Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, September 14, 2017

Official Report 893KB pdf

---

Community Justice

The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on community justice in Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

In the summer, I launched this Government’s vision and priorities for justice in Scotland. I laid out our intention to adopt a more progressive, evidence-based approach, supported by partners across the justice sector and beyond. The approach underpins our determination to ensure that we live in safe, cohesive and resilient communities.

In the programme for government that was published last week, we pledged to extend the presumption against short sentences to twelve months. That announcement was welcomed by former justice secretaries across the political spectrum, who recognise that the time has come for a more progressive and transformative perspective. It is a commitment that is consistent with our drive to create a more progressive, evidence-based justice system.

This very week marks the 20th anniversary of the devolution referendum. In the intervening years, this Parliament has done great things, and members across the chamber can feel rightly proud of their achievements. However, penal reform is one area in which we have made little progress.

In 1999-2000, the average daily prison population across Scotland’s prisons was less than 6,000. During 2015-16, the figure was more than 7,600. That means that since the Parliament’s inception, we have witnessed an increase of nearly 30 per cent in the number of people who are locked up on any given day.

We know that short prison sentences do little to rehabilitate people or reduce the likelihood of their reoffending. We know that short-term imprisonment disrupts families and communities, and adversely affects employment opportunities and stable housing—the very things that evidence shows support desistance from offending. We know that short sentences are both a poor use of public resources and a waste of human potential.

There will always be cases in which the court rightly takes the view that a prison sentence is absolutely justified, but for individuals who end up in custody, we need to think beyond just bricks and mortar. That change is part of the rationale behind our plans for the female custodial estate.

In July, I witnessed the start of demolition work on Cornton Vale prison. The Scottish Prison Service has now commenced the planning and public consultation process for the creation of a replacement. Although located on the existing site of Cornton Vale, the replacement will provide an entirely new approach to the custodial care of around 80 women. The new facility will use therapeutic community principles and will incorporate gender-specific and trauma-informed practice in addressing the particular needs of the female prison population.

For women who do not require the level of security or intensive intervention that is provided by the national facility, we will provide community custody units. In July, I announced that the first two units would be located in Glasgow and either Fife or Dundee. I can today inform Parliament that the SPS has acquired a site in Maryhill for the first unit in Glasgow and that the second unit will be in Dundee.

Those new community units will assist women to maintain their links with their families and accommodate them close to their communities and the agencies that can ensure that they are able to move away from offending. Work on the units will respond to the changing profile of the female prison population and the risk profile of women in custody. The Scottish Prison Service plans that those first two units and the national facility will be open by the end of 2020.

That work is part of a wider transformation in our prisons to professionalise the role of prison officers, ensure a focus on rehabilitation and support the reintegration of people who are leaving custody.

Those developments are encouraging, but I would still like our criminal justice system to have a stronger emphasis on robust community sentences that focus on addressing the causes of offending behaviour. In the 2008 report of the Scottish Prisons Commission, Henry McLeish wrote:

“To target imprisonment better and make it more effective ... imprisonment should be reserved for people whose offences are so serious that no other form of punishment will do and for those who pose a threat of serious harm to the public.”

That aim was described as the necessary “touchstone” of a society that wanted

“to break with the idea that the only real punishment is prison.”

If we truly want to hold ourselves up as a modern and progressive nation, that is the foundation that our community justice system needs to be built on.

The First Minister has made clear her ambition to build an inclusive and socially just Scotland. Our justice system has a crucial role to play in shaping that future and in helping to tackle social inequality. A just, equitable and inclusive society needs to be supported by a progressive, evidence-based justice system that works across communities to reduce and ultimately to prevent further offending and which holds individuals to account for their offending, but ultimately supports them to make positive contributions to our communities.

Over the past decade, the Government has taken steps to end our reliance on custody and move towards effective community sentences that enhance public safety and promote rehabilitation and which evidence shows are more effective at reducing reoffending and thus reducing the risk of creating further victims.

When the Government first came to power, more people were given custodial sentences than community sentences; since then, there has been an increasing shift in favour of community sentences. The latest figures show that, in 2015-16, more than 5,000 more community sentences than custodial sentences were imposed. That is 5,000 more opportunities for individuals to pay back for the harm that they have caused, fewer prison receptions taking up resources in our prison system and fewer people having to make the difficult transition from custody back into the community.

That transition also happens for people who are held on remand. The programme for government outlines our continued backing for supported and supervised bail, to help individuals to remain in the community under supervision.

The Government will continue to promote the delivery of effective evidence-based interventions that are designed to prevent and reduce further offending. Our national strategy for community justice sets out our commitment to shifting criminal justice interventions upstream and using the least intrusive intervention at the earliest point. It encourages justice partners to maximise opportunities for the appropriate use of diversion from prosecution to help to address the underlying causes of offending and ensure that people get access to drug, alcohol, mental health or other appropriate services.

We remain committed to supporting local authorities in delivering robust community sentences that deliver tangible benefits for our communities. Funding for criminal justice social work remains at record levels. We invested an additional £4 million in community sentences in 2016-17 and again in 2017-18.

Last week, we announced proposed legislation that would give our sentencers broader options and powers for using electronic monitoring and, just this morning, we published the analysis of a public consultation on our next steps.

Electronic monitoring is already an important tool in the delivery of justice. It carries a punitive element and offers a range of options to improve public protection while allowing an individual to maintain their employment and family links. When used to enforce curfew conditions, it can provide stability to those whose offending is part and parcel of a chaotic lifestyle. The forthcoming legislation will expand the range of options and enable the use of new technology, such as global positioning system technology.

Sitting alongside community sentences, the presumption against short sentences underlines our determination to move away from short-term custodial sentences. It is of course a presumption, and not a ban. Sentencing discretion remains with the courts, and it is for the court to decide the appropriate sentence based on the facts at hand. The purpose of the presumption is to ensure that short sentences are imposed when they are the only suitable option.

As I have made clear, our vision for community justice is predicated on an evidence-based approach. The evidence shows that the use of very short sentences has fallen over the past decade. However, it also shows that we need to go further if we are to make a real impact on Scotland’s high rate of imprisonment and the negative consequences of short-term sentences. That is why we consulted on a proposal to strengthen the presumption.

The responses to the consultation were overwhelmingly supportive of an extension and the vast majority of those who expressed a view favoured a presumption against sentences of 12 months or less. There was, however, a clear view that any extension of the presumption would need to be accompanied by a commitment to developing and resourcing community sentences, and concerns were voiced by a number of respondents over the need to ensure that the court is able to take steps to protect victims, especially victims of domestic violence.

Since the consultation closed, the Government has worked with stakeholders across the justice sector to address those concerns. In March of this year, I brought before the Parliament the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which contains a number of provisions that are specifically designed to protect the victims of domestic abuse. It will ensure that, when sentencing, courts are required to have regard to the need to protect victims from further offences and it contains provisions that will make it mandatory for the court to consider imposing a non-harassment order following a conviction.

Of course, the bill contains the new domestic abuse offence, which carries a tough maximum sentence of 14 years and which will improve the justice system’s ability to hold perpetrators of domestic abuse to account. Those provisions place the safety of victims at the heart of that important bill, and I urge members across the chamber to support it in the coming months. I can confirm that we will work in collaboration with Scottish Women’s Aid to ensure that developments in electronic monitoring will improve the safety of women and children who are affected by domestic abuse.

We have also already taken steps to create a more progressive landscape for the delivery of community sentences, with our new model coming into effect on 1 April this year. The model places decision making locally with those who know their communities best, who understand the problems in their areas and who will be most affected by community justice issues. Under the new model, local planning, delivery and collaboration are complemented by national leadership and strategic direction, which are provided by a new body, Community Justice Scotland.

Community Justice Scotland will raise awareness of the benefits of community sentences and build public support. Working with community justice partners and stakeholders, it will drive improvement in service delivery in order to build safer, stronger and more inclusive communities.

I believe that, in combination, those measures address the concerns that respondents to the consultation expressed. That is why we will implement the extension of the presumption only when the relevant provisions of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill are in force. I anticipate that the extension of the presumption will therefore be in place by the end of 2018, subject to the Parliament’s approval.

The Government believes that extending the presumption is in line with our progressive approach to criminal justice policy. More than that, in concert with our on-going approach to delivering safer and stronger communities, it is about being the progressive and socially inclusive nation that we want to be.

The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 30 minutes for questions, after which we must move to the next item of business.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of his statement.

Let me make clear at the outset that I welcome parts of the statement. In particular, I welcome the expansion in the use of new forms of electronic monitoring, which was called for in my party’s manifesto, and the general principles of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill.

However, there are areas of concern. Can the cabinet secretary really refer to the current system of community sentences as “robust” and “effective”, when a third of community payback orders are never completed and some offenders are waiting more than a year for their work placement to begin?

Although the focus on reducing reoffending is welcome, does the cabinet secretary recognise that, after 10 years of Scottish National Party government, the reoffending rate has barely shifted from one in three since the start of devolution? To address that, does he agree that, alongside a rigorous system of community sentences, we must ensure that there is adequate work and purposeful activity in prisons and reverse his Government’s 300,000-hours cut over the past two years?

Let me address a few of the issues that the member raised. I welcome his support for the greater use of electronic monitoring. I am not entirely sure what his party’s views are on the type of electronic monitoring that should be used and how it should be used in partnership with community sentencing. We know that electronic monitoring on its own is very ineffective; it must be part of a programme that addresses the individual’s offending behaviour. That is why we support the extension. I am surprised that the member supports the greater use of electronic monitoring but not the greater use of community sentencing, which is a key part of making the approach much more effective, as experience across Europe shows.

I also welcome the member’s support for the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which represents a slight change in approach from that of the Conservative Party’s previous justice spokesperson.

The reality is that completion of community payback orders has increased, compared with the completion rate under the scheme that was previously in place. There has been an increase in compliance with and completion of community payback orders.

Alongside that, the outcomes are better. The member said that the reconviction rate has not changed. The reality is that the reconviction rate is at its lowest in 18 years, which is a significant improvement—I am surprised that the member is not aware that the situation in Scotland is better than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom. Important progress has been made, during a period of increasing use of community payback orders.

The approach that this Government is determined to take is based on evidence on what is more effective in tackling the causes that drive offending behaviour. In taking such an approach, we can reduce the risk of individuals committing offences again. All the evidence, not just in Scotland but internationally, demonstrates that community payback orders and community sentencing are much more effective than short-term prison sentences. If we get that right, we can reduce the risk of reoffending.

That is exactly the approach that we will take, and it is why recorded crime in Scotland is at a 42-year low. We have a strong track record in how we deliver justice in this country, and our track record over the past 10 years on changing how we deliver community sentencing demonstrates the benefits of the approach that the programme of work that I described will take forward.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. There is much that we can agree on; we support the need for prison reform and the important role that community sentencing can play. However, I wish to raise a couple of points.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that crimes that are currently given less than 12 month sentencing include handling offensive weapons, assault, some violent crimes and domestic abuse. Scottish Labour’s manifesto committed to an increase in the presumption to six months. The cabinet secretary will need to work hard to convince the public of the merits of his argument, particularly those who have been victims of crimes that are often very distressing and even life changing. Has he done enough so far to convince Women’s Aid of these plans?

The existing presumption does not mean an end to sentencing of up to three months. I hear constantly that there is a lack of confidence within the courts for the community options, and that a sentencing option is often taken because it is seen as being in the best interest of the convicted as well as the victim. Community options are often underfunded and patchy in provision and they can be open to abuse. We are all familiar with reports of the level of breaches and stretched resources. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that community options are properly resourced, that they provide a robust alternative in which victims can have confidence and that they deliver a system that puts the protection of the public first?

I will pick up on Claire Baker’s latter point about confidence in community sentencing. I agree that it is extremely important. Making sure that our sentencers have confidence in the community disposals that are to hand has been a long-standing issue. We know from the research work that has been carried out that sentencers have greater confidence in the community payback scheme that we now have in place compared with the previous scheme—that was identified by the review that was carried out in 2015. We need to make sure that we build on that and that our sentencers continue to have confidence in that process. That is why we have provided an extra £4 million to our local authorities to deliver further community sentence programmes and to extend the range of programmes that are available. We have provided that funding over two financial years and we will consider it for the future, because I recognise that it is an area of important priority to expand the range of options and to make sure that our sentencers have confidence in them.

Over and above that, if the public are to have faith in the greater use of community sentences, those sentences must be effective in delivering better outcomes. Today, I was in Dunfermline in Fife looking at the WINGS project, which is delivered by the local authority. It was initially set up by funding that came from the Scottish Government for changing our approach to female offending. The outcomes from that project have been really positive and are a demonstration of local policy being taken forward by a local authority. The project is making a real difference in tackling offending behaviour among young people and it has the confidence of sentencers who make use of it.

I turn to the specific offences that were referred to by Claire Baker. The average custodial sentence for handling offensive weapons has more than doubled in the past 10 years from 160 days in 2006-07 to 365 days in 2015-16. For some of the other areas, including domestic violence, sentences for those particular offences have very often increased over the past 10 years. It is important to recognise that presumption is exactly that—it is a presumption. If a sentencer still believes that, for any of those offences, an individual should have a period in custody, that option will remain open to them. It will be their choice to make that decision. Although sentences have been increasing for a range of the crimes that the member referred to, it must be recognised that, even with the presumption, the sentencer will still have the right to impose a custodial sentence if they believe that that is the most appropriate measure that should be applied.

I have 13 members who wish to ask questions and I have 20 minutes—members can do the arithmetic. I ask for succinct questions, please.

I welcome the steps that have been taken by the Government in recent years to tackle domestic abuse, including bringing forward new legislation. Given that increased surveillance and reporting of such offences is likely to lead to higher rates of conviction and community payback orders, what steps is the Government taking to ensure that resources are made available to effective rehabilitation programmes, especially around domestic abuse, to reduce the risk of reoffending?

I must give a definition of “succinct” sometime.

We are taking forward a range of measures to support the organisations that work with women who experience domestic abuse. That includes the provision of an extra £20 million from the justice portfolio over the past three years to support some of these measures. That work includes extending the Caledonian system programme, which tackles those who perpetrate domestic abuse, in order to change their behaviour.

Alongside that work are the measures that we put in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, such as the mandatory requirement to consider a non-harassment order in order to protect women who have experienced domestic abuse.

As I mentioned in my statement, we will be looking at how electronic monitoring can be used to support women who have experienced domestic abuse. We will look at taking forward a pilot project on electronic monitoring with Scottish Women’s Aid.

The cabinet secretary made no reference in his statement to those who are at risk of offending, many of whom are at risk as a result of debt. Is he aware of Christians Against Poverty debt counselling, which works Scotland wide, helping those in crisis with debt? How will the Scottish Government raise awareness of the work of voluntary and third sector organisations such as CAP debt counselling, which do so much to identify and support those at risk of offending?

I recognise that debt can blight many individuals and households. The Scottish Government takes forward a range of measures in partnership with agencies to tackle issues of debt and ensure that individuals receive the right advice and information to assist them in addressing such issues.

Given the specific project that Margaret Mitchell raised, I will ask my Cabinet colleague Angela Constance, who is responsible for the relevant policy area, to write to her setting out exactly the measures that are being taken to support such organisations.

The question was connected to the statement, in that debt may lead people into crime and conviction and so on. I think that that was the link that Margaret Mitchell was making—I saw a little frown on Michael Matheson’s face.

What impact will the presumption against short sentences have on the Scottish Prison Service?

The impact on the prison population of extending the presumption against short sentences to 12 months will depend on how sentencers choose to take it forward. For example, if there is a greater use of community sentencing, that could result in a reduction in the number of individuals who receive short-term prison sentences of less than 12 months.

As we have moved to a presumption against sentences of less than three months, we have seen a reduction in the number of people who have received sentences of less than three months. It would be reasonable to anticipate that we will see a reduction in the overall prison population should more of our sentencers choose not to sentence someone to custody for less than 12 months and to make use of a community disposal instead. However, that will depend entirely on how our judiciary chooses to take it forward.

With local authorities and partner agencies on the ground taking on a greater role in community justice, will the cabinet secretary provide an assurance that Scotland’s councils, which year after year have seen budgets cut by his Government, will receive funding for community justice that matches the real cost of delivering effective and meaningful community sentences, which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has highlighted? Will he also confirm when the funding formula for community sentences will be announced? He has not done that today.

The funding formula for the allocation of resources has already been published. It was published earlier this year and, as agreed with COSLA and the COSLA leadership group, was applied to this financial year. It has already been agreed.

Community justice budgets have been protected during the past number of years under this Government. In fact, we have increased them by putting an extra £4 million into them over the past two years. The community justice social work budgets have been ring fenced for some time, and we continue to protect them, which is why, with that additional £4 million over the past two years, we have record levels of funding going into community justice programmes.

The support for community justice programmes is not just funding that goes to local authorities. We support a range of organisations such as Sacro, Apex Scotland and shine women’s mentoring, which are national service providers in the third sector. Over the past couple of years, we have been increasing the level of funding that we make available to them to provide those types of services.

The cabinet secretary referred to the resource allocation model. Some community disposals require a certain cohort of personnel to make them viable. Does the resource allocation model reflect that and ensure that offenders in rural areas are not disadvantaged in comparison with offenders in urban areas?

The member raises an important point. It is worth re-emphasising that the resource allocation model that is now in place was agreed by local authorities in partnership with the Scottish Government. We have taken it forward on a co-production basis, and it is designed to support local authorities as much as possible. We have said that the transition will take place over five years, so that there is no marked financial disadvantage in the reallocation of resources.

A part of the resource allocation model specifically ensures that resources that are allocated to local authorities reflect the need in the community. That should ensure that funding that is allocated to local authorities better reflects where there is a need in our rural communities. There were concerns about the previous model, which was largely focused on allocation to our main central belt local authorities. The new model allows for greater, more effective distribution of funding across all local authorities to reflect local need.

I thank the cabinet secretary for giving us early sight of his statement, for the liberal measures in it and for his response to John Finnie’s question. The cabinet secretary referred to COSLA and Sacro, both of which have pointed to the significant expansion in provision that is needed and the cost of the additional resources that will need to be put in. Is he aware of that? What assurances can he give COSLA, Sacro and others that the Government will commit those resources?

As the number of individuals who receive custodial sentences reduces, we will have to have a greater expansion of community disposals. That is why I decided two years ago to increase the allocation of resources to community-based programmes, to allow them to expand and develop.

As some of the changes in our overall prison population take place, I expect a freeing up of some resources that are currently tied to our custodial estate. I will then seek to reallocate those resources to community-based programmes.

As I have said, we have started that process, with the £4 million increase over the past two years. I will continue to examine how we can have an incremental increase in that. This is not just about increasing funding to local authorities but about ensuring that third sector organisations such as Sacro can support work across the country through the national programmes that they deliver.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the important work that is carried out by current community-based services that are targeted at female offenders. The Glen Isla project, which is based in my constituency, is a good example of that. Will the cabinet secretary expand on the role that he envisages such projects having?

I am aware of that project and its value. On working with female offenders, the member will be aware that we had the change fund, which supported the initiation of such services in communities. We did not impose a particular model for working with female offenders because we wanted that to be developed locally. Angus was one area that took forward a model that reflected the local community’s needs. The funding’s purpose was to support the development of that model and its mainstreaming in the local authority area. Some of our local authorities have taken that forward.

What I witnessed today and the way in which Fife Council has taken that agenda forward through the WINGS project demonstrates how successful such an approach can be. The Glen Isla project in Angus, which Graeme Dey mentioned, is another example of that success. I see such projects as key to the on-going work to change how we deal with female offenders.

Equally, with the change in the female custodial estate, I recognise that there will need to be a greater tie-in between such projects and the new female custodial units, particularly when individuals are released and go back into their communities. Having those units closer to hand—there is no doubt that Dundee is closer to Angus than Cornton Vale is—will facilitate such partnership working, which is crucial in reducing the risk for individuals when settling back into and becoming productive members of their community.

Can the cabinet secretary offer any reassurance to the communities in Maryhill in Glasgow and in Dundee, and the victims of crime there, who might have concerns about the safety of the new community custodial units?

I recognise the issue that the member has raised, but I am sure that he will recognise our determination to change fundamentally how we tackle female offending. It is worth noting the danger that some people might choose to turn the matter into a political football on the basis of the location of the custodial facilities.

We are taking a transformational approach to tackling female offending and particularly the situation for those who come into the custodial estate. I hope that there is cross-party support for that change in the model and the benefits that can come from female custodial units.

We know from the Angiolini report, which looked at female custodial issues, that having smaller custodial units in places that are closer to the communities from which offenders come and having services that will support offenders once they go back into the community is much more effective at reducing the risk that they will repeat their offending behaviour. The custodial units will be for individuals who are regarded as low risk. I certainly hope that there will be cross-party support for the change in the model and for assuring communities that the intention is to deliver greater safety, rather than increase risk, through working with female offenders.

I strongly welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement, because it is widely accepted that community justice helps to reduce reoffending. What action is the Scottish Government taking to also reduce the chances that those who are given custodial sentences will reoffend?

One benefit of reducing the prison population is that it will increase the capacity in our Prison Service to tackle much more effectively what causes some offenders to commit serious offences. We just have to look at the conditions and situation in the prison estate in England and Wales, where there is complete chaos. A major problem there is that, as a result, prisons cannot deliver effective rehabilitation programmes to any great degree.

Part of the challenge in Scotland is that a disproportionately large amount of the Prison Service’s resources are taken up by the churn of short-term prisoners moving through the system. If some of those resources and that capacity can be released, that will allow us to focus more of the resources on tackling the issues for the serious offenders in our custodial estate. It will also allow us to move some of that resource into the community setting. That is a potential benefit of reducing our prison population.

Some members say that we just need to have more rehabilitation in our prisons. However, the reality is that there is only a short window of time from when short-term prisoners are inducted into prison to when they leave prison for addressing any form of offending behaviour. Anyone who knows the approach to rehabilitation will recognise that trying to do it effectively in such a short time is, frankly, almost impossible. If we are to deliver effective rehabilitation, we must target those who are imprisoned for a longer time and take a community-based approach, which is much more effective in tackling offending behaviour.

The cabinet secretary has rightly spoken about the impact that imprisonment has on employment opportunities and the ability to have stable housing, the lack of which is likely to increase reoffending rates. What discussions have he and his officials had about the practical support that the new social security powers and social security agency will offer offenders who are about to be released from prison?

The member raises an important issue, because housing, welfare and employment issues are a challenge for individuals who are being liberated from prison. That is why we set out in the programme for government the fact that we need to have a greater provision of supervised bail and other bail options instead of remand, because we know that that allows an offender who is in employment and has housing to maintain that until a case reaches court and a sentence is imposed.

Work is on-going in the Government, and I have already discussed with Jeane Freeman and Kevin Stewart how we can align our new social security powers to better meet the needs of those who are being liberated from prison. For example, one of the challenges from the changes that the Department for Work and Pensions made to universal credit was that a claimant had to apply online and have an address before they could apply. Many individuals in prison do not have an address or access to a computer, which created problems from the outset. It meant that they were being liberated without having access to benefits.

We have been working internally in the Government on what specific measures would support an individual to get into housing and access welfare when they are liberated from prison. Ministers have engaged with the Scottish Prison Service to look at how we can deliver that support more effectively.

Will the cabinet secretary provide more detail about which groups took part in the consultation on the presumption against short sentences and about the evidence that they gave to support that position?

The feedback that we received from the consultation has been published. The groups that were involved ranged widely from organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to experts in the justice sector and the academic world, people in Sacro, Apex Scotland and the Howard League for Penal Reform, and a range of individual local authorities.

I should mention Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations that work with women who have experienced domestic violence. When members asked when we would publish our views on the consultation responses, I made it clear that we were working through the responses—in particular the concerns that had been raised by a couple of stakeholders, one of which was Scottish Women’s Aid. In my statement, I set out the measures that we have taken to address the concerns that they raised during the consultation. It is worth keeping it in mind that there was overwhelming support from consultation respondents for extending the presumption against short sentences to sentences of under 12 months.

I welcome the commitment to a system that works with communities to reduce and, ultimately, prevent further offending. I also recognise the comments about those who are on short-term sentences. However, we have something like 1,000-plus prisoners in Scottish prisons who are not engaged in what the guidelines refer to as “purposeful activity”. What specific measures are being looked at to address that issue for those who remain in prison?

The review of purposeful activity was carried out by the SPS, which has already taken forward a range of measures to change how activities are delivered in the prison estate. I re-emphasise the issue that concerns purposeful activity for short-term prisoners. About 4,000 short-term prisoners go through the Scottish prison estate in any year. To put that in context, the total number of prisoners in the system over a year is about 7,000 to 7,500. That demonstrates the number of short-term prisoners that the SPS is working with, many of whom present with alcohol, drug and mental health issues that need to be addressed.

The SPS seeks to address such issues as best it can in a short time, but Gordon Lindhurst will recognise that, when someone comes into prison with many years—possibly many decades—of such problems, it is almost impossible for the Prison Service to address them in six or seven months. A much longer time is needed to address such issues effectively.

One of the big problems that undermine the Prison Service’s ability to work more effectively with prisoners who are in for more than a year is the churn of short-term prisoners, who take up a disproportionate amount of the service’s resource. If we can free up some of that capacity, it will allow the SPS to give greater focus to purposeful activity and other appropriate interventions while someone is in prison, and it will at the same time allow us to use resources in the community. We know that the underlying causes that drive offending behaviour, such as alcohol, drug and mental health issues, can be much more effectively addressed when someone is on a community disposal.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that enabling female offenders to maintain links with their families will benefit not only them but often the families, by potentially reducing the chances of children becoming involved in crime as they grow up?

The member raises an important point. It was a key issue in the Angiolini report, which highlighted the fact that a break in family links during a period of custody can have a significant impact on a family and, in particular, have a negative impact on children. A growing body of evidence shows that adverse childhood events such as parental imprisonment can have a significant impact on a child’s future development, with an increasing risk that they will end up in the criminal justice system. We have to listen to the evidence on that issue, as we know that children can clearly be damaged by parental imprisonment.

We have put in place additional resources for a range of family contact centres in our prisons. We now have 11 such centres—I opened the most recent one, at Glenochil—to support contact between families and prisoners.

In the female custodial estate, we have moved to a model of smaller community custodial units to allow women who are in custody to be placed much closer to their families, so that they can maintain such contacts more effectively and so that, once they leave the establishment, they can be supported and assisted by the services that assisted them while they were in the community unit. We know that such a model can be much more effective in supporting women who find themselves in custody, but it can also give the family more effective support and reduce the risk that children whose parents have been in custody are exposed to.

I believe that such an approach will achieve better outcomes in the future and, importantly, prevent the individuals in question from committing further offences. After all, family contact is a key factor in promoting desistance.