitation that they need. The mothballing of that unit will stop the rehabilitation work that is being undertaken.
I refer members to the views of the Grampian Addiction Problem Service, which has a close working relationship with the unit at Peterhead. In a recent press release, it stated:
"At present many of the prisoners housed within the unit, are as much victims of drug misuse as they are the perpetrators."
The statement continued:
"Without rehabilitation, such as that supplied at the unit, released prisoners will undoubtedly quickly re-offend."
Where is the long-term thinking in dealing with the drug problem in Scotland? This is purely a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
That concluding sentence was just nonsense.
I would again like to quote Mr Clive Fairweather on the specific point that Mr Matheson is raising on the Peterhead unit. In response to the announcement, he said:
"This is for up to 10 difficult prisoners, and only today we have just completed the first formal inspection report on it. It is to be ‘mothballed'—and this can be done safely as there is another unit at Shotts and the National Induction Centre, the latter of which we praised last year."
On the provision of drugs rehabilitation services in Scottish prisons, we are already actively looking at ways of linking those services to the broader rehabilitation services outwith prisons.
I do not dispute the views of Clive Fairweather, but I also accept the views of people who work with the unit—the Grampian Addiction Problem Service, which clearly has grave concerns about the closure, or the mothballing, of the unit. The Executive has unfortunately decided to mothball. That will inevitably lead to further problems and the vicious circle of crime and drugs.
I return to the issue of providing a comprehensive justice system, and to the issue of supporting the needs of victims. The needs of victims are not given the priority that they deserve. In Scotland, victim support services deal with almost 40,000 referrals each year, the vast majority of which come from the police. The services, yet again, have found their modest budgets under increasing pressure. As a result, they have had to limit the service that they can provide in some areas of Scotland.
Support to victims is not just about the level of service that is provided by victim support groups; it is about the way in which our criminal justice agencies deal with victims. Several months ago, along with other MSPs including Lyndsay McIntosh, I met a lady called Molley Godley, whose son Ian Godley had been killed back in February 1998. Although I do not want to go into specific details of the case, I am concerned about the way in which the family was supported by the criminal justice agencies. The family was unable to find out why the Crown Office had decided not to proceed with the case that had been referred to the procurator fiscal. The family is not only the victim of a son being killed, but the victim of a criminal justice system that has acted insensitively. At no time was the family informed of the possibility that the case would be dropped by the Crown Office, until a call came from the procurator fiscal to say that it had been dropped. What way is that to deal with a family that is dealing with the trauma of losing a son? I am sure that other members could refer to such individual cases across the country.
I return to the issue of improving services for victims of crime. In England and Wales, the Home Office's victims charter has been in place for some time. Lord Cullen recommended such a measure in his report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. However, the Executive's action plan contains very little to meet victims' needs. A victims charter would help to set national standards that stated clearly the level or nature of service that criminal justice agencies should provide. A charter would help families such as the Godleys. At such a time, the Executive has an opportunity to improve services for victims of crime, and I urge it to consider the possibility of introducing a victims charter in Scotland.
Our criminal justice system requires action on several fronts. Any further delay will inevitably lead to increased crime and an impending crisis, if not in the police service, in the prison system. The Executive has been warned not only by political parties but by those who work in the service, and I hope that it will listen to those views and act on them.
I move amendment S1M-316.2, to leave out from "expresses" to end and insert:
"notes with concern the decreasing numbers of serving police officers; expresses deep concern at the prison closure programme, as a result of the Scottish Executive's re-allocation of £13 million of Scottish Prison Service funding, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to recognise that effective criminal justice is one in which adequate resources are provided for the police and the prison service as well as victims of crime, none of whom are well served under the present system."
We now move to the open part of the debate. Members have four minutes for their speeches.
I did not intend to begin by replying to Michael Matheson's speech, but I want to applaud his comments about Mr and Mrs Godley. The minister must realise that, while he is talking about statistics, we are dealing with people. It was dreadful to see Mrs Godley's distress, and she is unlikely to see a proper result. That is criminal.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss so many crucial issues. However, I do not intend to concentrate on police budgets, which have been cut; on police numbers, which are arguable; on prisons, which are to close; on courts, which are in turmoil because of the incorporation of the
European convention on human rights into Scots law; or even on alleged breaches of the peace, which have been so very recently in the news. Instead, I will concentrate on the equally important and wide-ranging issue of drugs.
Drugs are a threat to the very fabric of our society. They ruin the lives of addicts and addicts' families alike. All too frequently, drug addicts resort to crime to pay for their habit and, in the process, destroy the lives of law-abiding citizens and entire communities. There is little doubt that drugs and crime go hand in hand. A recent national treatment outcome research study illustrated that, for every pound spent on drug abuse treatment, more than £3 is saved on the cost of crime.
Unfortunately, recent trends have been less than encouraging. As we speak, there are between 100,000 and 200,000 drug addicts in the UK. The annual cost to the taxpayer from the more serious users alone is well in excess of £4 billion. Internationally, the illegal drugs trade is worth an estimated $40 billion, which is 8 per cent of all international trade. Those figures serve only to exemplify the true extent of the drugs menace. It is our job, as representatives of the people of Scotland, to challenge and defeat that menace. Our children deserve no less.
That requires a truly co-ordinated approach across a number of Executive departments and agencies. The matter is not just for the department of justice and home affairs; it affects other departments with responsibility for issues such as health and community care, children and education, social inclusion, housing and local government. Furthermore, we have various people to deal with the problem. Mr Jim Wallace and Mr MacKay are present, although Mr Sam Galbraith is not and Peter Peacock seems to be preening his feathers elsewhere. We also have Rhona Brankin; Susan Deacon, who may very well have the blues because of the problem; Iain Gray; Wendy Alexander; Jackie Baillie; and Frank McAveety, who is obviously not in Holyrood today. Why, then, are only two members of the Executive present for a debate on such an important issue?
Will the member give way?
Sorry, but I want to get through this little bit.
It is reassuring that there are a number of bodies that aim to deal with the scourge of drugs. Even before the much-advertised drugs enforcement agency, we have the ministerial committee on drug misuse, the Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse, the public health policy unit, the national health service information and statistics divisions, drug action teams, drug development officers and local drugs forums. However, what we really need are joined-up, co-ordinated responses to the drugs menace.
Will you wind up please?
We need a minister with sole responsibility for drugs.
Briefly—
You have one sentence, Mrs McIntosh.
I will never fit it all into just one sentence.
I am afraid that you will have to come to a close then.
In that case, may I assure the Minister for Justice that we will support the Executive's plans for the development of a drugs enforcement agency. No one has all the answers. If constructive proposals are made, we will support them.
I welcome this debate on law and order, but I believe that the motion lacks focus. It is a shopping-list attack on the Executive and on a range of services and provision within the criminal justice system. The Prison Service, victim support and crime prevention services, to name but a few, merit specific attention in a specific debate.
This morning, we have debated crime statistics. It is not true to say that the rates of all crime are rising. The motion is inaccurate. The rates of some types of crime are rising. Only a matter of weeks ago, John Orr of the country's biggest police force—Strathclyde—said that the crime rate had fallen by 7 per cent. Of course, he expressed dismay at the level of violent crime recorded. Strathclyde police take a proactive stance in combating that worrying trend. It is disappointing that the party of law and order's motion does not at least acknowledge the performance of the biggest police force in the country.
It is not enough to say that the debate is simply about statistics and police numbers and to conclude that the number of police officers determines the level of crime prevention and detection. Having the right policies and a force with the right morale and a good relationship with the public are as important as police numbers.
I am concerned about police resources, especially in Glasgow city centre, in my constituency, whose special circumstances need to be taken into account. Much has been said about the use of new technology and its impact on the detection and prevention of crime. In Glasgow
Kelvin, Glasgow Development Agency supports 35 CCTV cameras operated by civilians in Stewart Street police station. I acknowledge that that may raise concerns about civil liberties, but those concerns are outweighed by the many advantages of the system. I have seen the system for myself. The operators are extremely skilled and can witness a scene as it develops. If a fight were to break out outside a pub or club in the city centre, the police would be alerted. CCTV tapes have also been used in evidence to convict offenders of serious crimes who, in many cases, have denied that they were even at the scene of the crime.
Glasgow city centre has distinct policing problems. It is a bone of contention that the police are often left to pick up the problems caused by homelessness, drug misuse and the Glasgow hostels' policy of putting vulnerable people out on the street from 9 in the morning until 9 at night, which is a matter that I have already raised with the Minister for Communities.
It is of paramount importance that we, as legislators, have a vision of how crime should be prevented and dealt with. To do that, we need real objectives. The Tories have long been supporters of the just-deserts movement and have supported the three-strikes-and-you're-out policy. In our view, that attitude is a bit simplistic and crude. We believe that a more sophisticated attitude to crime and the criminal justice system must be taken.
There are too many women in prison. We support alternatives to prison and are willing to consider community service schemes. The evidence shows that, as Richard Simpson said, simply locking up young offenders does nothing to reduce overall crime statistics—we must be conscious of that in our crime policy.
Will Pauline McNeill give way?
No, I do not have enough time.
It is a really nice point—she would like it.
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
As part of our vision of tackling crime, we must give due attention to its victims. In that regard, I have some support for what Michael Matheson said. I welcome the Lord Advocate's recent statement that Crown prosecution must be transparent and accountable. This Parliament has to ensure that that is the case, not just for the Godley family, but for the Dekkar family and others, who feel that so far they have failed to get an explanation. Victims should have rights, and the Government is taking action to ensure that victim support is part of the criminal justice system.
We will tackle serious crime and are prepared to take radical measures in our programme to stay tough on crime. We are doing so through setting up the drugs enforcement agency; we are even prepared to investigate the Irish approach to determine whether it is something that we can incorporate into Scots law.
I hope that the next time Mr Gallie sees Mr Orr, he will have some explanations, given Strathclyde police's good performance and the reduction in the level of crime. I am sure that Mr Orr will have something to say about Mr Gallie's motion.
If Pauline McNeill had read what Mr Orr had written, she would realise that the number of crimes in Strathclyde rose last year by 4 per cent, to 220,576.
Will Mr Gibson give way?
No, I will not. I do not give way to people who do not give way to others.
I want to focus on the difficulties faced by Strathclyde police because of the severe funding constraints imposed by the Executive and by the First Minister in his previous incarnation as Secretary of State for Scotland.
On 4 November, I asked the Deputy First Minister whether he agreed
"that inadequate police resources lead to increased crime, especially public order offences and street crime", and whether
"the substantial increase in violent crime in Strathclyde last year" was partly a result of cuts in funding, leaving
"Strathclyde police . . . 350 officers short of their operational competence"— the establishment deemed appropriate to provide adequate policing. To gasps of amazement, at least from the SNP benches, Mr Wallace responded by saying that
"there is no clear correlation between levels of crime and . . . the size of police forces."—[Official Report, 4 November 1999; Vol 3, c 341-42.]
Not only do I beg to differ, but so do Strathclyde police. The following day, at a seminar at their headquarters and in the presence of a number of MSPs, I asked the same question of an assistant chief constable. The answer was, "Of course there is." Such a complacent attitude in the Scottish Executive is totally unacceptable.
In 1998-99, the number of crimes of dishonesty in Strathclyde rose from 133,613 to 140,942, an increase of 5.1 per cent. The number of crimes of
violence rose from 12,040 to 14,029, an increase of 16.52 per cent. The number of drugs offences increased by 19.4 per cent from 15,136 to 18,078.
Earlier in the debate, Mr Gibson will have heard that, in the 18 years of Conservative government, crime rose in Scotland. He probably criticised the Conservatives for that at the time. He has also heard that—and no one is disputing the fact—at the same time, police numbers rose substantially. How does he square that with his view on the correlation between police numbers and crime?
If we take that argument to its logical conclusion, Mr Wallace would say that crime would disappear if we got rid of the police force. [Laughter.] That would be ludicrous.
The police—the professionals—are saying that they need more officers to tackle crime. The public are saying that the police need more officers to tackle crime. Mr Wallace appears to be the only person saying the reverse—for him, this is all about saving money.
Does anyone seriously doubt that a reduction of 200 in Strathclyde police's operational force has impacted on crime figures? Of course it did. A further reduction of 150 officers this financial year and of 100 officers in the next financial year will further stretch the force, with an undoubted impact on its ability to meet existing commitments, let alone new ones.
Will Mr Gibson give way?
I will give way if the Presiding Officer will give me additional time to finish my speech.
I am not making a deal with you, Mr Gibson—we will see how it works out.
In that case, I cannot let Angus MacKay in. I would like to, but I cannot get more time.
On 4 November, the Deputy First Minister, responding to my question, informed the chamber that police budgets would increase in 2000-01 by an inflation-busting 3.8 per cent. Mr Wallace disingenuously failed to mention that more than a third of that increase would have to be paid back in non-domestic rates, which will be charged to the police from next April for the first time. That will cost the police in Scotland £10 million a year. Truly, what you giveth, Jim, you also taketh away. A cynic might be impressed by how soon into his new job Mr Wallace has become acquainted with spin. Who knows—perhaps he is Scotland's Jack Straw.
The police are being starved of resources. In terms of revenue, in 1999-2000 Strathclyde police have been awarded £4.45 million less than they require simply to meet the cost of the annual pay award. Over the same period, the cost of police pensions payable from revenue has increased by £2 million. As pay and pensions makes up 88.1 per cent of Strathclyde police's revenue expenditure, there is little opportunity to make year-on-year savings other than by hammering front-line policing.
Please wind up.
Capital budgets are even more under the cosh—only £6.7 million has been allocated in this financial year. When the deputy chief constable addressed Glasgow City Council's policy and resources committee in March, he described that sum as totally inadequate, given a priority need for £16.5 million. So skint are Strathclyde police that, this year, they have been unable to purchase even one new vehicle, which has led to reduced vehicle reliability and greater expenditure on repair and maintenance. Hardly best value, is it? However, it is the best that Strathclyde police can do with the resources available.
Come to a close, please.
I am winding up.
Quickly, please.
Last year, despite severe financial constraint and rising crime, the professionalism and hard work of Strathclyde police ensured that they had the most successful crime detection results ever. Imagine what they could achieve if properly resourced by the Executive: more police on the beat; more work with schools, businesses, the wider community and victims of crime; more crackdowns on dealers; more prevention of crime through visible deterrence; and more pensioners sleeping safe in their beds.
Mr Gibson, close now, please.
Unfortunately, this Executive of expediency has shamefully betrayed Strathclyde police.
I am happy to support Jim Wallace's amendment, the latter part of which makes important points. If I may say so, it is an improvement on some of the rather vacuous motions that the Executive has asked us to support. I hope that the common sense demonstrated in the amendment will be brought to bear on relationships between the Executive and the Parliament, especially if there is any truth in the main story in The Herald today.
I wish to make one or two suggestions— constructive, I hope—on the welcome path down which Mr Wallace is going.
On improving the justice system, many of us have argued for years that we should be able to speed up the court system. Courts in Scotland are run for the benefit of lawyers; they should be run for the benefit of the community and to suit the community. For example, what about evening courts or weekend courts? If they interfere with a few golf games, that is tough.
We could also have more informal courts. I know that such measures—family courts, housing or neighbour dispute resolution courts and so on— are being considered. We should also consider imposing weekend jail sentences, so that the person continues to do his or her work during the week and is in jail after finishing work on Friday until starting work on Monday. That would often be more of a punishment than spending weeks in jail.
Community service is an excellent alternative to jail, but should be done as visibly as possible— such as, for example, landscape improvements in the middle of a town, which are seen by a lot of people. That is a better type of community service.
I welcome Jim Wallace's announcement of the four schemes to provide better facilities for young people. We should extend that approach to include, for example, a combined attack on truancy. For many people, truancy is the beginning of a career that leads to jail. There should be a better combined effort, involving the police—not in a heavy-blue-hatted-people-knocking-on-the-door way, but with community police, schools and social workers working together to provide classes in nearby youth centres and so on. That would achieve a great deal.
In general, we need a pooled budget to help young people. We need to bring together budgets that will support young people's activities in different ways. We must also empower young people. There is a huge difference between a youth centre that is run by people like me telling young people what to do and one that is run by young people. Obviously, older people could be involved—such as staff who would be paid by the young people—but young people should manage the centres. For example, Terminal One in Blantyre is a good youth centre that is run in that way. We were told about another—the Joss Street centre at Invergordon—while on a visit to Inverness. Yet another—6 VT, the Edinburgh city youth café—is just round the corner from here. All of those have youth involvement.
Does the member agree that there are not enough youth facilities in Scotland? One helpful thing that the Executive could do would be to carry out an audit of such facilities throughout Scotland.
That sort of thing would be helpful, but often people are needed, not expensive facilities. Some facilities are required, but people and investment in helping the young people to run their own affairs are more important.
There are too many strategies on drugs, which are not brought together. The drug action teams have no budget, no resources and no administration. Again, better co-ordination is needed.
Overall, we need to co-ordinate our budgets, activities and energies to help young people to help themselves, as individuals, through better activities and sports, better social lives and so on. Young people also need help to run their own affairs collectively. That would make a huge difference to the whole sphere of crime and disorder, without a lot of money being spent. It would also make a much better society than would a system based on retribution. Mr Wallace is on the right lines and I will encourage him further along those lines.
We all agree on the value of a good police force and associated back-up services. In Port Glasgow or Portpatrick, Easterhouse or Eastwood, the public need to know that they have a good police force.
The public perception of the police force is important. Statistical accounts, the number of performance indicators and the debates that we have here do not matter; what matters is that the citizen on the street sees a policeperson when they need to. That citizen also needs the comfort and consolation of seeing policepeople in their area, especially if they feel that their area has difficulties with crime.
Police personnel are in short supply. In this year's annual report, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary in Scotland reported that from March 1998 to March 1999, police numbers had fallen by 151, a 1 per cent decrease in one year. In September 1997, there were 15,050 police officers in Scotland; at the end of September 1999, the figure was 14,676. That represents a fall of 2.5 per cent. In Lothian and Borders, the chief constable wants 25 extra policepeople for Edinburgh city centre, partly because of VIP visits, of which there have been 156 this year. The Metropolitan police get funds to cover such visits, but Lothian and Borders police do not. He also wants extra officers because there has been a 20 per cent increase in crime in Edinburgh city centre.
In Strathclyde region, the police establishment is 350 short—a shortage of 4.76 per cent. It could be
argued that that is a small number, but it has a significant effect and causes problems for the community police. Strathclyde region has a good community policing programme, in which identified police personnel are situated in identifiable communities, but when special events take place that attract large numbers of people, the community police are withdrawn from the villages and towns in which they usually serve. It is clear that 350 extra people could make a significant difference to that situation.
If the number of staff who are on courses or off sick are added to that shortage of almost 5 per cent, the result is overstretch. Overstretch of resources means slower response times. In addition, as was explained at the briefing that Pauline McNeill also attended, it means that the police have to prioritise telephone calls. People who may have an important problem have to wait longer than the police would want. That diminishes or even destroys confidence in the police. We should not allow such situations to arise. Overstretch also means that more people go off sick. Days lost through sickness rose from 157,964 in 1997-98 to 169,154 in 1998-99. As the overstretch continues, and as people continue to be under stress, that figure is bound to increase.
The reason behind that is insufficient funds. The shortfall of available cash in Scotland in the coming 12 months will be the equivalent of 550 fewer police. The only alternative is to sell off the family silver, but in Strathclyde the police have already sold it. All the police housing and estate that could be sold has been sold to find money to keep police personnel on the ground. Either the amount of equipment is cut or the number of police is cut—the outcome of either option is impossible to imagine. Those are not roads down which we want to go. More resources are needed—the people need that and the Executive must take it on board.
I welcome the opportunity to debate law and order—it is an important issue for my constituents, and I believe that the partnership agreement shows that it is an important issue for the Executive.
I thank the Tories for initiating today's debate, but my thanks to them end at that. The Conservative manifesto at the previous election claimed—among other things—that falling levels of crime, tough sentencing and waging war against the evils of drugs were features of the previous Conservative Government. The facts tell a different story. The period of that Government was characterised by a 115 per cent increase in non-sexual crimes of violence, a 59 per cent increase in fire-raising and vandalism and a 506 per cent increase in other crimes—listed principally as drug offences. Those are not my figures; they are from the Scottish Parliament information centre.
In the past, Phil Gallie has had the audacity to suggest that the Labour party is stealing Conservative policies. Why would the Labour party want anything to do with policies that have so obviously and tragically failed Scottish communities? Is not it the truth that the Tories are now enviously eyeing the policies of the Executive and wishing that during their 18 years of failure they had thought of them? The only part of Mr Gallie's motion that is worth supporting is its call to the Scottish Executive to be tough on crime and on the criminals who blight our communities. I agree—Tories such as Jeffrey Archer, Neil Hamilton and Jonathan Aitken have been a blight on our communities for too long.
The Deputy Minister for Justice, Angus MacKay, said in a recent debate in this chamber that we had to support communities by responding to local concerns. He also said that we had to respond by implementing integration and effective co-ordination of community safety strategies and action plans that would properly prevent crime.
I agree with that, so I welcome Wendy Alexander's recent announcement that £48,000 will be allocated to set up people's juries in Glasgow to examine the problems of drugs and crime. That will give the fight against drugs and crime the priority that it deserves. Only people who understand the daily reality and consequences of drugs can find the solutions.
Does Karen Whitefield endorse Mr Blair's association with Bernie Ecclestone, who donated £1 million to the Labour party? She has— rightly—shown concern in the chamber for the health of the people of Airdrie.
I do not think that that is relevant. My priority is the people of Airdrie and Shotts. I stand up for their health and will continue to do so. I thank Mr Monteith for reminding those of my constituents who are here today of that.
I welcome the inclusion of appropriate targets in the recently published social justice document. Measures to reduce school truancy and exclusion are positive ways of tackling crime. Crime prevention is always preferable to crime detection.
I have concerns about the impact that the announced closures of prisons will have on other Scottish prisons—including Shotts prison in my constituency. I have written to Jim Wallace about that and he is aware of my concerns.
Before concluding, I would like to comment on the use of CCTV. As many members will be
aware, three men and a boy of 14 were recently convicted of a particularly brutal assault on a father and son in Northburn in Airdrie. Video footage of that assault not only shocked the nation, but provided vital evidence that ensured the conviction of those thugs. If ever there was an overwhelming argument for the use of CCTV, that must be it.
Tackling crime is at the heart of the Executive's policy agenda, and I ask members to support Jim Wallace's amendment.
I am pleased that Karen Whitefield welcomes the CCTV pilot scheme in Airdrie, as I helped to start it. I believe that it will reduce crime levels, and I am glad that we can agree at least on that.
There are three issues of law and order that I would like to raise. The first relates to the courts. I am an advocate—at present, a non-practising advocate, like the Minister for Justice. The suspension not only of 126 temporary sheriffs, but of all temporary judges in the Court of Session is a significant development. It would be wholly unacceptable if persons who are charged with crimes of violence are not brought to justice simply because of an insufficiency of judges. I have submitted some 19 written questions for the Administration to answer. However, for some unknown reason, the Executive finds it hard to answer written parliamentary questions within one week, as is the normal practice in the House of Commons.
Even without detailed information, we know certain facts. In Linlithgow sheriff court, there are some 33 cases that involve temporary sheriffs, in which sentences have been deferred; that is, cases in which sentences have yet to be imposed. We also know that there are no fewer than 36 continued civil cases that are currently before temporary sheriffs, and 41 part-heard summary trials. My understanding is that temporary sheriffs must report back to the courts, then hand over their cases to permanent sheriffs. In many, if not all, of those cases there may have to be another trial.
However, the situation is far more serious than that. Between 24 November 1999 and 31 December 2000, temporary sheriffs have been scheduled to hear 233 cases. If one also takes into account the fact that all temporary judges in the Court of Session are no longer sitting, one recognises a problem that will develop over the next few months, particularly in those courts that are most dependent on temporary sheriffs and judges. There is a test case before the Court of
Session today. The editorial in The Scotsman says:
"Were today's case to succeed, courts could be flooded with two decades' worth of challenges. Prisoners could be released. Divorcees could find they are still married."
There will undoubtedly be substantial problems, not only with test cases. Glasgow sheriff court alone has 76 cases that are scheduled to appear before temporary sheriffs. I ask the Lord Advocate, and the Minister for Justice and his junior minister, to consider very carefully the issue of resources. It seems that the contingency arrangements that have been made are not equal to the threat that will face us of huge pressure on the court system, particularly in certain areas.
I have great respect for Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and his knowledge of the court system. In the light of what he has said, and the rulings that may emerge later today, does he think that there is a strong case for this Parliament to meet again to try to resolve these difficulties as soon as possible?
Yes. I entirely agree with what Margaret Ewing has said. I feel strongly that the Lord Advocate should make a statement to the Parliament. This problem will grow, and I do not believe that the contingency measures that he has put in place are anywhere near equal to the threat that will face the courts very shortly.
Colin Campbell raised the issue of police funding, and I whole-heartedly endorse what he said in relation to Edinburgh. Edinburgh is our capital, the centre of commerce, one of the leading financial centres of Europe, a centre for international conferences and the home of the Edinburgh international festival. It needs at least 25 more police officers, and the chief constable has submitted a report to the police board to ask for funding.
The funding that is required will be the same as that which the Administration gave for the Botticelli in the National Gallery of Scotland yesterday. Therefore, I feel that that is an altogether reasonable request. In the past five years, there have been 156 visits by heads of Government, and the scale and importance of the Scottish Parliament will impose further pressures on Edinburgh. I hope that the minister will take that message on board.
I have no time to expand on my final point, except to say that I was an inmate in Dungavel for some six years of my life. I very much look forward to hearing the minister say what plans he has for it in the future because, sadly, it is fit only to be a prison.
I welcome this debate. From the election campaign for this Parliament, we all remember the feeling expressed on doorsteps throughout the country about law and order. For instance, when I was campaigning in Aberdeen, I met an elderly lady whose house had been broken into three times in a year. That woman now lives a life of fear, and we must keep people like her at the forefront of our minds when we are debating this subject.
Crime and police levels are not just an urban issue; they are a rural issue. I was surprised that Jim Wallace said, when defending the closure of Penninghame open prison, that it was remote from the central belt. Perhaps when he is in the chamber he can explain what he meant by that.
There is a widespread belief throughout our rural communities that police levels are declining and crime levels are increasing. However, the Executive's amendment says that one of its objectives is
"to encourage stronger links between the police and the communities in which they operate".
That is commendable but, in many of our rural areas, the police stations have been closed over the past decade. As Colin Campbell quite rightly said, one reason for that is the lack of funds and the enforced sell-off of the family silver. The wellkent village bobby really is becoming a thing of the past, and we are losing all the benefits of the informal policing that the village bobby could use to defuse volatile situations. That simply does not happen any more.
Rural crime is compounded by the physical and social isolation of our rural communities, and police response times are lengthy. Every time there are cuts it seems to be the rural police stations that are first to go. A couple of years ago, I was given a tour by Grampian police in a rural area in the north-east, whose name I will not mention in case any potential criminals are listening. Because there are no rural police stations these days, a couple of police officers go round the area in a panda car throughout the night. I could hardly believe the extent of the area that two police officers were expected to cover. I encourage every rural MSP in this chamber to go out with the police and tour the rural areas. They will be staggered. If the public knew, they would also be outraged.
Reference has already been made to the importance of CCTV, but CCTV cannot be used in rural areas to the same extent as is possible in urban areas. Organised criminals are now moving into the villages, which causes a greater problem and increases the need for police officers in rural communities.
Margaret Ewing makes an excellent point that emphasises the need for special consideration for policing in rural Scotland.
New ideas are needed to support traditional policing in both rural and urban areas. I would like the Executive to address the question of air surveillance and air support. Tayside police and Grampian police are enthusiastic about that new type of policing, which is great for chasing vehicles or searching for missing persons. The police forces in England have been given several million pounds of pump priming funding to start such projects. That money has been provided by the Home Office, but the Scottish Executive has not announced that there will be similar assistance in Scotland. However, it is a valuable means of assistance for protecting life and property and we should be supporting our police forces in establishing that service.
Finally, I turn to prison cuts. Many members have already outlined the serious concerns that the SNP has about those cuts. We should be boosting the morale of the people in the front line of law and order, including prison officers, rather than depleting it yet further. About a year ago, the trade union side issued a report called "Work and Health in the Scottish Prison Service", which emphasised the amount of stress that prison officers experience in their day-to-day jobs. That is due to a range of factors, including bullying in the workplace, as management seeks to enforce efficiency savings.
The situation is unacceptable and is likely to worsen with fewer prison officers and prisons. As the report says, there should be more, not less, investment in the Prison Service. Diverting the cash to the drugs enforcement agency is ironic. As I understand its purpose, it is to catch drug dealers and imprison them. Surely, if it does its job, that means that the prison population will increase. The Executive has failed to take that into account.
Other speakers have mentioned the mothballing of the Peterhead unit. That decision is inexplicable, with no alternative being put forward for dealing with difficult prisoners.
Law and order in Scotland took a nosedive under 18 years of the Tories. If the Executive does not want to follow in their footsteps, it should give us more prisons, more prison officers and more police on the beat, and support the SNP amendment.
It is narrow-minded to suggest that we should just put more people into jail. There are alternatives to jail,
including new measures—
What does the member intend to do with the drug barons, once they are caught?
I am pleased that the Deputy Minister for Justice has been in Ireland looking at the seizure of assets, a way to really hit the drug dealers where it hurts. A drug dealer is the centre of a web of criminals—catch the dealer and crime figures are dramatically reduced. That is why there are 200 extra police officers in the drugs enforcement agency. As a modern society we should be looking at alternatives to prison; people do not reform there, as we would want. There are other ways, which the Executive has already outlined. On youth crime, we are looking at ways of taking people out of a drugs dependency culture into leisure and sports pursuits; that is proven to reduce dependency on drugs. Richard Lochhead's narrow perspective and political point scoring do not help.
Dungavel prison is in my constituency and I have huge respect for the prison officers there and for the organisation of the prison. Efficient use of taxpayers' money is one of the main remits of the Prison Service; it came up with the review, not the Executive. It put forward six criteria for assessing individual prisons and took decisions on that basis. Prison officers do a very difficult job and do it very well.
Moving on to more rational aspects of this debate, when I go round schools in my constituency people talk about the level of youth crime and drugs in communities, and I am very pleased that the Executive is being more creative on that. The drugs enforcement agency will make a difference as will the alternative schemes to get young people out of drugs culture into mainstream society.
I spent a day on the beat with the local police in East Kilbride. Their role is much valued—they are enforcers, quasi-lawyers, social workers and, on occasion, substitute parents. I know the difficult and valuable job they do. Police officers are increasingly innovative in their approach to young people, with a proactive role in schools and involvement in local drugs forums. Joined-up thinking is happening under the Executive's programme on crime and I welcome it. It is about ensuring that all aspects of the community are involved; it is about schools, criminal intelligence, working across borders, internationally. Drugs are, as everyone recognises, a scourge. Seizures of drugs off the street are up, but this is an international problem and I am pleased to see the Executive working in an international way.
CCTV makes a big improvement in people's sense of security. I am glad to see further resources going into that. The Executive's overall strategy means we can feel safer, that the approach being taken is sounder. It is a balance of measures, not designed to throw everybody in the slammer, but a mixed delivery of systems, catching people at their entry into crime and diverting them. That is how we begin to resolve the problems of community safety.
I will address this debate under three headings. I ask the minister to accept that I am attempting to be helpful and constructive, but I must make some criticism over the way in which the Executive has implemented the European convention on human rights. First, it is clear that it was never thought through. There was no anticipation of what was likely to arise, which has resulted in the shambles regarding temporary sheriffs and judges. Clearly, the situation should have been anticipated, because it was the talk of the legal steamie for months.
If there was no anticipation of events, how come, all of a sudden, there are 10 new permanent floating sheriffs?
The fact is, as the member well knows—but possibly does not, because I appreciate that the Liberal Democrats are not kept fully in the picture with regard to the Executive's actions—that the 10 floating sheriffs were in the pipeline some time ago.
What other ticking bombs arise out of the ECHR? I direct the minister, helpfully, to address the matter of bail refusals, because it is likely to cause concern and considerable excitement in the months ahead.
I will turn to a matter that has not been raised today—at least, if it has, I have not heard it— which is juvenile offenders. Our system of dealing with juvenile offenders was determined under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which set up the system of children's panels. A 16-year-old in 1968 is a different animal from a 16-year-old today. Youngsters are maturing much earlier, in every aspect. Sadly, with regard to the criminal side of life they are maturing much earlier also.
The children's panel system has a useful and full role to play in respect of children who are genuinely at risk, and I do not wish to see that interfered with in any way, but I wonder, given that there is such a high recidivism rate under the existing legislation, whether it is time to beef up the act significantly, and certainly to make parents responsible in some respects for the misbehaviour of their children.
I appreciate that many of the kids who come
before the children's panel come from families that are maladjusted and dysfunctional in many ways, but at the end of the day something has to be done to make parents realise that they are responsible for crimes and offences that their children commit. The children's panel system was once cynically described to me by a leading Glasgow solicitor as the seed corn for our future. Steps should be taken to remove that concern.
On the matter of alternatives to custody, I was intrigued by Donald Gorrie's suggestion of weekend prison sentences. To my mind, Donald Gorrie frequently makes sensible suggestions, but that was not one of them. The fact is that it sums up a misconception that people like Donald have, that crimes and offences are committed by chaps who go off the rails one Saturday night when they have a few pints in them. The fact is that the vast majority of offenders who come before the courts are unemployed, and a weekend jail sentence does not have the desired effect upon them.
Let us look at the other things that are on offer, and particularly the farce of the conditional offer system, whereby the fiscal can, when someone admits an offence, impose a fiscal fine. Those fines are legally unenforceable. All that happens is that the person returns a letter, pleads guilty, encloses £5 for the first instalment and that is the end of it. There is no way in which enforcement action can be taken. Does the minister realise that? I do not think that he does. He should be beefing up the appropriate legislation to ensure that, if those fines are not paid, they can be dealt with by a means inquiry court in the normal system. We have to examine the alternatives to those fines. At present, a £200 fine not being paid results in three days' imprisonment. In Glasgow, there are few offenders who are likely to sacrifice 200 beer vouchers for the equivalent of three days in jail.
I put forward those points in a constructive vein and I hope that the minister will address them.
I will concentrate almost entirely on drugs issues. It is 13 years ago since I took a private member's bill through the House of Commons, with the support of all parties: the Scottish nationalists, Plaid Cymru, Tories, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the unionists. That was the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act 1985, which increased the maximum sentence for trafficking in class A drugs from 14 years to life. That was a worthy measure. We, in the Executive, yield to nobody in terms of wanting to fight the drug menace.
I strongly support the announcement of the drugs enforcement agency. I believe that it will give the more focused and strategic approach that the Deputy First Minister claimed that it would today. However, I am concerned—and I hope that the Deputy Minister for Justice will respond to this point in his winding-up speech—that at the same time as the £10.5 million for the DEA was announced, a comprehensive audit of drug treatment services and rehabilitation was announced. We have not had the details of that audit yet, but I hope that Angus MacKay, as the chairman of the ministerial group on drug misuse, will give us more information on it. There is an urgent need for a debate in this chamber on the issue of drug misuse, the DEA and what it will do. It is easy for drug misuse to take over a debate on law and order—that is an unfortunate phrase— which is the subject of the debate today.
There is no doubt that the UK Government approach has emphasised cutting supply. Three quarters of the £1.4 billion that it spends is on enforcement and only a quarter is spent on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. That is an imbalance and there is an urgent need for us to spend more on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Lyndsay McIntosh was right when she said—it was one point of substance in her speech—that £1 spent on treatment and rehabilitation saves £3 in terms of clearing up crime.
I welcome the Deputy First Minister's announcement today of the extra sports centres and outdoor centres for young people. That is crucial. It coincides with what was said to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee on Monday by Sally Haw of the Health Education Board for Scotland, when she expressed her concern about the number of outdoor centres and outward bound centres that had closed in the past 20 years. Whether they are called diversion centres or something else, they are a crucial way to help and support young people.
In the social inclusion debate yesterday, I mentioned the issue of exclusion, which was touched on by my colleague Donald Gorrie today. That is absolutely central. We must deal with truancy. I quoted the statistics, which Dr Richard Simpson kindly gave me, on the very successful pupil support unit in Alloa Academy, where exclusion has been cut by half. That already exceeds the targets announced by the Executive earlier this week. That successful example must be spread to other parts of Scotland.
Donald Gorrie and Richard Lochhead also mentioned youth centres. I agree that we need the Executive to produce another of its glossy brochures, but this time with descriptions of best practice in terms of youth centres. A number have
been mentioned today; others include the Corner in Dundee, the Youth Advice Project in Inverurie and Off the Record in Stirling. We need more of these but, as Donald Gorrie rightly said, it is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about the youth workers who do such excellent work. I remember seeing them doing excellent work in a rather scruffy room, beside the swimming pool, in Turriff. It was packed with the kids from the local school at lunchtime. Those kind of drop-in centres for young people are key, because, on exclusion, there is so much evidence that truancy leads to them becoming young offenders and then going on to become hardened criminals.
The drug action teams have a mixed record. The minister must spread the good practice in Glasgow to the other 22 drug action teams, which are less effective.
Finally, I will make this positive point on prisons. I am concerned about the lack of counselling and therapy for addicts in our prisons. There is no question but that those who have the guts to go cold turkey in the drug-free zones do not get enough support. We need far more support for organisations such as Simpson House, which counsel prisoners in prison and provide them with through-care after they have left. That is not public spending—it is public investment. It will reduce the cost of crime and the costs of our prisons.
There are other points that I would like to make, but I will end there. In the near future, let us have a full-scale debate in this chamber on drug misuse. There are so many aspects of this serious problem: education, health—the hepatitis C epidemic is a time bomb that threatens our health boards—and, of course, crime.
I have no doubt that this Tory-initiated debate is intended to centre on the Conservatives' supposedly impeccable record on law and order, as against the fact that Labour has allowed the country to go to rack and ruin. I have no intention of getting involved in the shouting match about who is tougher on crime, who puts more police on the street, or similar arguments. I want to examine the importance of developing communities as a whole rather than as the sum of their parts.
Any community is dependent on a number of different factors for its prosperity, both social and economic. Education, opportunity, employment, housing, leisure and justice are all important. When a community is deprived of any of those ingredients, its strength as a group of people living and working together breaks down.
Even the Government has acknowledged that those who live in communities that are blighted by poverty are more likely to suffer vandalism or crime. Does it not occur to the Executive that investment in police is investment in our communities? Did it not consider, when examining its financial allocation to the police, that underfunding the Strathclyde police force by almost £10 million, and thereby leaving it short of 350 people, would have an impact on other policies? Did it not occur to the Executive that, when it cut money from local authority budgets and forced councils to find around £100 million in efficiency savings to meet Government-enforced self-financing pay awards, councils would cut services?
There have been cutbacks to social services, which are vital when it comes to minimising crime and providing support for victims. Cutbacks to leisure services, which provided youngsters with opportunity and a diversion from anti-social activities and behaviour, are best summed up by the phrase, "The devil makes work for idle hands." Is the Executive so bankrupt of imagination that it cannot see that those factors combine with destructive effect?
What use is much-hailed investment in homes, if it is undermined by an inability to keep them free from vandalism because there are too few police and too many youngsters with nowhere to go and nothing to do? I have no doubt that press notices trumpeting money for new homes—and the associated photocalls—are more attractive than a press notice that says that civic Scotland is agreed that police forces are adequately funded. However, good government is not about photocalls; it is about policy.
Before the Conservative party gets too complacent, let me remind it that it was responsible for cutting around £300 million from local government budgets during the last two years that it was in office. During John Major's infamous recession, car crime in Scotland increased by 80 per cent, while housebreaking increased by almost a quarter.
Two months ago, the Parliament debated crime prevention. In the course of that debate, it found that strong communities—more bobbies on the beat, manned police stations, visible policing methods and so on—were important in crime prevention. Community partnerships, community security and the provision of facilities to enable those were the order of the day. I ask members to note that all those policies centre on the notion of community. We should remember that it was the Conservative party's neglect during its 18 years in office that destroyed communities. The SNP believes in communities and society, but—
Was it not the Conservative party that pioneered the urban regeneration programmes in Scotland in Wester Hailes,
Ferguslie Park, Castlemilk and Whitfield in Dundee, pouring millions of pounds into the redevelopment of those communities, both economically and socially? That record, of which we are proud, hardly squares with what Mr Paterson is saying.
I take that point on board but I must point out that the biggest crime that the Conservatives never solved was the ravages of Thatcher, and it is her period in office that I am talking about.
Only a few days ago, the community of Longriggend visited Parliament to highlight its plight. In Longriggend, the basic amenities of street lighting, roads and drainage are provided by the Prison Service. When the prison closes, those amenities will no longer be provided. I cannot think of a better example of Government neglect, especially when the Prison Service has a surplus of £13 million.
This Parliament has a duty to provide not just policing but community resources. It must give our communities the opportunity to thrive and prosper.
I almost have to admire Phil Gallie for his persistence in applauding the record of the previous Tory Government. Members will recall that the Tories believed that there was no such thing as society.
Has the member ever read what Margaret Thatcher said about society? If she has, she will recall that Margaret Thatcher said that there was no such thing as society to take the blame; there were families and communities.
I do not recall that she talked about blame. She said that there was no such thing as society and her policies made it clear that that belief was integral to the Conservatives' political philosophy.
The Tories bear a great responsibility for the situation in which our communities find themselves and I am certain that the Scottish people will take a long time to forget that. The Tories have not changed—that was made clear by their recent conference. They remain as Thatcherite as ever.
Since taking office, the Labour Government has taken action to rectify the trends of the previous 18 years. Last week, in a question to the Executive, I raised the issue of the new legislation on anti-social neighbours. It took a Labour Government— after all those years of Tory Governments—to introduce legislation to protect people from nuisance neighbours. I only wish that more councils would use the powers that they have been given.
They are Labour councils.
Not all of them are; Dumfries and Galloway is not our council.
I am more than happy for extra resources to be used in the fight against drugs, which are a major problem in my constituency and almost everywhere else in the country. I want improvements in crime prevention to ensure that fewer people commit crimes and have to go to prison.
I want to ask the minister for his assistance. On 7 November, I met members of the Prison Service who work at the young offenders institute in Dumfries. They asked me questions that I could not answer. I wrote to the minister and to Tony Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, but have not yet received a reply. Although I am sure I will receive one at some point, I ask the minister for his help today.
I have three questions. First, if the £13 million is an underspend—my understanding is that that means money that has not been spent—what is the need for further cuts in the Prison Service's budget? Are further savings being sought?
Secondly, if efficiency savings result in job losses, what incentive is there for prison officers to look for further efficiency savings in the future?
On a point of order. Dr Murray has made some substantial points and has asked questions of the minister. However, throughout her speech, the minister has been engaged in a conversation and cannot possibly have taken her points on board.
I will finish on my third question. Why were the absence rates of prison officers compared with rates in the retail trade, when the levels of stress and assault in those occupations are in no way comparable?
I would be obliged for the minister's views on those three points, so that I can answer the questions that have put to me by my constituents in Dumfries.
I say to Mr Gallie and Mr McLetchie that I would share the concerns expressed in their motion if I felt that the Scottish Executive was in some way not committed to clamping down on and fighting crime, but there is no doubt that it is. We are committed to maintaining and funding an effective police force. We are all concerned at the rising number of drug-related deaths and the blight that drug-related crime causes our communities. We are setting up a drugs enforcement agency to tackle that problem.
Ultimately, Mr Gallie's motion leads us to a sterile debate about figures and who is doing what. That brings me to my key point. Most members agree on the importance of clamping down on crime, but the implication of this motion is that only by being tough on crime can the problem be tackled. The question to be answered, therefore, is, "How tough on crime should we be?" It is a "We'll be tougher than you" approach. I do not want to bandy around statistics, but I do not accept that we are soft on criminals or crime. There is no doubt about our commitment to punishing those who break our laws and terrorise our neighbourhoods with their activities.
The other implication of the motion is that by being ever tougher one can provide a solution; that more and more police officers and more and more prisons will rid society of crime. That is a simplistic and misleading approach. Crime is an extremely complex matter. It defies easy solutions and requires an altogether more sophisticated approach than the hang 'em and flog 'em attitudes outlined here.
Will Mr Macintosh take on board the fact that we are not looking for more and more prison spaces and more and more police? We simply ask—as far as the police go—that targets be met and that no more reductions be made. Similarly, with respect to prisons, we would be delighted if a reduction in prison numbers was justified, but a reduction is not being suggested by the statisticians.
I welcome Mr Gallie's remarks. If only he would welcome the fact that the Executive is tackling crime in much the way that he is outlining.
There is more to it than that. This is not just about statistical measurements of crime, police figures and prison numbers. The key point is Mr Gallie's failure to recognise that, as well as clamping down on crime, the Government is trying to tackle its underlying causes. Crime has to be tackled at all levels: in schools, through educating children in their responsibilities to themselves and to others as good citizens; in homes and neighbourhoods, through ensuring warm, clean houses, safe streets and an environment in which crime is not allowed to flourish; and through the economy, by ensuring that citizens feel part of the community in which they live and that they identify with society and feel that they have a stake in it.
The Conservatives' approach during their time in office failed our country—they are still failing us— because of their inability to address the relationship between crime and the wider society. That point was made by Dr Murray a few moments ago when she quoted Mrs Thatcher's famous line about there being no such thing as society. Despite what Mr Monteith said, there is no doubt that Mrs Thatcher was trying to say that there are no social causes for our behaviour. The failure to recognise that is part of the Conservatives' failure to recognise the reasons behind crime or to deal with law and order.
It is not just Mrs Thatcher. It would be one thing if that attitude had been confined to the 1980s, but the motion provides evidence to the contrary. The implication of the motion is that we were wrong to incorporate the European convention on human rights into Scots law.
Surely the point that Margaret Thatcher was trying to make was that people should take responsibility for their own behaviour rather than place it on some abstract called society. She was not saying that society does not exist, but that people should not say it is society's fault, when they are unwilling to take responsibility. If they did take responsibility, less crime would be committed.
If only Mr Monteith had delivered that speech instead of Mrs Thatcher, what she intended to say would perhaps have been clearer.
Has Mr Macintosh read the speech?
I have read the speech and I am quite clear about what she said.
I say to the Conservatives that the only way to tackle crime is to educate our citizens to accept and believe in their human rights, and the corollary of that, which is to accept, believe in, and maintain their responsibility to others. The Conservative motion is a lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key approach. That approach has not worked in the past and there is no reason to believe that it will work in the future. There is no recognition that the Executive will punish people who break our laws— and much more; it will tackle the underlying reasons why we live in a crime-ridden society. I urge members to reject the Conservative motion.
In response to Margaret Ewing's point of order, I remind members of the guidance that was issued by the Presiding Officer:
"Members should respect the needs of other members to participate in the business of Parliament and should avoid loud or prolonged discussions which may distract other members."
I may say that that also goes for noises off and running commentaries.
I will use my allotted time to address an issue that is noted in our amendment and to which Michael Matheson and others have alluded: I wish to
speak on behalf of the victims of crime.
According to the most recent Scottish Executive figures, 20,000 crimes are committed every week in Scotland, around half of which are never reported to the authorities. Every year, one in 20 adults is the victim of a personal crime. Everyone in the chamber has been affected by crime in some way. Perhaps some of us have even been direct victims.
I have never been the direct victim of a serious crime, but over the years I have suffered petty crime and, on occasion, the fear of potential crime. That felt bad. Although I have met and spoken to the victims of serious crimes, I cannot begin to imagine the trauma and stress that is experienced by people who are personally damaged or who lose a loved one through crime. As Victim Support Scotland tells us, the physical and emotional toll of crime on victims can be enormous. Its experience is that, above all, victims seek recognition of their suffering. Our present system denies victims that recognition. It also denies them the benefit of effective programmes to alleviate the effects of crimes.
In 1985, the general assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crimes and Abuse of Power. Although the UK Government signed up to that declaration a year later, we have a long way to go to ensure that Scots victims of crime have the same level of rights as people elsewhere, including people in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is true that, due to our criminal justice system, we may need to use different remedies, but the needs of victims are the same from Glasgow to Greenwich. With the right spirit, this Parliament can move ahead in this important area.
The minister's commitment today to support and strategy is not enough. Victims require and deserve defined rights. As Michael Matheson said, in England and Wales there is the victims charter; in Northern Ireland there is the code of practice for victims of crime. Those documents cover standards such as the provision of case progress information, witness support, and protection. The England and Wales charter sets out 27 standards of service that victims can expect from the criminal justice agencies. It explains which agency is responsible for providing which service and how victims can complain if they do not get the promised level of service. Current pilot projects include one to enable victims to make a statement to the authorities about the effects of the crime, and there is a witness support service in Crown and magistrates courts.
That all sounds like good practice that we should pursue here. Michael Matheson charged the Executive to introduce proposals for a victims charter. I believe that such an initiative would receive cross-party support, and we might even achieve consensus. A first step would be to support Michael Matheson's amendment and, in doing so, recognise that our present system does not serve victims of crime well.
I want to outline a few reasons why I support the Executive amendment. In yesterday's debate on social inclusion, we heard several criticisms about measures not being radical or visionary, practical or deliverable. The Executive's amendment is radical, visionary, practical and deliverable—we have already begun to deliver.
I do not hold any brief for people who commit violent crimes—there are many people in prison who should stay there for a long time—but there are many people in prison who should not be there, such as people who have defaulted on fines because they cannot afford to pay. Where is the best value in spending a lot of money locking up poor people, when that money could be spent on diversionary schemes to keep them out of custody? I have heard nothing from the Tories this morning to convince me about that.
Linda Fabiani made a good speech about witness support schemes. In general, the SNP is keen for us to examine what happens in Scandinavia and other countries of a similar size to Scotland. Why is it that Scotland continues to lock up more young offenders per head of population than other countries, rather than put resources into community-based alternatives? That is what the Executive amendment is about.
Like many members, I am concerned about the victims of crime. I support the initiative on the victims charter. Recently, I met representatives of East Ayrshire victim support, which is doing some very good work. It told me that it could not get referrals because of problems surrounding the Data Protection Act 1998. In the past, the police were able automatically to inform it of victims of crime. That is one of the anomalies that we can sort out. In South Ayrshire, Victim Support Scotland has piloted a witness support scheme that provides a good model.
I hear what Cathy Jamieson is saying about young offenders. A week or two ago, in her constituency, a young offender was put on probation for a vicious attack on a middle-aged lady suffering from learning difficulties and a robbery from someone with learning difficulties. Does she think that, rather than being put on probation and sent off to an outward bound course, that individual should have been sent to
prison?
Phil Gallie will be aware of my previous work in a scheme for young offenders, which tried to divert them from custody. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a particular case without knowing the full background. However, I share Phil Gallie's concern that the punishment should fit the crime.
In reality, prison is not always the most appropriate punishment. Many of the community- based alternatives give greater opportunities to bring offenders and the victims of crimes together—perhaps not always face to face—so that offenders gain some understanding of the impact of crime. I believe that community-based alternatives give more opportunity for young people to examine and change their behaviour— that is the most important thing.
I want to mention the relationship between police and communities, which is referred to in the Executive amendment. One of the most damaging aspects of the relationship between the police and the community that I represent relates to a matter about which the Tories have selective amnesia— the damage done at the time of the miners strike. It has taken years to rebuild that community relationship. Rebuilding is happening through initiatives such as the safe barshare project in Cumnock and the involvement of community police in running a youth football league. Those projects take some of the young people we are discussing off the streets on a Friday night, preventing them from becoming involved in drinking and hanging around the town centre. They do something constructive instead. That is how we should proceed.
We should support the Executive amendment and get on and tackle the problems constructively.
In the interest of fairness, I should like to say that my strictures about interruptions apply to people turning their backs on members when speaking. We have two more speeches before closing, as Brian Monteith has graciously ceded his place to Alex Fergusson.
Thank you, Presiding Officer and thank you, Mr Monteith.
I would like to make three brief points. First, great weight has been given to the drugs enforcement agency, to which I wish nothing but success. I share with Bill Aitken the hope that Mr MacKay will take our comments as constructive contributions to the debate—we Tories are always constructive.
I also hope that the minister will believe me when I tell him that police forces throughout Scotland are concerned that, when the DEA is staffed to the level of expertise that will be required, their own drug action teams may be severely weakened if the DEA draws in their expertise. That would leave the police, who deal with the real and desperate problems of drugs at street level, too diluted to be effective.
The minister will recall that he very kindly accepted a petition from me from the people of Stranraer, who have recently been experiencing desperate drugs problems. We must guard against the drugs enforcement agency becoming a sort of ivory tower of drugs-related theory; we must ensure that it maintains a hands-on approach to the problem.
I would like to touch on the subject of prison closures, with particular regard to the decision to close Penninghame prison near Newton Stewart. Phil Jones, the chief executive of Dumfries and Galloway Council, said:
"This has been a hasty decision. I don't believe there has been a full consideration of the consequences of this closure either for the Scottish Prison Service or for the local area."
I totally concur with those sentiments. The minister mentioned value for money; Penninghame operated at 59 per cent of the average cost per prisoner in Scotland. The inmates of the prison have a huge value for society: every year, they put thousands of hours of voluntary service into the local community, which will be extremely hard to replace. Those people are highly valued by the local community. The prison has an excellent rehabilitation record, and its staff go way beyond the call of duty to ensure that that record is sustained. The proposed closure will lead directly to the loss of 45 quality jobs, affecting families in an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in Scotland. The closure has not been thought through and I do not accept that it is a final decision.
My final point touches on rural policing. Unlike Linda Fabiani, I and my family were unfortunately the victims of a very unpleasant crime some years ago—a successful attempt to obtain money for drugs. It was not a pleasant experience and anyone who wants to give me sympathy will probably find me in Deacon Brodie's at about 7 o'clock tonight. My point in telling this story is that, when we finally managed to get to a working telephone—which, in rural Scotland, can take quite a long time—we found that the nearest police car was 34 miles away.
When that happened to us, there was a significant crime wave throughout the rural part of South Ayrshire because the criminals—who are not stupid—realised that there was a vacuum of police cover during the night, and took advantage
of it. I do not think that that is acceptable and I hope that the Administration will address it.
In opposing the Conservative motion on law and order, I should say that I spent about 29 years in part-time medical work, mainly in Cornton Vale prison. On the suicide risk management executive steering group, I had the privilege of visiting every prison in Scotland, so I have at least seen the service working, albeit not from the inside. In order to make some points, I would like to describe two of our institutions.
Polmont young offenders institution admits some 4,000 young men every year. Of those, 46 per cent have previously been in local authority care— they have been what are now called looked-after children; 83 per cent have been through the children's hearing system; 93 per cent have used illicit drugs at some time and 52 per cent are still users; many have been abused; and many have been bullied or been bulliers. The chances of their benefiting from our current programme of incarceration is minimal. We are spending money unwisely; the diversion and prevention policies of the Executive are the ones that we must follow.
Cornton Vale is an even sadder situation. Despite attempts to reduce the number of women on remand, the number has again risen. Repeated appeals from successive governors to divert nonviolent offenders and—especially—remand prisoners away from prison appear to have fallen on deaf ears. As Cathy Jamieson said, we are sending young women to jail for non-payment of fines, which is an extremely expensive undertaking for little return.
One of the worst cases I came across in my time at Cornton Vale was of a woman with eight children. She was sent there for non-payment of a £200 fine. The children had to be taken into care; the cost, in emotional terms, to those children was immeasurably damaging; the cost to society was thousands of pounds; and the benefit to any of us was absolutely minimal.
At least 60 per cent of the resident population in Cornton Vale are drug users. Like Keith Raffan, I have the gravest concerns about our current drugs policy. The mandatory drug testing system introduced by Michael Forsyth has not been subjected to independent evaluation, is an expensive waste of money and is diverting funds from the voluntary drug-free zones, which are a much more important development in the Prison Service.
I appeal to the minister to ensure that young women are diverted from custodial remand, as the Executive motion suggests. We should build on the pilot in Plymouth to divert drug addicts from prison into rehabilitation and treatment. The Government has given £100,000 to the three authorities in the old Central region for such a pilot. That approach has been tested and is worth while, as long as the selection is appropriate. We need to build on such schemes, which reduce the prison population and underpin the reduction in prison officers. If we do not do that and pressure inside prisons is maintained, the suicide rate will increase and we will have real problems. As a result, I have real concerns about the reduction in the number of prison officers, not about the closure of prisons.
We should have an independent review of mandatory drug testing and ensure that nonviolent prisoners are not incarcerated, except as a last resort. Furthermore, we should develop through-care to support drug offenders before prison, through prison and after prison. That scheme is far too disjointed at the moment.
I welcome this debate, although we should perhaps leave it to onlookers to decide whether it has generated more heat than shed light.
Although Mr Gallie's opening speech unwrapped the old parcel of assorted Tory prejudices, the Conservatives have now clearly admitted that they do not and did not support the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law. Moreover, although I acknowledge Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's point about potential problems in courts, it does no good for some outsiders to exaggerate the extent of the problems that the ruling on temporary sheriffs has created.
The creation of the 10 new floating sheriffs— which is "in the pipeline", as Mr Aitken put it—and the other actions taken by the Lord Advocate and the sheriffs principal are effective and early responses to the situation. Perhaps the minister might also consider the appointment of permanent part-time sheriffs, which might help to fill some of the gap. We must await today's ruling in the Court of Session, but I do not see how 20 years'-worth of temporary sheriff judgments can be overturned when the ECHR has been incorporated into UK law for only a few months.
Although crime figures are a source of endless debate, there is no doubting the official figures. In 1979, 346,680 crimes were recorded in Scotland. In 1997, the figure had risen to 420,642. The important point to make is that if the 1979 figures had remained static, there would have been 2,500,000 fewer victims.
We accept that there was a rise in crime during that period. Does Mr Robson accept
that when I said that the previous Government had presided over the longest sustained reduction in crime, the figures were for the period 1991 to 1997? Does he accept that the trend has reversed and that the figures are now increasing?
I thank Mr Gallie for his contribution, but my focus is on the victims. There is no doubt that when crime rises, the number of victims increases. The point about that particular period of time is that there was an unnecessary increase in the number of victims.
The best deterrent to crime is detection. The number of charges proved between 1986 and 1996 dropped from 184,000 to 153,000. Detection and conviction are essential to crime reduction. Hence, I welcome the Minister for Justice's statement that the rate of clear-ups has been increased since 1997. That is important.
It is important to recall what has happened to police manpower. Between 30 June 1997 and 30 June 1999, the number of serving police officers fell by 88. However, that does not take account of the fact that there are 400 extra support staff. In addition, the gap has been closing since September. Further officers will also be recruited to the drugs enforcement agency.
The debate ought to have concentrated more on alternatives to custody. I do not want to add to what Richard Simpson said. His was an immensely important speech. Far too many of the people in prisons ought not to be there. We need better systems for dealing with the problems that such people face.
There should also have been more emphasis on crime prevention. Community safety strategies are being developed—I had the privilege of seeing one of them in the Borders recently. The strategies will make a considerable contribution, as they will join up the thinking of a number of agencies about how to tackle crime.
More can be done to increase household security through schemes similar to the home energy efficiency scheme, under which draught proofing and insulation work is carried out. The same model could be used to assist less-well-off and vulnerable homeowners to protect their homes.
I agree whole-heartedly with Donald Gorrie and Keith Raffan's comments about youth crime. The minister's announcement about extra youth facilities is welcome; it is important to develop youth centres and drop-in centres. From my experience as a teacher, I know that truancy is the first step on the road to crime. If we can tackle truancy, we will tackle crime. The progression can be seen—truancy leads to vandalism. Many professionals in the appropriate agencies have pointed that out.
I recently visited Longriggend remand institution, which is soon to close, with the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. It was obvious that where young people are on remand, all categories of prisoner should not be lumped together. We should separate out the hard core to allow those on remand to have better rehabilitation.
I listened carefully to Tony Cameron when he came to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. His case was persuasive: we do not have too few prisons, but we have the wrong types of prison. We may have too many open prisons and too few higher-security prisons. The Executive is therefore right to consider the closure of an open prison. I hope that that will lead to investment in other prisons.
I will deal first with police and crime. Lots of statistics have been thrown about. Statistics are not sterile; they are important. There is no doubt that crime has increased. We have heard statistics from various areas. In 1998-99, the number of crimes in the Borders increased by 450, 25 per cent of which were crimes of vandalism. The Scottish national party supports the use of CCTV, but it has a limited role in ensuring protection in rural areas such as the Borders.
The number of police has risen, but according to today's edition of The Herald, by only four in three years, which is hardly good. Police numbers fluctuate. The Scottish Police Federation has projected that, next year, there will be a shortfall of 1,000 police officers. Colleagues have raised concerns that police officers are suffering an increase in stress. I will come to stress among prison officers later.
I refer to the Scottish Police Federation's letter of 4 October, which reveals that the work load for police officers
"has increased by about one third . . . Half of all inspectors and chief inspectors, reported that more than 40% of their work used to be done by the rank above. . . . For officers who have supervisory responsibilities . . . the average increase in the total number of officers supervised is 11%."
They are a force under siege. That is reflected in
"a consequential decrease in the well-being of officers, as expressed by measures of stress and aspects of sickness, injury and dissatisfaction."
I will come to the other arm of enforcement—the Scottish Prison Service—in a moment, but the picture from the Scottish Police Federation is obviously not a happy one.
Concern about the victims of crime was raised eloquently by Linda Fabiani and Michael Matheson. Linda gave a figure of 20,000. I can
see no problems for this Parliament going full steam ahead with a victims charter, which would provide a valuable framework and a national standard for victims throughout Scotland.
From my own experience, I can give examples of witnesses—the victim is often the prime witness—coming across the accused wandering about the streets when out on bail. The victim does not know that he is out on bail. They can also come across the convicted criminal out on parole. They do not know about that either: they do not know what goes on in court when the heads get together at the table and the prosecution and defence are discussing plea bargaining, while, at the back of the court, the prime witness, who is also the prosecution witness, has no part in it. They will find that, after the court is adjourned, nothing has been said to them. That is a disgraceful way to treat people, and it must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. I cannot see why we are not getting on with that.
I want to refer to prisons, because they are such an urgent concern—the Justice and Home Affairs Committee has just dealt with prison matters. Overcrowding is not a simple issue. Tony Cameron made that plain, as did Mr Clive Fairweather at a previous meeting. It is not just a case of having 6,000 prisoners and 6,000 places. It depends on the kind of prisoners and the kind of place. The problem is that cutting the number of prisons takes out slack. If there were any problems with the prison population or if there were any disturbances, I would have concerns, as would other members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, that there would be no place to which to decant the prisoners concerned. There would also be no places for certain kinds of prisoner.
The chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service could not answer that point. He was not sure about it.
Does Christine Grahame remember from our discussion in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee meeting on Tuesday that it was suggested that, from time to time, there are enough people in open prisons to fill but two of them—not the three that we currently have? Does she agree that there is a necessity to rationalise our prison provision, and that there is more need for higher-security prisons than for the open prisons?
I am happy to take that intervention on the open prisons, which I will come to, with particular reference to the reasons for the closure of Penninghame prison.
There are many possible reasons for all kinds of reorganisation of the Prison Service, but simply to save money is not one of them. I have problems with the way in which it is being done and with the way in which the selection has been made.
The reasons for overcrowding are complex and varied. We have had different figures: the projected figures given for two months ago and the figures now. Even the chief executive of the Prison Service said that he was relying on statisticians, and that things might change.
On slopping out, I am trying to make the distinction in my head between a target and an aim. We were told that the aim—not target—on ending slopping out is now deferred. It is a Victorian practice, which ought to be high on the list of matters to be dealt with. It has been deferred because of the £13 million in cuts.
On staff morale, I quote from the Official Report of that committee meeting. When Lyndsay McIntosh asked Derek Turner of the Scottish Prison Officers Association about staff morale, he said:
"The staff are devastated. They feel that they have worked very hard over the past four years to achieve the restructuring that has taken place in the Prison Service. That was a tremendously painful process at the start. The staff did not like it, but they were confronted with the choice of going through the staffing structure review or potentially facing market testing. It was Hobson's choice."—[Official Report, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 23 November 1999; c 467.]
The other essential arm of crime prevention is in a state of gravely low morale.
There was an example of a prison officer who had recently moved with his family to Dungavel. He uprooted everyone—what will his position be? Prison officers have to work with good will in the Prison Service. The Executive is in grave difficulties with the Prison Service, and I have great concerns about that.
I also wish to address the fact that there was an increase in the purchase of bunk beds, which heralds the possibility of prisoners having to double up. How will prisoners who are now in single cells react when they find two or three others pushed into their cells? That is a real problem for the Executive.
I will try to rattle on and address the issue of prison closures. As Alex Fergusson said, Penninghame is a highly successful prison. Why it is not fully occupied has been addressed—open prisons are not an easy option for prisoners. They find them quite hard, as they have to learn to rely on their own resources. The prison is also essential to the community—I know, as I lived in Newton Stewart for 15 years—and to the economy of the area.
Penninghame is not an expensive prison. The figures have been mentioned—the costs are about £17,000 per prisoner, as opposed to £26,000,
which is the Scottish Prison Service's cost per prisoner. I do not know what criteria were used in the decision to close Penninghame. I have dealt with Dungavel—why a prison that dealt so well with drugs reduction and rehabilitation was dealt the blow of closure requires explanation.
The Scottish National party welcomes the drugs enforcement agency, but not at a cost to the Prison Service. I wish to give an example of the reality of drug rehabilitation. I visited Low Moss as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. The prison governor told me that he and two of his officers spent two days just picking up drug packets that had been thrown over the fence. As it is a low-security prison, it does not have a high fence and is surrounded by wasteland.
The prison has a successful unit, Alba House. It is also a tough unit, as it is based on self-referral. However, it can take only 10 people, whereas there are hundreds of prisoners at Low Moss who are not in the unit and who are in a cycle of returning to prison. Even worse, what kind of secure accommodation is given to prisoners who have gone through the tough regime at Alba House upon their release? Often, they return to the environment that they were in before prison.
I will finish by dealing with alternatives to custody. A long time ago, a senior member of the prosecution service said on television that prisoners could be divided into the bad, the mad and the sad. I have concerns that the mad and the sad are put in prison as if it were a waste bin—that is a way of dealing with them. Without making a direct link to Cornton Vale, I am terribly glad that Dr Simpson raised the issue. While we may want to move away from custody, more women who come from very sad backgrounds are being put into Cornton Vale, and the figures are increasing. The Executive must start to deal with that issue now.
Many fine words have been spoken today. Everyone wants improvements in society, but we want action—and action needs funding. I ask the Executive to address that point.
I call the minister to wind up for the Executive. You have about nine minutes.
Today's debate has been full and interesting. When I saw the terms of the Conservative motion, I could guess what kind of debate we would have and I have not been disappointed. It is always a pleasure to watch a debate, particularly when Mr Gallie is participating.
Before I pick up on some of the specific matters raised by members, I will begin by emphasising the Executive's commitment to progressing our justice programme for a safe and fair Scotland.
The three issues around which the debate has centred are policing, prisons and the courts. I will address policing first. When the most recent Scottish crime survey examined the future of policing in Scotland, it indicated that Scotland was generally comfortable with the way in which it was policed. Since 1997, the number of police officers and civilian staff in Scotland has increased by over
200. The greater use of civilian support staff means that police officers have been relieved of a wide range of routine duties, which has enabled them to concentrate on more direct policing matters. The funding increases that are planned in the three-year period ahead should enable the police to maintain numbers at broadly existing levels, after taking into account efficiency savings over the same period. It is true to say that the Executive is by no means parsimonious in relation to funding for the police. For example, in the current financial year we have been able to provide Scottish police forces with £4.75 million of additional funding, to assist them to meet the cost of policing millennium celebrations.
There is no doubt that prison numbers, which have been the subject of some debate today, are difficult to forecast. The Scottish Prison Service corporate plan projection for 1999-2000 was originally 6,200 prisoners. During the summer, the SPS statisticians reduced that figure to 6,100. However, we currently have fewer than 6,000 prisoners and the average for this financial year looks likely to be around 6,000. As a consequence, decisions have to be based on a judgment of the likely future numbers. The Executive will continue to monitor the prison population trend as carefully as we can and, if circumstances seem likely to change, we shall adapt our strategy accordingly.
Will the minister give way?
No, not at the moment.
On the predictions of chaos and disruption in the courts, I wholly refute any suggestion that that will take place. There will be some disruption, in particular to civil business; the Deputy First Minister acknowledged that in his statement on 11 November. However, there is no doubt that the judiciary and the court staff are working hard to minimise any difficulties, and we have confidence in their ability to do so. In the district courts, the procurators fiscal—under guidance from the Lord Advocate—have taken action as a precautionary measure.
I refer to some of the points raised during the
debate. Penninghame prison has been mentioned more than once. For some reason, people seem to be reluctant to take on board the view of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Clive Fairweather, whose response to the closure announcement was pretty unequivocal. He stated that the prison
"is in a very isolated location, especially for family contact."
That is one reason why it was deemed unsuitable. He also said:
"One of the other open prisons in Scotland, at Noranside, near Dundee, is under capacity . . . It seems sensible to rationalise here."
Prison Service staff at Penninghame do a good job. However, the chief inspector said that it would be sensible to rationalise, because the prison is remote for visits and for getting help there in the event of an emergency. It also has inflexible accommodation. I hope that that deals with the points on Penninghame, at least in part.
On the subject of Longriggend, the chief inspector of prisons said that
"there have been a number of suicides among the young male remands there, so sending them elsewhere is a very major step forward."
That point should not be underestimated.
Mr Matheson commented on victim support and, in effect, accused the Executive of doing nothing— or at least not doing enough—for victims. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have recognised witnesses' needs by making a commitment to extend the availability of the successful witness support schemes that are running in the sheriff courts at Airdrie, Hamilton and Kirkcaldy to those at Kilmarnock, Dunfermline and Cupar. That commitment will be delivered shortly. The schemes will be managed by Victim Support Scotland and will provide a comprehensive service of advice and support to all witnesses. I would have talked further on the subject, but am prevented by lack of time.
Kenny Gibson made an interesting speech at incredibly high speed, possibly talking even faster than I am at the moment. His performance was such that I felt he might close his speech by saying, "My name's Ben Elton—thank you and goodnight." He should know that, with my ministerial responsibilities, I do not approve of speed in any circumstances, so I will be critical of what he had to say.
I have two points that relate to Kenny's speech. The first is about Strathclyde police and capital allocation. Last year, 1998-99, Strathclyde received £6.2 million in capital allocation. In the current year, it has received £9.7 million; that is a significant increase.
Secondly, Kenny made a point about crime in
Strathclyde. The chief constable, John Orr, said that between April and September 1999—hardly a long time ago—crime in the Strathclyde force area fell by almost 7 per cent compared with the equivalent period last year. He also said that early predictions that the force would be on track to enter the millennium with crime figures at a 19year low were on target. That is encouraging news for everyone.
Does the minister accept that, although capital allocations have been increased for this financial year, next year's projection for Strathclyde is of a £2.2 million reduction? Strathclyde has identified a need of £19.014 million, and the capital allocation is £7.76 million— less than half of what the police require.
Furthermore—
I see that the minister is wincing. That is all.
An important distinction needs to be made between whether funding is increasing year on year and whether it is increasing to a sufficient extent year on year. An important and sensible debate has to take place on that. I merely make the point that a substantial uplift in capital funding was awarded to Strathclyde police force last week. That is accurate and fair.
A number of other points were made in the debate; sadly, I will not be able to mention them in my remarks.
I know that some members were heading for their mobile telephones and for the telephones in the members' coffee lounge to talk to their divorce lawyers when they heard what the implications would be of today's decision in the Court of Session. That case is over, and it might be helpful if I advise Parliament that the outcome of this morning's appeal against the involvement of temporary sheriffs was that the appeal was refused. That means that if members thought that they were divorced, they are divorced—which might put their minds at rest.
It is important that at some point we debate drugs as an issue in its own right. Mr Raffan and Christine Grahame made some valuable points on that. I should tell members that 5,300 people are due to complete drug programmes in Prison Service establishments this year. That is an increase from 2,800 last year, and from 1,650 the year before that; it is a significant improvement.
I am sure that members will be treated by David McLetchie to all sorts of spectacular statements and figures. If that is not the case, members will be disappointed. He will tell members that prisons are underfunded, but he will not say that there will be increases in prison funding every year for all the planned years ahead. He will not tell members that the Executive will be spending on average
£55 million more per annum than did the previous Conservative Administration in its last five years. I do not know how, in that context, the Conservatives can justify any of their criticisms.
David McLetchie will tell members that police numbers are down—he will not say that civilian police staff numbers have risen from 19,288— when the Conservatives left office—to 19,509. It is also important that there are 200 additional officers going into the field in the fight against drugs. That is not a byway of the criminal justice system—it is central to what the Executive is trying to do. Drugs is one of the biggest single contributors to crime and criminal activity. If that additional number of officers does not show serious commitment, I do know what will.
I am proud to say that the European convention on human rights was signed on the country's behalf by a Labour Administration in 1950. If the Tories do not support the ECHR, why did not Winston Churchill reverse that decision when he took office in 1951? Why did not successive Conservative Administrations withdraw from incorporation of the ECHR at any time that they were in office? Why did not that happen during the 18 years of Tory government? The phrase "all mouth and no trousers" springs to mind. I accept none of the Tories' criticisms on that matter.
I am sure that Mr McLetchie will re-emphasise his view that crime is on the increase. Between 1979 and 1997, crime increased by 35 per cent— from 674,000 to 910,000 cases. In all those years of Conservative government, from 1979 to 1997, violent crime doubled from 10,000 to 20,000 cases. If the Conservatives could not fix that by 18 years of criminal policy, social policy and economic policy, they should not criticise this Administration after six months.
I thought that Mystic Meg was going to be out of a job because of all the predictions that Angus MacKay made about what I was going to say.
I am pleased to wind up this debate on law and order—it is good to see the Parliament getting down to some real business on important topics that are of concern to people and communities throughout Scotland.
There have been many useful and thoughtful contributions from members of all parties, particularly those drawing on members' own experiences of the state of the police service in their areas. They also mentioned examples of the important initiatives that are being taken in many communities, to help in dealing with law and order issues. I welcome that.
The debate has shown that, while the Scottish Executive seems to have a strategy, a task force and an action plan for everything from the millennium bug to digital Scotland, it has very little idea of how to perform the prime functions of government—the maintenance of law and order and ensuring that our people have a secure and safe society in which to live. Its policy is riddled with contradictions.
Ministers have not resorted to the barefaced lies of Jack Straw, their colleague down south, in relation to police numbers, but we have had the usual blizzard of statistics. There are some basic facts that are chiels that winna ding—police numbers are down, crime is up, prison officers are being laid off and prisons are being closed. Those are the fundamentals. All the blizzards of statistics in the world cannot disguise those facts.
We have heard of the concern that is being voiced by the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation. At a time when the public overwhelmingly want more police officers on the streets, when crime figures are rising, and when calls on police services have never been greater, this Government—which says that it is committed to law and order—is creating a situation in which police officer numbers are falling. That is the view of the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation.
In its 1997 manifesto, the Labour party promised—and I am sure that members can recite it like parrots—to
"get more officers back on the beat".
Jim Wallace and the Liberal Democrats, in their 1999 Scottish Parliament manifesto, said that they would
"keep the police service up to strength."
Both parties are failing.
Today we have heard about the impact of civilianisation. As the minister fairly acknowledged, civilianisation is a process that has been going on in the police service for several years. He said at the outset of his remarks that the number of civilians who are employed by our police forces has increased by some 2,000 over the past 20 years. Although no one denies the value of civilianisation, I object to the fact that Jim Wallace and the Executive seem to think that civilianisation is an alternative to having officers on the street to perform their functions. We need both, but the Executive is cutting the number of officers. The two are not alternatives, to be traded off one against the other.
I can confirm to Mr McLetchie that they are not alternatives to trade off one against the other. I agree with that. The simple fact that he does not seem able to get his mind round is that civilianisation frees up the time for officers
to get out and perform front-line functions. That is what the public expect.
I could not agree more with the minister. I am simply saying that I would like to free up time for more police officers to perform more work on our streets, and that the Executive is cutting their number. That fact is one of the chiels that winna ding in the debate. There is no denying it.
I am sorry. If Mr Raffan waits for a few minutes I shall say something complimentary about him.
Jim Wallace may legitimately point out that he was not responsible for the situation until May. He is right; he was not responsible. It is his Labour predecessors who should take the blame for the trends. However, he has done nothing to reverse those trends.
As we heard from Christine Grahame and others, the Scottish Police Federation anticipates a shortfall of between 500 and 1,000 officers next year. That is a damaging statistic. I believe that there is a direct correlation between the number of officers we are able to deploy in our communities and rates of crime. All international experience— for example, from New York, which has had major success in tackling crime rates in recent years— suggests that the key to tackling crime is to have more officers in the job. That is incontestable.
Mr McLetchie must refer to the facts that the minister gave to me in a written answer in the autumn, in reference to the three police forces in the region that I represent. When the Conservatives left office, Central Scotland had 686 officers—it now has 719. Fife had 831 officers—it now has 846. Tayside had 1,116 officers—it now has 1,149. Those figures are incontestable. The police forces have increased in the region that I represent since the Conservatives left office.
I apologise to Mr Raffan, but those figures are highly selective, and are drawn from only a few examples.
Those are the official figures.
Is Mr Raffan calling the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation a liar? Is he wrong? Will Mr Raffan deny what he said? He will not. I ask him to stop citing selective figures, or I shall withdraw the complimentary comments that I was going to make about him.
As crime rates are rising, it is appalling that funding for Victim Support Scotland was cut last year, in real terms, for the first time in that organisation's 12-year history. I was interested to hear of some of the local initiatives that are helping victim support groups. Cathy Jamieson spoke ably about victim support groups in her community. As Michael Matheson, Euan Robson and others have said, we must acknowledge the fact that our criminal justice system is still failing to give adequate consideration to keeping the victims of crime and their families informed.
There is far too much insensitivity in the treatment of victims and families. We heard about the circumstances of Mr and Mrs Godley. Earlier this week, Mr and Mrs Ayton saw the killers of their son released at half time, on the second anniversary of their son's murder. What an insensitive, inhumane way to treat families. Irrespective of what one may think about the sentence or the fact that convicted criminals can be let out at half time, the fact that the release should be allowed to happen on that particular day is an appalling indictment of the insensitivity of the service. Frankly, it is not good enough, and I hope that the minister will examine that case so that it is not repeated in future.
I said that I would compliment Mr Raffan, and I acknowledge his useful contribution, and that of Richard Simpson, on the drugs problem. This Parliament is crying out for a debate on the subject—I was pleased to hear the minister come up with that suggestion and I hope that the Executive will provide time for it. We are crying out for a co-ordinated approach to tackling the whole problem, but it appears to me that, at the moment, there are too many people and too many agencies in conflict with one another about where we should be going. It is up to the Executive and the Parliament to bring the various bodies together and, if necessary, to knock some heads together, so that we can develop and test an all-embracing strategy on which we are all agreed.
I was interested to hear about Angus MacKay's visit to Ireland. I make no apology for our criticism of the direct incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scots law. We signed up to the convention and there is no question of the United Kingdom withdrawing from it, but the issue is the direct applicability that came into effect only as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, passed by the Labour Government. That is what we object to and that is what we opposed at the time of the passage of that legislation.
I am grateful to Mr McLetchie for clarifying that. Since 1966, any individual has had the right to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to take up such cases. It seems that he is quite content for individuals to have that right, but not to allow them to enforce it in the domestic courts. Is he saying that one should be able to enforce those rights only if one is wealthy enough to go to Strasbourg?
That is not true. People who require resources can get legal aid, as Mr Wallace
well knows. As a result of a particular ruling on one case on the European convention on human rights and the changes that his Administration has made, the whole courts system in Scotland has been thrown into dislocation and the Government now has a major problem to tackle. Had a ruling been made under the previous system, this Administration would have had a suitable period of time in which to address the issue, as has happened in the past. That is the difference, and that is where Mr Wallace and his colleagues are in error.
I have many other things to say, but my time is drawing to a close. I simply say that we are not getting joined-up government from this Administration. The prison closure programme is a disgrace; Michael Matheson made an excellent point about that when he said that it is incompatible with the trend of rising crime rates and possible rises in the prison population. Decisions have been taken prematurely before such trends have been properly established, and the Executive will live to regret them.
Just to set the record straight, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton's time in Dungavel was not as a juvenile offender but as a child, as Dungavel was formerly his family home.
I take issue with what Richard Simpson and Jim Wallace said. They tried to suggest that there were no more criminals, just more crimes. Are we to conclude from that that, under Labour, the criminal productivity ratio is actually improving in this country? That seems to be complete nonsense.
Quite frankly, enough is enough. We have heard a lot this week about social inclusion targets. Any serious attempt to tackle social exclusion has to come up with solutions to the problems of crime and drug abuse.
Kenneth Macintosh said that he did not doubt the funding commitment of the Executive. That commitment is not borne out by the spending plans just published by Mr McConnell. That document gives the lie to what Angus MacKay said about increased prisons funding. I remind him that the totals that Mr McConnell published are: for million; and for 2001-02, £210.5 million. In my arithmetic, that is a reduction, not an increase. I suggest that he tries to get some more money out of Mr McConnell's budget.
If we are serious about tackling social inclusion, we must look at the tens of millions of pounds that have been wasted on Scottish housing estates because the efforts of decent, law-abiding, hardworking people to build new communities have been undermined by the lawless, the criminals and the vandals who have no respect for property or their communities. The criminal justice system, the imperative of a secure, safe society, must be in place before anything else can be built. That is why we complain about the Executive's priorities.
At question time last week, the First Minister challenged me, as I criticised what the Executive was spending money on at the expense of law and order, to say where the money for it would come from. I will tell him. Yesterday Parliament passed a motion redirecting £80 million to education—that was the price of the Lib-Lab coalition. That £80 million should have been used for 500 more police officers, so that we do not lay off 400 prison officers or close two prisons, and, most important, to adhere to the Liberal Democrat manifesto promise to abolish tuition fees. There would have been enough to do all those things.
That is why I say that the Executive's priorities are perverse. Jim Wallace, the Minister for Justice, cannot cut the mustard and get the budget that Scotland's police require and that is needed for a secure society. Jim Wallace and the Liberal Democrats do not have the solution for law and order; they are part of the problem.
That concludes the debate on law and order.