Criminal Justice Services
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2736, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on supporting safer, stronger communities and the reform of Scotland's criminal justice services.
I think that Cathy Jamieson is just about ready.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—I was just making sure that the Minister for Health and Community Care had taken all his worldly goods with him. I am pleased to be able to begin the debate.
Scotland's people and Scotland's communities have the right to live safely, secure in their homes and neighbourhoods and free from the fear of violence. Safer communities supported by a fair and effective criminal justice system—that is not just an aspiration, it is a clear objective and it is why we have embarked on the most radical reform of criminal justice in a generation.
Our reforms are about getting to grips with offending and reoffending, about making our courts more effective and more efficient and about tackling the continuing threat from drugs, whether the threat is from the addict who turns to crime to feed a habit, from the dealers on street corners or from the organised gangs at home and abroad. The reforms are also about the way in which we deal with sex offenders, of whom there are a small number, but who, rightly, are of huge public concern. Our reforms and investment have delivered nearly 1,000 more police officers since 2001. All our reforms are about helping ordinary, hard-working people to stand up to antisocial behaviour and the booze-and-blade culture that is corrupting decent communities throughout the country.
Nowhere is the need for further reform and the need to act felt more acutely than in relation to how we deal with violent crime, particularly knife crime. Knife crime is an ugly and vicious scar on our society. Sadly, it reflects an enduring, widespread and deep-rooted culture of violence in our country. That culture is not acceptable and we have to do more to challenge and change it. We need serious debate and discussion about why Scotland has such an ugly, dark side, why violence, abuse and alcohol are linked in such a damaging cocktail, why violence continues to be linked to sectarianism and why too many women and children continue to live in fear of violence in their homes.
I welcome today's debate. I hope that it will give us the opportunity to consider the wide-ranging reforms that are transforming criminal justice in Scotland and to examine the actions that the Executive is taking to tackle knife crime, so that we can make Scotland a better, safer place.
Six out of 10 offenders will be reconvicted within two years of leaving the prison gates. We have all heard the figures and we all know that they are unacceptable. That is why reducing reoffending must be at the forefront of our reformed criminal justice services.
The provisions of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill strengthen the relationship between criminal justice social work and the Scottish Prison Service. The bill will introduce new partnerships that will ensure more effective management of individual offenders, greater local and national scrutiny of the agencies involved, a new national advisory body that will bring together the key players at national level and a new governance structure for the Scottish Prison Service, under which ministers will take back responsibility for the decisions that are most likely to have an impact on communities.
This is not change for change's sake, but change that will reduce the likelihood and risk of reoffending and reduce the dangers that sex offenders pose. As I said, although sex offenders constitute a relatively small group, the danger that they present and the concern to which they give rise are real and substantial. Victims and communities know that only too well. That is why tougher measures will be put in place. We have tightened the legislation on sex offending and introduced more robust procedures to ensure that the judiciary have better information when sentencing sex offenders. We are strengthening the law that protects children from predatory sex offenders, particularly those who seek to use the internet. Moreover, we have set up the Risk Management Authority.
I welcome the Executive's proposal to bring an end to the automatic release of all sex offenders. However, will that measure apply to all sex offenders—in other words, to anyone who has an index entry, even if it is not a main index entry?
Clearly, the focus in the first instance is on those people who have been convicted of a sexual offence. I was about to move on to address that issue more fully.
We can always look harder at the issues and do more to protect innocent citizens. That is why, first, I asked Professor George Irving to investigate the operation of Scotland's sex offender registration scheme. Clearly, that point is relevant to the issue that Stewart Stevenson raised. Professor Irving hopes to submit his report and recommendations to me this summer. I will study them with great care. Secondly, I asked the Sentencing Commission to report to me by June this year on how best to take forward our commitment to ending the unconditional automatic early release for all prisoners who are convicted of sexual offences. The Executive has such matters very much on our mind at the moment. Thirdly, we asked every police force, every local authority and the Scottish Prison Service to review the plans that are in place for each and every medium-to-high-risk sex offender. Those bodies have been asked to report to me after the summer on the audits that they have undertaken.
Just as we are taking steps to get to grips with how we manage sentenced offenders, we are pushing forward with further reforms to make our courts more effective. The new arrangements in the High Court are now in place and beginning to work. Last month, we published our proposals for radical reform of the summary justice system, which is where the majority of less serious cases are heard. Although those offences are classed as less serious, they are the kind of cases that are most likely to affect local people in our communities.
Summary justice reform is at the heart of a better criminal justice system, in which justice is delivered fairly and speedily, the sentence fits the offence, the rights of the victim are given full and proper regard, restoration and repair of the harm that is done to communities become an everyday part of how we do business and reducing reoffending is a common goal. That is all about focusing on smarter, sharper options, so that offenders make amends for their actions and communities see that justice is being done.
Where legislation is needed, we will introduce it, but we are not just waiting to pass legislation. We have already introduced specialist, problem-solving courts, such as youth courts, drugs courts and, most recently, a domestic violence court. Drug treatment and testing orders, which are the mainstay of the drugs courts, are proving to be effective in working with high-tariff offenders with substantial drug misuse problems.
We face the more fundamental challenge of ensuring that our sentencing framework is transparent, effective and consistent. Sentencing is rightly and properly an issue for the courts, but it is a matter of public safety, public concern and public confidence that the right decisions are taken on bail and remand, early release from custody and overall consistency of sentencing. That is why the Sentencing Commission has been tasked to carry out a root-and-branch review of those matters.
I am comforted to hear that the minister has confidence in drug treatment and testing orders. Does she accept that, if we introduce those orders at district court level, we will effectively provide early intervention and prevent a lot of criminals from going on to the sheriff court to face higher-tariff charges?
As I outlined, we are examining the whole summary justice system, so I will not make a commitment at this time. However, we believe that early intervention is important. That is why one of the proposals in the proposed police bill relates to mandatory testing for a drug link to crime, so that we can get people into treatment before we get to the stage of sending them to court.
Another issue that I am sure will be of interest to Annabel Goldie and other members relates to bail and remand. We need to take tough action to address the problem of too many people offending while they are on bail. When people offend on bail, not only does that have consequences for victims, but it has a corrosive effect on public confidence in the justice system. That is why we are giving the courts the option to manage the accused more tightly when bail is granted. The pilot programme to make tagging available for offenders who have been permitted bail is not an alternative to remand for those who should be in custody; it is a tougher condition of bail.
The action that we are taking will deliver results and make our communities safer and stronger. We have increased the number of police officers—there are record numbers of police officers in Scotland. We have strengthened the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. We have better crime clear-up rates, there has been more disruption of drug-trafficking rings and we have implemented our antisocial behaviour legislation. All those measures have been put in place and they are all beginning to bite.
I am sorry, but I have to move on.
Local agencies are determined to make a stand against the mindless, abusive and disruptive behaviour that undermines the fabric of too many of our communities. They are beginning to use closure orders, antisocial behaviour orders, noise nuisance powers, fixed-penalty notices and powers of dispersal. With the use of such measures, the lives of real people in real communities are improving when, in some instances, those people had lost hope of ever getting a peaceful night's sleep, something that most of us take for granted.
On the streets of hard-pressed communities throughout Scotland are 550 community wardens. I was interested to hear that in Peterhead and Fraserburgh, for example, the wardens helped to reduce reported incidents of vandalism and youth disorder by 50 per cent over a six-month period in 2004.
On proceeds of crime and drug dealers, we have made tremendous efforts to assist communities in standing up to antisocial behaviour, not just by those who are involved in the drugs scene, but by the dealers who are peddling illegal drugs. The drug dealers don't care campaign, on which we are working with Crimestoppers, has been particularly successful. There have been 3,500 actionable calls, which is an increase of 400 per cent since the campaign began. There have also been nearly 1,000 replies to direct mail, 116 arrests and 292 charges. The impact of that operation will last long after the first phase of the campaign ends. We have also introduced additional funding to tackle treatment and rehabilitation.
The debate gives us the opportunity to put on record our support for the communities that want to stand up to antisocial behaviour and are fighting back against the drug dealers, but we still have a long-standing problem with knife crime. Around half of all murders involve knives, as do many other serious assaults. In too many of our communities, young people, and young men in particular, carry knives routinely.
We have already announced a five-point plan to tackle knife crime. I will not rehearse all the points in it today, but we will shortly consult on proposals for licensing the sale of non-domestic knives and banning the sale of swords, which have caused the most problems. I am aware that many members have been invited to visit the violence reduction unit in Strathclyde—I know that some members have already visited it and I encourage others to take up the offer.
I hope that, this afternoon, we will be able to have a constructive debate, get underneath some of the problems in Scotland, examine more closely the reasons why we have those problems and begin to consider solutions for the future.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that building safer, stronger communities is vital for Scotland's well-being and future success; supports the reform package set out in the Criminal Justice Plan to promote the swifter delivery of sentences that are effective in reducing reoffending and supporting rehabilitation; recognises that violence, particularly knife crime, damages the daily life of already disadvantaged communities, and believes that co-ordinated action to tackle violence and knife crime must be stepped up in communities across Scotland.
The Scottish National Party fully supports the motion and the minister's words. It is clear that there is a cultural malaise in Scotland that manifests itself not only in a drink culture, but in a knife culture and a growing drug problem. That cannot simply be legislated against, but needs to be addressed by our communities and in our communities.
The SNP welcomes the debate. Crime is a continuing societal problem. It is the cause of worry as well as death, injury and upset. The debate, as with other debates at the moment, takes place against the backdrop of a general election, which gives rise to a great desire for instant solutions and one-off remedies. Our view is that we must take cognisance of the fact that no one party has the prerogative over law and order; it requires to be addressed in all communities no matter what viewpoint one takes or faith one professes.
That is not to say that action and prescription are not needed, because they clearly are. There are some easy remedies that we need to use. We need more police, a more visible police presence and more resources for the organisations that are trying to tackle crime through other means. We also need more disposal options for our judiciary and others who are involved in sentencing to use and more diversion from prosecution. However, there is no one simple solution and, to some extent, that is why we are happy to support the Executive. We have had fewer simplistic soundbites and more sensible, pragmatic plans, which we recognise as being important because, although they will not bring about an immediate change over a matter of days, they will result in a better community.
The problems are caused by a variety of factors, which is why there is no one immediate or instant solution. Individual behaviour needs to be addressed as well as social problems. Wicked and reckless actions by individuals, as well as drink, drugs and deprivation, which afflict many, affect and create the climate that fuels the problems.
We are happy to support the Executive's motion, although we have a few caveats. In particular, we recognise that resources need to follow those on whom obligations are placed. We must be wary of putting more responsibilities on local authority departments, never mind other organisations, without giving them commensurate resources. We must acknowledge that the problem will be tackled not by one super-organisation but by a variety of organisations—whether local authorities, non-governmental organisations, or Executive departments—and that, in many instances, it is best dealt with through co-operation. We must ensure that co-operation takes place and the Executive must give direction to ensure that its departments and other organisations work together, but I am glad that the Executive has taken on board the point that one super-organisation is not the way to go.
We will not support the Tory amendment, which once again is written in jingoistic terms with an eye on the coming election.
Mr MacAskill might have noted that the amendment is verbatim a motion on which my party led a debate in December, when no election was in sight.
The motion is an example of the sloganising that we have had from the Tories since the Parliament was formed without any sensible attempt to move forward.
There are aspects of the Tories' amendment that are sensible. Clearly, rehabilitation is part of the process that should occur when someone is in prison and we would say that, fundamentally, we do not have prisons for the purpose of rehabilitation. Prisons are for people who are dangerous to the rest of us in society or who have committed an offence of such seriousness that they require to be incarcerated in order that society may show its displeasure. They are not there to provide rehabilitation. If somebody's fundamental problem is alcohol or drugs, we require to address the basis of the problem that results in criminal action.
Like me, would the member say that we should not imprison people who have defaulted on fine payments?
It is utterly ludicrous that we have such a large number of people, particularly women in places such as Cornton Vale, who are imprisoned—and, in some cases, committing suicide—because they have defaulted on fine payments. There has to be a better way.
Similarly, if someone commits an armed robbery because they need money to fuel their drug problem, they need to go to prison because the offence is so serious that that is the treatment that it merits. If their crime is simply that they possess or are using drugs, it might be much more sensible for us to address the root cause of the criminality. That is the issue that we want to deal with.
Will the member give way?
I have already taken two interventions.
On automatic release, we welcomed the proposals with regard to sex offenders by the Executive and take cognisance of them. Our amendment is designed to add to, not detract from, the point that the Executive is making. We need to take responsibility in Scotland. Responsibility needs to be taken at an individual level because, sadly, too many people are making excuses for what is purely bad behaviour. I do not want to get into the argument of whether a certain proportion of antisocial behaviour is just antisocial or is criminal behaviour; however, our communities are fed up with people making excuses for wanton and unacceptable bad behaviour. People must remember that they have responsibility for their actions and that, more important, their actions have consequences.
We have to remember that there are difficult matters that we must deal with. People have to participate in the criminal justice system because, to be quite frank, we get the police in our communities whom we deserve. If our communities, for whatever reason, do not participate in the process—whether it is by reporting crime or becoming involved in the situation—the police cannot do their job effectively and appropriately. I know that it is easy for me—a resident of the same leafy suburb in which our learned Lord Advocate resides—to say that people should participate and report crime, given that I am not getting my tyres slashed, my windows put in, my children threatened and so on, but we must say to people that they must co-operate with the police, otherwise the police cannot do their job. We must get police whom our community is prepared to work with.
I will make my last point with particular regard to the Tories. We must address the elements that are the basis of a great deal of crime. For many centuries, we based the betterment of our country on the importance of the three Rs, but if we want to resolve the problems that Scotland faces in the 21st century, we must address the three Ds: drink; drugs; and deprivation. They fuel crime and alienation and, until we tackle them, we will not solve the problems that we are talking about today.
Individuals must take responsibility for their actions and we, as a society, through our elected Government, must take responsibility for all communities and all individuals, no matter how marginalised or alienated.
I move amendment S2M-2736.2, to insert at end:
"and recognises the need for individuals to accept greater responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof as well as their own role in criminal justice, from reporting crime to participating in jury service, and equally for the Scottish Executive to recognise its own responsibility to all communities in Scotland and address the problems of drink, drugs and deprivation that lie at the root of much desperation and crime."
I support the rubric to the motion, "Supporting safer, stronger communities". There is not a scintilla of difference between the minister and me in relation to seeking those objectives for Scotland. Unfortunately, there is a yawning gap between what my party regards as being the fundamental components of a criminal justice system that will achieve those objectives and the strategy of the Executive. In a nutshell, the difference is about whether we should put in place simple priorities before approaching specifics or do what the Executive does and sidestep the priorities and deal only with the specifics.
Before expanding that theme further, I will deal with process. The justice plan that we are discussing was published on 6 December 2004 and I think that the minister used the adjective, "radical" in connection with it. It is indicative of the level of priority that it has been given that only now has the Scottish Executive got around to debating it. As I said earlier to Mr MacAskill, the matter was considered in the chamber in December 2004 only because my party secured a debate on it. I make no apology for repeating the arguments that we advanced then on the creation of safer, stronger communities, which are reflected in our amendment.
I recognise that Annabel Goldie's party initiated that debate, but does she accept that the question is not one of debating a document on a one-off occasion? The document contains a number of strands, some of which we have debated in the Parliament and elsewhere. The point of debates is to take things forward, not to return to rhetoric that has been used before.
We are not going to agree on the mechanics of the process, but if the proposal is as radical as the Executive suggests, it would have been timely for the Executive to have debated it long before now.
The reality is that the overall number of crimes and offences has increased from 907,525 in 1997 to 993,126 in 2005. Just as alarmingly, there is a huge amount of unreported crime: according to the Scottish crime survey, three out of four incidents are not reported, which confirms what my party has been maintaining. Sadly, those statistics produce a picture that reflects what many of our constituents tell us is going on in our communities. Regrettably, it is a picture with which the public are familiar and it highlights the difficulty that the Executive faces in presenting the criminal justice plan as a solution. Individual bits of it are worthy and merit support in their own right, but the plan as a whole is not coherent and lacks an underpinning strategy.
That is why my amendment offers three simple components that, once in place, could be supported by elements of the criminal justice plan. Unless those three fundamental components are in place, the plan will have only a patchwork effect. There is no point in trying to replace roof tiles, put new rendering on the chimney and paint the windows if the structural cracks and the sinking foundations mean that the whole house is at risk. That is why my party would start to address the basic problems by dramatically increasing the police presence in our communities, with 1,500 new officers.
When Labour came to power in 1997, there were 14,789 police officers in Scotland. Today, there are more than 16,000. It is clear to me that the Labour-led Executive is increasing police numbers. What can the Conservatives offer us, apart from a rehashed amendment?
That might be clear to the member but it is certainly not clear to the public. Those additional officers are not appearing in the communities where members of the public live. The Executive has visited many new bureaucratic obligations on our police officers, which keep them in offices and not in our communities. That is why my party is committed to providing 1,500 new officers.
Increasing police presence would make a radical difference. It has worked in New York and, much nearer to home, it has worked in Broomhouse in Edinburgh. It has worked for the residents of Reidvale Housing Association in Dennistoun in Glasgow. A report shows that the improved night-time policing in that area has reduced crime. That must be our first approach to reducing the overall incidence of crime.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I have been generous.
When a prison sentence is appropriate, the term that is imposed should be the term that is served. The Executive does not agree with that, but the public know what they want and what they expect. Ending automatic early release is what the law-abiding majority want. If that had been done, James Campbell would not have been at liberty to perpetuate an appalling crime. Ending automatic early release is also important if we are serious about trying to provide rehabilitation in our prisons. I do not agree with Mr MacAskill; many of the people in our prisons are serious offenders who need to be in custody for the sake of society, but they also need rehabilitation.
It is quite wrong to say that prison does not work. We know that from the experiences of Spain and Ireland, where there is a high prison population in relation to recorded crime and a low crime rate. In Scotland, we have a lower prison population in relation to recorded crime and a higher crime rate. Prison will not work if there is automatic early release and if rehabilitation provision in prison is not sustained and effective.
I deplore the decision to stop mandatory random drug testing in our prisons. I know that the Executive is concerned about the high rate of reoffending by discharged prisoners, but if they emerge without the education and training that they need to re-enter the community, reoffending will be a risk. If a drug addictive prisoner who is still dependent on drugs re-enters the community, reoffending is an even higher risk. Unless such issues are addressed, discharged prisoners will continue to reoffend and it will be tempting for people to say—although it would be misjudged—that prison per se does not work.
I conclude by urging the Executive to prioritise the fundamentals of all criminal justice systems: improving policing levels; reducing the crime that is committed; and identifying what makes certain individuals repeat their criminal activity. That might be dealt with outside prison, but if prison is the court disposal, the Executive should prioritise ending automatic early release and create a regime in the prison that will reduce opportunities for reoffending and improve meaningful rehabilitation by steering convicted criminals away from crime.
I move amendment S2M-2736.1, to leave out from first "believes" to end and insert:
"notes the unacceptable rate of reoffending occurring in Scotland today; accepts that there is a place in our criminal justice system for a range of different sentencing options to address this problem but recognises that, when a prison sentence is the appropriate disposal, then prison is not simply a punishment but is intended to rehabilitate, deter and protect the public; believes that the way to reduce reoffending and subsequently the prison population is to reduce the overall incidence of crime in Scotland, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to increase the police presence in our communities to deter and detect crime and to end automatic early release from our prisons to ensure honesty in sentencing."
The proposed Letwin-Monteith shadow budget—if we wish to call it that—in the election campaign points to £745 million-worth of savings, which are part of the Scottish Executive's efficient government review. Of course, that money has been reallocated to all the Executive departments, including the Justice Department. The Conservative party claims that it would contribute the money to tax cuts and proposes cuts in the Justice Department's budget. Its proposals to fund more police officers are an absolute fantasy.
The member is patently misrepresenting the situation, although I accept that he is doing so inadvertently. My party has pledged that in government at Westminster it will honour the current Barnett allocation to Scotland, which will honour the current spending pledges to Scottish departments.
Only last week, Miss Goldie's colleague, the Conservative party's education spokesman, denied that the Conservatives wanted to cut £175 million from the education programme for community schools until he had a discussion with his colleague, Brian Monteith. I recommend that Miss Goldie has a similar discussion. The penny—or the millions—will then drop about the Conservatives' cuts.
This debate and other debates on the criminal justice plan must be put in context. Our society is safe and remarkably violence free. Crime and reported crime are down—indeed, the lowest level of recorded crime in almost a quarter of a century has been reported. Last year's police clear-up rate of 47 per cent was the highest rate since the second world war. That context is important, but there must be progress in two crucial areas, about which I will speak in my remaining time: first, our reoffending rates are still too high; and secondly, there must be earlier interventions for younger people in respect of alcohol and drug abuse.
I fully support the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, which is one measure in the criminal justice plan. The bill could provide one of the best tools for reducing reoffending that would be available to the criminal justice and community-based services—the use of home detention curfews. The Conservative party has enjoyed writing its get-out-of-jail-free-card press releases, but the Scottish Prison Service has considered how the bill could assist in providing continuity of rehabilitation services that start in prison and which often do not continue in the community.
In the debate on women offenders, we heard about the chaotic lifestyles of short-term prisoners, and that is the reality for most prisoners. The Executive recognises the need to provide for many people for the first time in their lives not only practical education, but often drug and alcohol programmes, anger management courses and practical advice about and assistance with housing, basic financial management and employment. The link centres in our prisons are good. The centre that I recently visited in Edinburgh prison has more than 20 partner organisations that provide rehabilitation services. However, there are two problems. First, many short-term prisoners are in prison for an insufficient time for the programmes to be commenced. Secondly, if programmes are started in prison, there is no continuity in the community setting.
Bill Millar, who is the governor of Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Polmont, has agreed with me that there could at last be in home detention curfews a tool that provides in a community setting a degree of the enforcement that is currently required to bring stability and structure to individuals' unstructured lives. In a Justice 2 Committee meeting, he told me:
"I agree. There is an opportunity to use the curfew in such a way."—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 19 April 2005; c 1544.]
I hope that the minister will consider providing further details of discussions on the conditions that could apply to home detention curfews in further parliamentary debates on the bill.
The second important issue is the main contributory factor to antisocial and criminal behaviour—alcohol and drug misuse. We cannot debate the criminal justice plan without debating the impact of alcohol abuse in Scotland, which costs Scottish society more than £1 billion every year and cost the criminal justice system an estimated £27 million in 2002-03. The Scottish crime survey shows that almost two thirds of assault victims who could tell thought that the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol.
It is rare that MSPs and the Parliament recognise the commitment and dedication of the many people in the voluntary sector and the professions who work well beyond what is contractually required of them in the criminal justice network. Community liaison police officers and others are at the heart of youth work and the criminal justice network. Recently I met Lothian and Borders police to discuss the issue and was impressed with the approach of its safer communities department. Inspector Kenny Simpson, a highly dedicated and outstanding police officer, has recently started a new approach to tackling alcohol abuse and binge drinking among young people in the Borders. Any young person whom the police find in possession of or under the influence of alcohol is automatically referred to the Reiver project—I know that the minister is aware of that project—unless the parent or guardian refuses within seven days.
As the minister knows, I have raised concerns about the continuity of funding for such projects. We need to support that kind of home-grown initiative. We should be aware that without continuity and long-term funding for such projects, we put their success at risk.
Together with more innovative measures such as the application of home detention curfews, earlier intervention and a more effective, efficient and consistent application of the criminal justice process, we will see further improvements to those that we have already seen.
Before we move to the open debate, I inform members that there are a considerable number of back benchers whom I want to call, so I will keep members to a strict six minutes. When I say "One minute," I will mean one minute.
I begin by putting on record my support for the Executive's approach to the reform of the criminal justice system. Prior to the Parliament, the subject did not receive the attention that it deserves, but I do not think that anyone can argue now that it is not a priority. Building safer communities is the central objective and Cathy Jamieson is quite right to say that the darker side of Scotland—where knife crime and other crimes of violence are prevalent—is something that we politicians must all face up to.
We are reducing crime; dealing with serious crime and the complexities of sex offenders; setting out our ideals for the protection of children; focusing the police's resources on policing; speeding up the too-slow system; changing relationships that need to be changed; restructuring the court system—the High Court, the sheriff court and the district court; reforming options for sentencing; reducing the number of women in prison by providing alternatives such as time-out centres; examining our sentencing policy; strengthening the reliability of the bail system; and providing early intervention and specialist courts such as drugs courts, youth courts and domestic courts. I do not see how the Conservatives can argue that the Executive does not have a coherent and radical criminal justice reform policy.
However, tackling the criminal justice system should not be done in isolation from the Executive's central priorities of creating alternative lives and real opportunities. We must strike a balance. We all—or most of us—agree that Scotland imprisons too many people and that there are better solutions. Gordon Jackson talked about that earlier, as did Kenny MacAskill.
Scotland is not the only country with a rising prison population; other countries are seeing similar trends and I recommend the Scottish Parliament information centre report on alternatives to custody. We must consider what other countries do.
All of us who have visited prisons know the harshness and isolation of a prison regime. It is harder to reform and rehabilitate a person in an environment that takes them away from the community. Some people will benefit from community sentences, but it is hard to identify who deserves a prison sentence and who deserves a community sentence. As we all know from listening to our constituents, a victim is a victim, and no matter how low level a crime is, if someone's house, car or person has been violated, they want justice. As politicians, we must contend with getting justice for victims as well as providing alternatives to imprisonment.
Does the member agree that it is worrying that three out of four incidents of criminal activity are not reported? Does she accept that that reflects a huge number of victims throughout Scotland?
From time immemorial, academics have argued over what the real statistics are. If we wanted to examine what is not being reported, we would have to go back 50 years for the statistics to be of any use to us. We are dealing with reported crime. Everyone in the debate has said that, as politicians, we must deal with people's perception of crime, but the reality is that reported crime is going down and instances of certain crimes are genuinely falling.
The line between prison and the services that we provide in the community is artificial and serves only to perpetuate reoffending rates by contributing to the cycle of persistent offending. That is why the criminal justice plan, which is a radical reform of the relationship between the prison service and criminal justice, is here not before time; I support that policy whole-heartedly.
The Executive has done the right thing by establishing the Sentencing Commission. Quite a bit of detailed work is required on sentencing, for which we need the help and support of experts. The average daily population of our remand prisons is increasing. Sheriffs are remanding and choosing not to bail many offenders. That should tell us something. The work of the commission is vital. It is hard to strike a balance between the human cost of releasing a person on bail and the human cost of detaining a person unnecessarily. We will not get a perfect system.
Annabel Goldie and other Conservative members have referred to the case of James Campbell. We would support reform of the automatic early-release policy, but if someone has served their sentence, they must be released from jail at some point, so to rely on the reform of automatic early release to solve reoffending will not work. In fact, the Executive has introduced a sentence that can deal with the likes of James Campbell: the order for lifelong restriction, based on the work of Lord MacLean and Lady Cosgrove. However, judges and courts must be prepared to use that lifelong sentence.
Other issues include the fact that sanctions in relation to bail are not always applied, that non-appearance is endemic and that the Crown may not object to bail. The area needs urgent work. I support the plan.
As usual, there are many differing views in the chamber. One thing, though, is clear: the present system of prison is not working as it should do and it is not delivering for our communities. As the Minister for Justice mentioned, there is a reoffending rate of nearly 60 per cent, based on reconviction within two years of release. There is a revolving door syndrome, in which individuals spend their lives in the system, sometimes from one generation to the next. There is the inappropriate use of short sentences, especially for fine default and for women. In 2001, 38 per cent of custodies were for fine default, and the average length of sentence was 10 days. The imposition of short sentences helps to wreck the fabric of the very families and communities that the criminal justice plan seeks to support. We must begin to address seriously the problems of offenders, not just the low levels of literacy but, in particular, the addictions to drugs and alcohol. If we fail to recognise those problems and to provide treatment, we are destined to continue with the same cycle of failure.
If we consider the profile of Scotland's prisoners, we start to identify other problems. Not every poor or underprivileged person is a criminal—it would be absurd to suggest that. However, crime has a direct link to poverty. If we do not address that, we are again condemned to failure. In the US, an experiment called justice reinvestment, which invests in public safety by reallocating justice dollars to refinance education, housing, health care and jobs, has established the clear principle that if we do not want to continue filling our jails and paying big style for it, we must start to invest in the community. A direct comparison cannot be made between Scotland and the US, but that experiment is producing remarkable results in different counties in the States and is worthy of further consideration.
Just as one party does not have all the answers, neither does one country. The Justice 1 Committee report entitled "A Comparative Review of Alternatives to Custody: Lessons from Finland, Sweden and Western Australia" is interesting reading, particularly on Finland's approach of gradual change and on the dramatic reductions in Finland's jail population.
What is clear in all cases, and is cited in the Justice 1 Committee report, is the need to engage in debate not just with professionals, but with communities. Too often, policy appears to come down from on high and the rhetoric does not match the reality. As we try to make alternatives to custody more effective, it is vital that community service is not seen to be the soft option that it is sometimes portrayed as. Community service must be shown to benefit communities, particularly those that are blighted by crime.
The most important issue in the debate is prevention. A hard core will always continue to revolve in and out of the prison door, but it is vital to reduce the number of individuals who might join that group. The shortage of some types of work—particularly manual work—leaves many younger people with time on their hands through unemployment. The American experiment showed that keeping people out of crime was less expensive than putting them in jail. Perhaps scope exists to use some of our local authorities to provide manual jobs. I well remember the move to increase mechanisation in local authorities. That may have saved local authority budgets or protected jobs in direct labour organisations in the public-private partnership era, but it also destroyed manual jobs. Perhaps a two-sided balance sheet is needed, which appreciates fully the social costs of unemployment and potential crime. Better local authority services might even be the result.
In any prevention policy, we must re-examine how to divert young people from activities that are likely to suck them into the criminal justice system. We must provide young people with an alternative focus for their energies. Too often, they are called couch potatoes when they spend a couple of nights in front of the telly or neds if they congregate on the streets. Many Executive and social inclusion initiatives are aimed at new organisations that provide diversionary activities, but the same support is not given to our older voluntary organisations, especially the uniformed organisations. As a society, we sometimes try to reinvent the wheel.
Some members will remember that I initiated a debate in the chamber a few weeks ago about the work that Renfrew and Inverclyde scout association does at a community facility called Lapwing Lodge. Members spoke in support and the Minister for Environment and Rural Development confirmed in writing that he supported the organisation's work, but not one penny was forthcoming. That is common with our older voluntary organisations. I hope that, in summing up, the Deputy Minister for Justice will give our voluntary sector encouragement that it will not continue to suffer the present funding imbalance.
The Scottish Executive is to be congratulated on its in-depth examination of the criminal justice system and the resulting proposed reforms. No one can argue against the aim of creating a safer and more just society or of reducing reoffending. The task is on a huge scale and even more than reform of the criminal justice system is needed to make those changes, because the pattern of offending in our society correlates closely with offenders' family histories and social backgrounds. I agree with some of the points that previous speakers have made. Deprivation and a family history of offending drastically increase a person's chances of becoming an offender.
We need to make our society more socially just for children, to shield them not just from being victims of crime but from growing into criminals. I welcome the approach of closing the opportunity gap, which aims to prevent individuals or families from falling into poverty, to provide routes out of poverty for individuals or families and to sustain individuals or families in a lifestyle free from poverty.
I have seen how difficult it can be for the young to find their way in life, and I welcome schemes that provide them with support. However, there is concern about what happens when people have committed crimes and fallen into the system. We must work to tackle our national recidivism rates. I welcome the extra investment in treatment services, because we must help to treat drug addiction, for example, and provide support to prevent people from falling into patterns of offending. We need to examine our prisons closely and to look at society in general.
I support the prison visiting committees and praise their work in providing one of the few safeguards for prisoners' civil rights while they are in prison. That is not to detract from the work that is done by inspectors of prisons or from our efforts to visit prisons and examine their regimes; I look forward to next month's debate on the effectiveness of rehabilitation in prisons. However, our visits are organised and accompanied, sometimes not just by prison officers and governors but by representatives of the Scottish Prison Service, such as the chief executive. Although we can and do gather a great deal of information, a different perspective is gained by independent prison visitors. I look forward to their position being strengthened while their role is modernised.
Recently, publicity has surrounded the report of the chief inspector of prisons on Kilmarnock prison. The media have picked up the story as being about children in adult prisons. Society should be shocked not just by where young people are locked up, but by the fact that it is considered necessary to lock them up. There is a realisation that young people offend and that the problem must be dealt with. However, there is a distinct need for us to concentrate our efforts on supporting projects that aim to change behaviour at the earliest possible age. I refer to projects such as the Barnardo's bridge project in Dundee and Angus, one of whose slogans is
"Giving children back their future".
The project deals with young people who have been recognised as displaying inappropriate sexual behaviour, but who will be robbed of their future unless help is given to them. If we are to concentrate our thinking on young people such as those whom the bridge project helps, we must stop doling out blame and expecting that punishment alone will reduce reoffending.
What happens after prison? People—I am still concentrating mainly on young people—can lose everything after just a brief spell in prison, even for minor offences. If they have lost a tenancy and have no supportive family, everything in their house may be cleared out and thrown into a skip, including even school certificates and family photographs. That means that people come out of prison to nothing at all. How easy would any of us find it to start from scratch, probably only on benefits? If we do not spend money on supporting accommodation and job opportunities for ex-offenders, we will have to spend even more on secure accommodation and prisons. Perhaps if people were given more support and their lives were more just during their troubled childhoods, offending could be drastically reduced.
It is common for people to call for early intervention, and I welcome the minister's support for that approach in relation to addiction. Early intervention must underpin all our thinking about the justice system and other parts of government. We should not look at justice work in isolation. We need to include not just the usual parts of the system, such as criminal justice social workers and outside agencies, but social workers, youth workers and education and health workers in the drive for joint working. I welcome the attention that the Minister for Justice and the Deputy Minister for Justice are giving to the debate, but I underline the need for different ministers to work together to find and fund solutions that will halt the vicious circle of families perpetuating a culture in which offending continues through the generations.
I want to recommend some television viewing. I will not describe the programme, but I suggest that members watch "Supernanny", which is not about crime but about changing behaviour, with some spectacular results.
I will mention some of the legislative changes that are in train. We are strengthening the law to protect children from predatory sex offenders who seek to use the internet to facilitate their activities, and we are considering the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill, which will protect girls from the practice of genital mutilation. I welcome the frank discussions on such issues that have taken place in the Justice 1 Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee. It is high time that we provided such protection for children and young people, who have often suffered in silence, and I am thankful that the Executive is facing up to and acting on those matters. As society changes and the use of modern technologies increases, our law must keep up to date with new and different ways of offending. The process is on-going and requires vigilance from the Executive. I support the criminal justice plan.
Marlyn Glen must forgive me, but I have some difficulty with the concept of Cathy Jamieson in the role of Supernanny.
We do not think, as Pauline McNeill suggested, that the criminal justice plan is incoherent, but we have serious doubts about its workability. We do not need a degree in applied psychology or rocket science to know that criminal behaviour is deterred by two factors: the fear of detection and the fear of punishment. I accept that it would be impossible to achieve a 100 per cent success rate in detection, although we would all like detection rates to increase. However, detection rates are not likely to increase, given the present state of the police operation in Scotland. I am sure that, as Mrs Mulligan said, the number of officers has increased, but we do not see those officers being deployed at the sharp end of disorder on the streets, deterring and solving crime and reassuring the community.
On the fear of punishment, the Executive has in effect mitigated punishments over the years, thereby providing an incentive to criminality. Conditional offers of fixed penalties—or fiscal fines—are not paid, or only the first instalment of £5 is paid on admission of guilt and the matter is never taken further. Fines are not paid: some £6.5 million in unpaid fines was outstanding at the last count and the vast majority of that sum will never be paid. The answer is self-evident: fines should be deducted at source from people's benefits or salaries. Such an approach would ensure that people received adequate punishment and would prevent people from going to jail for non-payment of fines. I do not know why the Executive is so obdurate as to refuse to accept such a commonsense solution.
Does Mr Aitken agree that we should consider relating fines to the ability to pay, so that we do not bear on the poor unduly and let the rich away more or less scot free?
The member and I have crossed swords on the issue before and my answer remains unchanged. In fixing a penalty, the courts have—and use—the facility to take account of the accused's ability to pay. Courts certainly take the matter into account when a penalty is to be paid in instalments.
Community service is often not done to the 100 per cent level that we should demand when a community service sentence is imposed as a direct alternative to custody, but why are so many offenders not breached?
Offenders might eventually be sent to jail, but our appallingly dishonest sentencing policy provides for automatic early release. Believe it or not, that is not entirely the Executive's fault—when we signed up to the European convention on human rights under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, we had to accept that prison governors are not an independent tribunal. That means that whether people behave impeccably or are proper pests while they are in prison, they receive remission of either a third or 50 per cent of their sentence. The only available sanction for misconduct in prison is to take the prisoner to court, with all the expense and hassle that that causes.
The Executive and its colleagues down south continually send out mixed messages about drugs, which are the curse of the 20th and 21st centuries. The reclassification of cannabis was a major error and is being reconsidered down south by Mr Clarke. How can the situation whereby drugs are freely available in prisons be allowed to continue?
What of the operation of the drugs courts? The jury is out on whether they will be successful. However, they would be more likely to be successful if their client base was radically changed. Those who go before the drugs courts in Glasgow are, to use unfortunate terminology, old lags with 50 or 60 convictions, who would normally have received a sentence of six months on summary conviction. Frankly, in many cases they are incorrigible. However, what happens to the street prostitute or the third-time shoplifter who is anxious to get off drugs? The facilities that are available at the drugs courts for immediate drug treatment or drug testing are not made available to lower-tariff offenders, which is ludicrous.
I agree totally with the minister's properly expressed concerns on the operation of bail. However, I am concerned that tagging might not be the solution to the problem. In many instances, murders will be committed in communities in which the deceased and the accused are well known to one another, and where their families as well as the witnesses will be in constant contact during the period before a trial. Tagging does not prevent the influencing and subornation of witnesses.
The application of warrants is a further issue. Many thousands of warrants are outstanding and will not be executed. Until such time as there is a much sharper approach to warrants, bail and, in particular, the collecting of monetary penalties, this plan is going nowhere.
I prepared for this debate by looking at Scotland's criminal justice plan. I was immediately struck by the introduction to the plan, which states:
"Justice is at the heart of safer, stronger communities. Our justice system underpins strong communities where the values of fairness, tolerance and respect can flourish."
Too often, we are guilty of agreeing with such statements without looking at what lies behind them. I agree that justice can be at the heart of safer communities, but what of the inclusion of the word "stronger"? What about the flourishing of fairness, tolerance and respect? I suggest that another phrase—social justice—should be included in the introduction. That is at the heart of the process, which is not purely about the criminal justice system.
Roger Houchin, a former governor of Barlinnie prison, called in January of this year for a rethink of justice policy to reduce the offences that are punishable by prison, not just to solve the prison overcrowding problem but to help break the clear link between poverty and crime. His study revealed that a quarter of all prisoners come from just 53 of Scotland's 1,200 council wards—the 53 most deprived wards. Half of those in jail come from the poorest 13 per cent of council wards. In the same month, Audit Scotland released a report showing that half of all those who are released will be back in two years, and that drug rehabilitation programmes, despite the assertions of availability, were failing to reach prisoners. Less than half of those with a problem had received treatment.
I commend a book by my colleague Kenny MacAskill, in which members can read Roger Houchin's fascinating article. One of the points that Roger Houchin makes is that part of the reason for the growth in the prison population is that it allows the rest of us to divorce ourselves from the discomfort of having to engage with what he calls our underclass society, which the preponderance of prisoners—young men aged around 23, from the most deprived backgrounds—inhabit. One in nine men from deprived areas will be in prison during their 23rd year.
There are those who deny the link between poverty and crime by pointing out that crime rates increase most quickly when affluence growth is at its greatest. However, poverty is relative and cannot be framed as absolutely as that. Poverty in a society has nothing to do with bank balances; it has everything to do with being able to provide for oneself and one's family the parts of life that allow one to be normal in the society in which one lives, rather than being shoved aside and made to feel that one is not part of it. I certainly do not agree with the theory that all property is theft, but it is not too far wide of the mark to describe the lack of facilities for normal living as a crime against society. The question then is: who is committing that crime?
The Administrations that we have had at Westminster over the past few decades have contributed to that crime through the individualism that they have espoused—it is only the individual that matters. We start to look at poverty almost as if it is a crime and as if it is the fault of the individual that they are underprivileged—there is no such thing as society. Sadly, the present Labour Government does nothing to reintroduce the values and philosophy of collectivism.
It has become almost a crime to be poor. I think that the crime is allowing poverty to cause such divisions in society. I believe firmly that criminality cannot be addressed until deprivation is addressed, and that that can be addressed only when we are all prepared to look it square in the face and call it for what it is. That does not mean that I am an apologist for criminals—I fully accept that there are some right bad swines of all ages out there and that, in some cases, there is no alternative to incarceration. However, it is time that we thought about the principles that underlie the Kilbrandon report and used them for adult justice as well as in the children's hearings system. We should sort out the problem and not try to hide it.
Having said that, there is some good stuff on which we can build among what the Executive says on the way forward. I was interested in some of the key elements that were noted in "Supporting Safer, Stronger Communities: Scotland's Criminal Justice Plan" for success in dealing with lower-level offending. Immediacy is one of the four elements and that is crucial. Visibility and accountability in the criminal justice system as a public service are important, because people feel a bit divorced from the system. I am sure that we all get complaints from folk who do not know why charges were dropped because nobody ever came back to tell them what had happened when something with which they were involved ended up in court. That is crucial, but so is the last element, which is active community involvement through a range of roles, often as volunteers.
That brings me back directly to one of my biggest bugbears, which is the fact that volunteers contribute so much to society. Volunteers save the Government a fortune. Let us look at funding voluntary organisations to do the job that they do really well. We must core fund them and let them get on with it. Let us take the opportunity to have a radical rethink of how we fund those volunteer agencies, nationally and at local government level.
I am happy to speak in support of the coalition motion. I recognise the excellent work that the minister and her colleagues are doing. The minister's commitment to the subject is very clear. As in any group of intelligent adults, different people have different views on certain aspects of the issues and we argue them out in a sensible fashion.
The sunshine in the chamber appears on me and disappears from me; that must be symbolic of something or other, but I am not quite sure what.
I will make three points. First, the legal fraternity does not understand how fed up the laymen get with the incredible delays in justice. Surely we must be able to do better than we do at present. It is a question of meeting to sort something out and either the issue is resolved or at least each side knows what they are doing. They then go in to bat and the matter is decided one way or the other in court. That could happen just as easily in one month as in six.
I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Gorrie, but will you move your microphone up a bit? We are having difficulty in hearing you.
I apologise for my height.
So, let us speed up justice.
Secondly, there are many excellent organisations that help to deal with young people who have problems with the law. The last time that I praised an organisation, it was promptly closed down so I will not praise any individual organisation today. There are many such organisations and they have a problem, because the funding always runs out. We do not have continuous funding. Surely there must be a way in which the Executive can say, "Right, we recognise that this project is delivering the goods, and so long as it continues to deliver the goods it will get the funding." That way, people could get on with what they were doing instead of wondering what their next job would be. We must have continuous funding for organisations that help people to sort themselves out. A number of organisations besides the Airborne Initiative have shown that there is merit in a mixture of outward-boundery activity and heavy psychological warfare on the young people. Quite a number of organisations have had real success in that way; the Executive should recognise that and support residential organisations that are doing such good work.
My third and main point is that we must revolutionise our whole approach to communities. For years, Governments of different hues have poured a lot of money into our poorer communities and achieved very little. The same communities have problems with crime, poor health and lack of educational attainment. Instead of putting in a lot of well-intentioned money and having people like me devise great schemes in which communities have to do X, Y and Z before they get the money—communities obediently do X, Y and Z, but they do not believe in it so it does not work—we should give them the money and let them do their own thing and develop their own way of doing things.
Last week, I visited on successive days the violence reduction unit in Glasgow, which is a really good organisation, and the Development Trust Association Scotland. Coming from totally different angles, those organisations had the same message—that we can help communities to do their own thing. We can encourage active enterprise in communities. There are some communities, for example, that have bought one windmill in a farm, which gives them an income that they can plough back into other community activities. There are a lot of other enterprising things that people could do. From a violence reduction point of view, we could get communities to sort themselves out better. We will not sort out communities; they can sort themselves out and change attitudes. We must get young people to accept that it is cool for their community to behave better.
I do not disagree at all with what Donald Gorrie is saying. We all know that there is always a poorer end of the community and a wealthier end of the community; often, the gap between those two parts of the community is the problem. Does Donald Gorrie agree that, if we are to make what he is suggesting work, it is important for the whole community to co-ordinate together?
I agree. People of all ages, sexes and finances should work together. That is the point. There is a huge amount of energy in communities. In some communities, the only way in which people can demonstrate their energy is by selling other people drugs. If we open up opportunities for people to do worthwhile things, they will sort themselves out. There will be some failures and the odd chap may cheat the system, but at least we will get somewhere. One person I spoke to described how a housing estate in a city got urban aid and money for successor schemes of that sort for 20 years, but the money has now run out and the schemes have run out. For 20 years, we have been pouring money into the area and we have achieved absolutely nothing. We must change and help people to help themselves, rather than parachuting in well-intentioned schemes.
One thing that can be said about the Executive is that it has been zealous on issues of crime and criminal justice—if anything, maybe even too zealous. If I have a minor criticism, it is that there may at times be a tendency to over-legislate, but that is a minor matter.
There have been many radical reforms to the criminal justice and courts system. I can hardly keep up. By and large, those reforms are valuable, but I add a tiny note of caution: crime and disorder are not solved within the justice system. We can make the system more efficient and we can make it quicker for Donald Gorrie. We can make it better value for money and we can make it more user friendly and more victim friendly. We can also do even more valuable things. For example, specialist courts such as drugs courts and domestic abuse courts are valuable. Such reform is all worth while, but it is limited. The criminal justice and courts system is important. It is part of the law and order structure, but people who work in it—judges, sheriffs, lawyers or whoever—know its limitations. Issues of criminality will not be solved in that context.
So what will help? What can we do? Let me be positive on a couple of issues before I am negative. I think that we must tackle certain types of crime firmly and I applaud the Executive's emphasis on dealing with knife crime. The suggestions that have been made are valuable. I like the idea of licensing and banning certain types of knives, although in my experience most knife crime is committed using something that has been taken out of the kitchen. In almost all the knife murders that I have come across, the knife came out of the kitchen drawer. That will always be a problem. That is why it is important that the Executive is speaking about tackling the culture of young men wanting to carry knives. I say good luck with that, because it is a very big test.
I am listening with great interest to someone who I know has serious understanding of the issues. Does Gordon Jackson agree that it is the mental state and social attitudes of the people who hold the knives that are a bigger problem than the weapon itself and a more difficult problem with which to deal?
That is what I am saying. The culture needs to be tackled, but that is extremely difficult to do.
I have no difficulty with increasing the maximum penalty. I recently heard a judge make an interesting comment with which I tend to agree. He said that perhaps when someone is convicted of carrying a knife, that is the one occasion on which first offenders should be treated severely. What often happens is that someone is treated lightly for carrying a knife and they think that it is not a big deal, so they do it again and again and on the second or third occasion someone ends up in the mortuary. A first conviction for carrying a knife is perhaps the one occasion when we need to take a firm line right away.
The other idea that I like is offender management and consideration of how we challenge offending behaviour. Again, that is not easy.
Bruce McFee said that 60 per cent of people in prison reoffend after they come out, but there is more to it than that. Almost everyone who goes into prison has offended often before they go there. Very few first offenders are in prison—I suspect that very few second or third offenders are in prison. By the time people go into prison, there is a huge culture of reoffending. It is not surprising that when they come out of prison nothing much has changed. I enjoyed Bruce McFee's speech; he raised some ideas that we want to think about.
The Executive's idea of prison and social work departments working together to challenge offending is extremely important. One criticism that I have is that there is often little sense of a joined-up approach being taken to these matters. If offending behaviour is to be challenged and reoffending reduced, we need to have a framework where all the agencies start working together better. I do not think that that has happened in the past. If a new statutory framework is required to achieve that, so be it, because it is necessary.
That is enough of the positive, so I will now be a little negative towards the amendment from my dear friends the Tories. I do not find helpful the constant emphasis on ending early release from prison. I know that the amendment calls it "automatic early release", but that is usually presented as a soundbite for the idea that, whatever the sentence is, it should be served in full. I do not buy that—the suggestion is neither helpful nor practical. No one has ever costed that policy for me or calculated how many more prison places would be needed. The current situation is that serious offenders are released before their full term, but they can be recalled to serve their full term if they put a foot out of line thereafter. That is important as it allows good management of prisons and it gives prisoners an incentive to address their reoffending behaviour, both before they apply to the Parole Board for Scotland and in order to continue to be at liberty thereafter. The soundbite policy of prisoners "serving their whole term" might sound attractive, but it is not helpful. To echo what Kenny MacAskill said, I think that the policy is more of a jingoistic approach than a real contribution to the debate.
I think that the debate is helpful and I am glad that the Executive is tackling the issues as it is doing.
As in many of our debates on justice, I have a great deal of support for the Executive's intentions in reforming the criminal justice system. There is little in the motion that I can disagree with. However, time after time, we return to and acknowledge the same problems. Prison populations continue to rise and I continue to suggest that a more fundamental approach to the problem could achieve much more.
The motion asks us to support the criminal justice plan. There is indeed a lot in the plan to welcome. However, as soon as we start to scratch the surface of some of the phrases in the motion, we see problems. For example, none of us would disagree with the call for "sentences that are effective", but what does that phrase mean? Are short-term prison sentences effective? If so, in what way are they effective? Do they effectively change offenders' behaviour? Do they effectively build public confidence in the criminal justice system? Do they effectively deter people from offending? I do not think that they do. However, the opportunity exists to achieve all those things and more by fully accepting, like other countries, the roles of restorative justice, mediation and reparation. The Executive's intentions have been good, but they have been too limited.
Patrick Harvie poses a number of questions on short-term prison sentences. I put on record yet again what we have consistently said: we do not believe that short sentences are effective. We need to consider what they achieve and we need to consider the churn of people going into prisons for short periods and not being properly prepared for coming back out. We are happy to make that point time and again. It is at the heart of much of what we are trying to do.
And the sentences continue, and the disruption and harm to people's lives continue.
Is it effective to imprison people whose behaviour is a result of mental health problems or addictions? Of course not. Such people need treatment and support if they are going to change their behaviour. They do not belong in prison if prison remains a place of punishment.
As has been noted, the Conservative amendment in the name of Annabel Goldie contains much that is familiar. Gordon Jackson dealt very well with the issue of early release. I would add that the task of diverting people from prison, whenever possible, is far more important than any other task. For the majority of people, prison does no good, only harm.
In debate after debate, we hear speeches from members—including Conservative members—emphasising punishment. I ask why. If we can achieve deterrence, if we can achieve rehabilitation and behavioural change, if we can achieve a sense for victims that wrongs have been put right, and if we can achieve protection for the public, and if we can achieve all those things by sending far fewer people to prison, what is the additional value that society obtains from punishment? Punishment for its own sake is barbarity.
The SNP amendment in the name of Kenny MacAskill is also worthy of support and I will be voting accordingly. However, elements of Mr MacAskill's speech were deeply disappointing. Was he really arguing that an addict who pays for their own habit deserves rehabilitation, but one who steals to pay for it does not? Was he suggesting—as he seemed to be—that we should ignore the root cause of behaviour when serious offences have been committed but should not ignore the root cause of behaviour when serious offences have not been committed? To make such suggestions is questionable on moral as well as practical grounds.
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United Kingdom signed in 1976, states that those citizens who are deprived of their liberty should be treated
"with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."
The covenant adds that the prison system should
"comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation."
I repeat the call for an abandonment of the notion that punishment or retribution is an effective use of prison.
I am not sure what Mr Harvie was driving at. I can only assume that he was referring to what I said in response to the point that Mr Jackson made. If someone has a drug problem, I fully accept that that requires to be addressed. However, if someone commits a serious offence as a result of that drug problem, such as a knifing, stabbing or armed robbery, it is important that that crime be punished. Is Mr Harvie suggesting that we should ignore the actions of those people when and if they go beyond the simple problem of their addiction? If not, does he accept that the seriousness of the offences and the consequences of their actions on our society require that those crimes be addressed by punishment and imprisonment?
You are in your last minute, Mr Harvie.
I am saying that the one factor that will make an addict more likely to commit future crimes and so create future victims, more likely to become HIV or hepatitis C positive and less likely ever to sort out their life is being sent to prison.
In the few moments of my speech that remain, I will address an issue that is less directly relevant to the debate but which is important to the treatment of offenders. It is an issue on which some members chose to comment this week, not in the chamber but in the gutter press. Page 22 of the Executive sexual health strategy states:
"The Scottish Prison Service will make condoms and dental dams available as a health protection measure as part of the SPS's general policy of taking measures to protect and improve the health of prisoners."
Without a shadow of a doubt, the policy is a rational and necessary measure. Frankly, I was disgusted that some members chose to indulge the more shallow and prejudiced element of the fourth estate by calling for the policy to be abandoned. They did so only one day after the Parliament spoke with a united voice about the impact of HIV in Africa.
You must finish, Mr Harvie.
How dare members call for the impact of HIV on the life of any Scot to be ignored? I call on the minister to confirm in closing that the Scottish Executive Justice Department will ensure that the policy is implemented.
Before I get to the body of my speech, I welcome the minister's comments on and commitment to tackling knife crime. This morning, I attended a meeting with some children from Low Port Primary School in my constituency. One of the first questions that I was asked was, "What is the Scottish Parliament doing about knife crime?"
The issue is one about which children and young people are aware and concerned. They see their friends, or friends of friends, carrying knives and they want to avoid doing so themselves. They are also aware of the peer pressure to carry knives. It is clear from the minister's comments that the Executive intends to take the issue seriously. From the contributions that members made to the debate, I believe that the Parliament will take the issue seriously and seek to tackle it at source.
A number of members spoke about the problems of drugs in their communities. My constituency is no different in that respect; we suffer the same criminal activity that goes alongside drug taking. However, I am pleased that many members also mentioned the misuse of alcohol. Although we have debated the issue previously in the Parliament, it is important that we recognise in this debate the implications of its misuse.
If I may, I will use an issue from my constituency as an example of the difficulties that people experience as a result of alcohol misuse. Recently, despite many objections from local people, a corner shop in my constituency was given a licence to sell alcohol. Since that time, local people have had their lives disrupted by youths hanging around. They have suffered abuse, noise, vandalism and intimidation even in just approaching the youths. I recognise that the issue is one that the Executive has taken up through its review of the licensing laws, for example. However, I also think that it is because of the number of people, agencies and pieces of legislation that are involved that my constituents have not yet received a satisfactory response to the problem. Neither planning nor licensing regulations have been effective and a report is therefore being prepared for the procurator fiscal. My constituents continue to lack confidence that anything will be done about the problem. The example illustrates how the abuse of alcohol can significantly reduce the standard of living for many people in our communities.
Although I understand the emphasis on illegal drugs, alcohol should not be ignored. I ask the Executive to continue to work with our Westminster colleagues to tackle the bootleg selling of alcohol in local communities, particularly at some markets, as it is often a front for other illegal activity. I also ask the Executive to ensure that local drug and alcohol action teams give sufficient time and resources to the alcohol part of their remit. We know that many acts of violence, including domestic violence, are perpetrated while people are under the influence of alcohol, so we have to ensure that we treat the issue more seriously.
I turn my attention to safer, stronger communities, which are central to why we want to develop the criminal justice plan. The Parliament spent much of last year discussing antisocial behaviour. I strongly believe that the Executive was right to address antisocial behaviour through legislation that responded to the many people in our communities who clearly said that action needed to be taken. However, the legislation was only part of the story. People's lives can be helped and improved through the response to that legislation.
Local authorities and the police have responded with various initiatives. In my local authority, West Lothian, the community safety partnership was established involving partners such as local authority departments, the police and the fire brigade. It quickly had an impact by establishing a neighbourhood response team. The NRT operates a 24-hour helpline, responds to daily complaints about antisocial behaviour, provides information to people on what they can expect and to whom they can complain, and operates a warden scheme.
In this area the Conservatives go astray from the real issues. Their only answer seems to be to introduce more and more police. As I said earlier, the Executive has delivered more police, but it has also embraced more innovative measures that are more appropriate to the problems. Community wardens are working well.
In summary, it is important that we acknowledge the on-going work and that we recognise that there are many aspects to the problem that do not just revolve round providing more police and locking up more people. We have to examine why people commit crimes. We have to try to prevent them from doing so and we have to ensure that those who commit crimes are tackled on them and sentenced for them but also rehabilitated and returned to our communities as responsible citizens.
The criminal justice plan must address preventing offending, detecting crime, reducing reoffending, and rehabilitating offenders. A partnership of the Parliament and others will ensure that we improve the lives of everybody within our communities.
I regret that I can give Colin Fox only three minutes.
As members have said, this is an important debate. There is a broad consensus on the need to deal urgently with many facets of the criminal justice system. In the three minutes that are available to me, I will focus on the depressing levels of reoffending that members and the minister have mentioned.
I was struck by the statistic in "Supporting Safer, Stronger Communities" that 80 per cent of male offenders under 21 are likely to be reconvicted after serving a sentence of six months or less. I wanted to look behind the statistic, so last month I visited Low Moss prison in Bishopbriggs. Low Moss is one of Scotland's prison factories, with a large volume of young men going through its turnstile again and again. I am sure that, like me, members who have visited it thought, "What a waste. What a catalogue of despair."
I was struck by the governor's reply when I asked him why so many young men come back to Low Moss again and again. He replied, "What did you expect? We're releasing these laddies back into Possil and Easterhouse and wherever else—back to where they came from in the first place, where there's nothing for them. They do their time and they go straight back to doing what they did that brought them here in the first place." He asked me, "Where else would they go? To work in the stock exchange in Glasgow or to study at Glasgow University?" Clearly, we need a new approach.
The minister's motion states that we want
"sentences that are effective in reducing reoffending and supporting rehabilitation".
We know what is effective and what works up to a point. The figures suggest that non-custodial sentences for low-level offending have lower reoffending rates and greater rehabilitative success. However, as Pauline McNeill and others have stated, one problem is that many community service orders are being traded up as alternatives to fine payment rather than being used as alternatives to custody, as was originally intended. Time does not allow me to elaborate on the points that were made in Professor Jacqueline Tombs's important report on the views of sentencers on that.
I am disappointed in the tone of the SNP's amendment, which seems to me to say, "Come on, pull your socks up and snap out of it." It is a moralising tone, which is unappealing to me. The amendment does not add much to the debate and the Scottish Executive's obligations seem to be an afterthought in the amendment, whereas I think that the Executive has important responsibilities towards communities.
The problem with the Tory amendment is that the measures that are proposed in it do not address the root causes of crime. I broadly support the reforms in the criminal justice plan, but we must address the roots of the problem, which cannot be solved by the Justice Department on its own.
In the time that is available to me, I will try to pick out the salient features of this informative debate.
The minister rightly said that we have embarked on the most radical reform of criminal justice in a generation. She also mentioned knife crime, on which Mary Mulligan and Gordon Jackson also touched. Gordon Jackson made the important point that the majority of knife crimes are committed with knives that have been taken straight out of the kitchen drawer. That being so, we have to think carefully about how we address the issue, because we will not necessarily get rid of the crime simply by categorising knives. Indeed, an SNP member suggested that we should perhaps tackle the motive of the person who is holding the knife.
The minister also mentioned the importance of strengthening links between, for example, the Scottish Prison Service and social work departments. Gordon Jackson also drew out the importance of that.
The increase in police numbers over the past few years has been highlighted. That takes me to Annabel Goldie's speech. She made a point about the delay in the debate and announced a Conservative policy of providing 1,500 more police officers. Jeremy Purvis's question about how that would be financed is valid and I am sure that the answer will come out in the days before the general election. If Mr Michael Howard were to win the election, which is unlikely, there would be a Barnett consequential in reverse and money would be stripped out of the Scottish budget, so it is important that the electorate know which other Scottish Executive budget would be cut to pay for those extra 1,500 police officers.
Jeremy Purvis correctly pointed out that it is not all bad out in our communities at the moment. He highlighted the fact that police clear-up rates are 47 per cent, which is the highest since the second world war, and talked interestingly about the conditions that will apply to home detention curfews.
Pauline McNeill talked about the Sentencing Commission and the importance of its work. I must compliment Bruce McFee on a most interesting speech. We know that the present prison system is not working, but he probably put it more pithily than most. He mentioned a US experiment that showed that, if I quote him correctly, it is less expensive to keep people out of prison. That is an interesting philosophy and, if the Executive is not considering that, it could constructively be considered in future.
I warmly welcome and endorse Bruce McFee's statement that community service must not be regarded as a soft option. I have made that point in previous debates and am firmly of that opinion. Through community service, we can link the offender back into the community and we must get representatives of the local communities to give recognition, reward and compliment in cases in which the community service has been successful. Community service orders are all too infrequently used constructively by communities as they could be, such as for environmental improvement works.
Marlyn Glen correctly said that social justice should be directed more at the young and rightly praised the prison visiting committees' role. I repeat myself when I say that those committees should receive further recognition of their work and that they should be augmented and beefed up, perhaps by taking people from other sectors of society. That communication between offenders in prison and society outside prison can often act as a hand of friendship and reduce the rate of reoffending.
Bill Aitken took us back to the fine old issue of punishment, as did Patrick Harvie. I have to say to Patrick Harvie that, as Kenny MacAskill knows, there are some people who are so bad that they have to be punished. However ugly the thought of the word "punishment" is, there is nothing else that we can do with some people.
Will the member give way?
I will not give way, but we can talk about the issue later.
I would say to Bill Aitken that he must remember that some old lags do not mind going to prison for a third, fourth, fifth or sixth time. The fear aspect of the punishment of imprisonment is not always there.
Bill Aitken's point about automatic early release was dealt with most ably by Gordon Jackson, who drew a line under the issue. I totally support Gordon Jackson's view and I think that it is time that we stopped making cheap shots about this issue.
Perhaps due to time constraints, Mr Jackson could not get across the entirety of the situation, which is that those who are out on licence can be subject to recall, but those who are out on an unexpired sentence can be sentenced at a future court hearing and ordered to serve the rest of their sentence only on the basis of reoffending. There have been very few cases of that over the past five years.
I detect in Mr Aitken's intervention a move towards Gordon Jackson's position. We must continue to have a debate around this subject but we must be honest about it.
I compliment Donald Gorrie on his unusual expression "outward boundery". I think that I know what he means. He is talking about creative engagement with the environment and the community. That is an issue that we can consider in future.
Mary Mulligan correctly highlighted the importance of alcohol. Members across the chamber mentioned it in passing, but she highlighted the problem exactly for what it is. In tandem with the drug problem, the alcohol problem is hugely important.
This has been a constructive debate. One of the great benefits of summing up a debate is that one has to listen to the whole debate. All our thoughts will have progressed during the debate.
Linda Fabiani and Colin Fox spoke with passion about the link between poverty and people being sent to prison. We must not forget that.
The debate has focused on proposals for promoting the swifter delivery of sentences that are effective in reducing offending and supporting rehabilitation. We all want safer and stronger communities, but there is a fundamental division of opinion about how best that objective can be achieved. The Scottish Executive believes that the proposals in the criminal justice plan will deliver. The Scottish Tories disagree, which is why our amendment advocates a more visible police presence on our streets, a range of sentencing options and an end to automatic early release. All those positive proposals can be acted on now.
Contrast that with the Scottish Executive's criminal justice plan, which is peppered with proposals for procrastination. It is a plan for inaction, with proposals to review, consider, evaluate, explore, consult and pilot. In other words, although action is required now, the Executive has delayed and dithered.
Does the member accept that the plan also contains proposals for legislation, some of which is going through Parliament at this point? That is action, not delay.
I readily acknowledge that, but I regret the fact that some of that legislation is going through Parliament—I will deal with that later.
The Executive's proposals for tackling knife crime have been mentioned by a number of members and the Executive's motion quite correctly highlights knife crime as a particular problem. In December 2004, the criminal justice plan proposals stated that the Executive would
"implement a five point plan of action to tackle the impact of knife crime across Scotland".
Excellent. However, that was December. Has the five-point plan been implemented? No. Instead, in February 2005, the proposal was included in a consultation paper, with responses to be received by 3 May. Why the delay? The answer is the Executive's endless preoccupation with and addiction to consultation.
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry. I need to press on.
The same pattern of dither and delay can be seen in the Executive's approach to ending automatic early release. After years of castigating the Conservatives for pressing for an end to that deeply damaging policy, the Executive is finally coming round to our way of thinking. It has been a tortuous journey. In December last year, the criminal justice plan stated that the Executive would
"Consider whether there should be an end to automatic early release for all prisoners convicted of sex offences."
Will the member give way?
No. I am afraid that I have heard the member's interventions before—and his contribution today—and I realise that he will have nothing worth while to add.
Finally, earlier this month, the First Minister conceded that in some circumstances automatic early release is wrong. But did he act? No. Instead, he dithered again and delayed any policy change until the Sentencing Commission has reported. How long will it take the First Minister and the Executive to realise the benefits of ending automatic early release? To restore honesty in sentencing would send out a crucial message and deter crime, but it would also ensure that a prison sentence provided the opportunity effectively to assess what had led to the offending behaviour and to put in place a rehabilitation programme to address it. Contrary to what Gordon Jackson said, our policy incorporates a provision for up to a sixth of a sentence to be taken off for good behaviour.
Yet again, Margaret Mitchell and the other Conservatives talk about early release. Given that the Kincraig committee recommended five years as the threshold for automatic early release, can she explain why the Conservatives adopted a lower level in 1993? Given what she has said, why did they adopt any level at all?
I regret that the minister has wasted time making that point. As he well knows, we corrected that and the Executive changed its policy again. We have been waiting for five years for the Executive to change its mind.
I whole-heartedly agree with Gordon Jackson on the word "legislation", which appears frequently in the plan—six times in all. If the Executive is serious about reducing reoffending, it should legislate less and instead support the excellent work of the intervention projects that are run by independent and voluntary organisations. Both Donald Gorrie and Linda Fabiani made that point.
Finally, I add a word of caution on the reference to "disadvantaged communities" in the Executive's motion. The senseless and horrific knife attack on Abigail Witchalls has had a profound effect on everyone who lives in the community of Little Bookham in Surrey—an area in which crime is virtually unknown. That appalling incident should act as a stark reminder to the SNP and others that crime knows no boundaries. A victim is a victim, regardless of whether they live in an area of deep deprivation or the leafy suburbs.
In this debate, we find much on which we are prepared to agree with the Executive, certainly on matters of policy. I suspect—because as yet I have heard nothing to the contrary—that the Executive finds much of our amendment acceptable and in line with its thinking. On that basis, I hope that it will extend its intellectual agreement to a voting agreement at 5 o'clock. However, we shall see—that is not the most important thing in the debate.
The minister opened her contribution by talking about safer communities. I am glad to say—although I have a slight suspicion about things that Patrick Harvie said—that no member has suggested that the policy should be that there should be less safe communities. Therefore, we can start with agreement about that.
The minister correctly focused on the scourge of drugs and drug addiction, which are at the heart of much of the crime that blights our communities. She referred to dealing with
"gangs at home and abroad."
I was particularly interested in her mentioning dealing with gangs abroad. Perhaps Hugh Henry—who I understand will sum up—will say at least two sentences about that matter, as I am particularly interested in it.
Many members have referred to knife crime. Like everyone else, I am deeply concerned about the effects of knife crime. However, we must focus on people who commit knife crime, rather than on the weapon itself, because once getting hold of knives has been made more difficult, much knife crime is likely to be committed by people using a knife out of the kitchen drawer, as Gordon Jackson suggested, or a knife that has been obtained by legal means. After all, strenuous efforts to improve gun control have not necessarily reduced the use of guns by criminals, who obtain guns by other means. The issue is a person's state of mind and their preparedness to commit crime.
The minister referred to reoffending, which is a subject that is fraught with difficulties. In the past five days, I have received a couple of parliamentary answers on the matter. I asked a question about reconvictions after two years and after four years—members should note that I said "reconvictions" rather than "reoffending", as there is a difference between the two. The most recent figures for those periods are for 1999. There is a paucity of figures, but I believe that more is being done that may help.
There is an interesting issue that we might consider. For Scotland overall, the reconviction rate within four years is 71 per cent. For crimes of indecency, the figure is 22 per cent. Superficially, that sounds like good news in relation to indecency, but it is particularly difficult to obtain convictions for a number of crimes that come under that heading, both in the first place and in the second place.
For example, another parliamentary answer suggests a conviction rate of only 6 per cent for rape and attempted rape. We must therefore look with caution at a reconviction rate of 22 per cent. If we do a bit of clever arithmetic on the rape and attempted rape conviction figure of 6 per cent, then probably the reoffending rate for people who are guilty of indecency is above that of the average overall. The conviction rates, perhaps not; but the reoffending rates I suggest are above average. The minister could usefully ensure that research is undertaken to help us all—the Executive and the Opposition—to understand better the reality of life on the streets as distinct from the statistics.
The minister graciously referred to improvements that have been made in Fraserburgh and Peterhead as a result of community wardens. However, I caution her not to be drawn into thinking that things are as simple as they have been made out to be. On 9 December 2002, I spent time in a normal policing situation—without the press—with PC Duncan McInnes on the streets of Fraserburgh. I did so at his express invitation and not at the invitation of the sergeant, the inspector, the superintendent or indeed Andrew Brown, who was the chief constable at the time. PC Duncan McInnes had fought the system to be allowed to patrol the streets of Fraserburgh for four hours a day because he believed in a police presence on the streets and his case has been made by changes that have been made there.
On 30 November 2002 I spent five hours, from 11 o'clock on a Saturday night, out with a police van, which was a revelation for someone who had a sheltered boyhood. The real problem is, of course, that community wardens are not tackling some of the problems that come up at weekends and overnight, but yes, they are worth considering and worth having.
I will not say much about sex offenders because Paul Martin's members' business debate after decision time will give us an opportunity to comment. It remains a serious issue.
I got the impression that Patrick Harvie was trying to persuade us that if someone has a drug problem that causes them to offend, they should not go to jail, however serious the offence, because they are not in control of their actions. Addicts are indeed victims of the addiction that has captured them and taken away some of their self-control. Nonetheless, addicts cease to be addicts only by taking control of their own lives again. Addicts are not people who have surrendered all control over their own actions.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in his final minute.
If they were unable to help themselves, the logic of Patrick Harvie's position would mean that we should lock up addicts for their own benefit until they were no longer addicts.
We welcome and support the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. We welcome much of what is in the Executive's proposals and documents, but we want more effort to deliver on the promises that have been made.
I start with an apology. To some extent, the title of the debate might have taken the attention of some members away from the substance of the motion on which Parliament should be focusing for the purposes of the debate. That is, what can we in the Government and the Parliament do to address some of the deep-rooted and systemic problems in our society, particularly violence and the use of knives?
I would be doing the issue a disservice if I tried to engage in some of the party-political knockabout into which the Conservatives want to drag us. Today's debate was initiated by the minister to provide an opportunity for us to think beyond some of the immediate issues that confront us. We know that there is a problem in this country in that there are far too many people in our jails. We recognise that, and we have accepted that something needs to be done about the revolving door system in which people go into prison, come out and go back in immediately. However, we want to encourage something more fundamental in this debate.
I hope that there is consensus that the changes that we have initiated in relation to summary justice and High Court reform will make a difference to how justice is delivered in Scotland. I hope that some of the changes that we have introduced to tackle serious and organised crime will make a difference in our communities. I hope that what the First Minister and Cathy Jamieson have said about the use of knives will be addressed seriously by the Parliament. However, it is incumbent on us to stop and think beyond some of those immediate issues. We have to think beyond the resources and beyond outbidding each other when we talk about the number of police that will be on the streets. We have to think beyond what we say when we talk about the number of available prison places—we have to think about how we can stop such things happening in the first place. I accept that deterrence is an issue and, unlike Patrick Harvie, I believe that in such cases acts of punishment are appropriate and that people should know that their actions have consequences. However, we must stop for a moment and think, "Is there something else that we need to address?" Kenny MacAskill's contribution was helpful in trying to set the tone for some of what followed.
There is something profoundly wrong in our society if young men, in particular, can think that it is acceptable to wander our streets carrying knives. Indeed, there must be something wrong with a society in which, unlike in many other western democracies, the link between the consumption of alcohol and the expression of violence, with or without a knife, is all too prevalent. What is it about our society and culture that causes such problems?
I hope that the Parliament can take the opportunity of this debate to start thinking about long-term as well as short-term measures. John Corrigan of Strathclyde Police showed a group of ministers a video in which a young man wanders into the centre of Glasgow and randomly knifes some innocent stranger who is simply walking along one of the city's main streets. What causes that young man to behave as he does? What do we need to do to resolve such a situation? I agree that we need to catch such people; that we need closed-circuit television cameras; and that we need jails. However, what made that young man think that it was somehow acceptable to walk out with a knife?
I had the bizarre experience of visiting a project in Greenock and speaking to a very articulate young man who said that he carried a knife for his own protection. I do not accept that reason for a moment; however, he then went on to say that it was the police's fault and that he would not have needed to carry a knife if there had been more police in his neighbourhood to protect him. Such logic is unacceptable, but unfortunately it is all too prevalent in many communities.
We need to get to the heart of the problem. We need to be able to deter and dissuade these young men, but we also need to change the culture in which they operate. We need to change a culture in which men think that it is all right to get bevvied up on a Friday or Saturday night and to take it out on people in the pub or on the street or to go home and give a woman a doing. We need to change a culture in which violence is an acceptable form of expression.
As a result, I hope that this debate can be a starting point for the Parliament to take the issue seriously.
Will the minister give way?
No.
I hope that as a result of this debate the minister can start to engage with members across party boundaries in order to come up with another way of tackling this issue. I hope that, with this debate, she can start to engage with organisations throughout Scotland in order to raise the level of debate and identify solutions. Moreover, I hope that we can then translate that into action in the Parliament.
We have a lot to be proud of in this country. So many good things are going on and, as speakers have pointed out, Scotland is relatively safe. However, there is something profoundly wrong; as the minister pointed out in her speech, there is a dark side to our culture and psyche. We need to do more. Let this debate be the start of something that will translate into action to make our communities safer, to deter young men from carrying knives and to change the mentality of those who think that violence is acceptable. This debate can be only a first step.