Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill
Debate on Penal Policy
The Scottish Parliament
September 20, 2007
"I welcome this opportunity to engage with Parliament on the Government's vision for a modern and coherent penal policy. Our aim is to work with Parliament and all those involved in the criminal justice system to create a safer and stronger Scotland for everyone. We will make every effort to reduce crime, but, sadly, we will never eliminate it, so we must create a system that deals effectively with all offenders. Today's debate is an opportunity to reflect on the challenges that we all face and to discuss the progress that has already been made over the summer towards achieving a progressive and coherent penal policy.
The Government refuses to believe that the Scottish people are inherently bad or that there is any genetic reason why we should be locking up twice as many offenders as Ireland or Norway. Why are the people who we lock up more likely to display certain attributes than the general population and why do they tend to suffer from problems associated with drink, drugs and deprivation?
A third of those who enter prison are assessed as having an alcohol problem on admission, more than half are assessed as having a drugs problem and a worrying 70 per cent have some form of mental health problem. One study indicated that half of our prison population comes from 15 per cent of Scotland's poorest council wards.
We need to face up to some tough questions. Who are we sending to prison and why? Is prison the most effective option in all cases? What do we do with offenders to stop them re-offending?
There are also some contradictions and tensions. The public feel that crime is rising and that prison is not used enough, but in the past 10 years recorded crime has fallen by 5 per cent and the prison population has risen by 15 per cent-there are now more than 1,000 more prisoners at any one time than there were 10 years ago.
Prison is considered effective and tough and community penalties are seen as soft, but three quarters of those who are sent to prison for under six months re-offend within two years whereas only 42 per cent of those who are given community service re-offend within two years. Statistics alone cannot tell the story, but that figure clearly demonstrates that prison is not the right place for many people, despite the efforts of our prison officers.
It is for the judiciary to decide whether someone should be given a sentence and what that sentence should be. If the judiciary feels that the sentence should be one of six months or less, they will have the right to impose that sentence. However, we can say that there are good reasons in relation to punishment, cost and safety why they might care to reflect on the possibility that that would not be appropriate.
It is not necessarily tough to make somebody lie in bed all day watching TV rather than repay the community for the damage they have caused, and it is more costly to have them locked up than to have them repay the community. If it is statistically more likely that they will re-offend if they go to prison, it may be better in safety terms to seek to address the problem. I assure the member that we will not interfere with the rights of the judiciary - if they feel that a custodial sentence is appropriate, that will remain their decision. That is part of the separation of powers that operates in our democracy and in democracies elsewhere.
When alternative sentences are available and when it is clear that they have merit in terms of public safety, cost to the community and the opportunity to try to stop the person re-offending - the rate of recidivism is the matter of most concern - I think that they are an option that our judiciary, who I think are eminently sensible, will take cognisance of before they impose a sentence. I make it clear that sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. Some offenders must be punished: if they are serious or dangerous offenders, that should mean prison, and for a long time. The protection of the community is paramount. When knives are being used, for example, we need to demonstrate that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
The Scottish Prison Service's ability to work with serious offenders to reduce their risk is being compromised by having to deal with the churn created by a large number of short sentences.
Prison staff, who are extremely professional and dedicated, work with offenders to tackle drug use, to address health needs, to provide education, to address offending behaviour through programmes and to assist in throughcare to the community. However, those things cannot all be done at once, especially if they are just trying to keep a lid on a difficult situation.
Prisoners serving short sentences can be assessed for their immediate needs, but education modules or offending work lasting several months cannot be done with a prisoner who is in custody for only a short period of time. At present, more than three out of every five offenders who leave jail in Scotland re-offend, so something is not working.
There are no easy answers, but it is clear that we cannot keep perpetuating the same tired debate that labels sentences as "tough" or "soft". We must focus on what works. For a minor offence, a short custodial sentence that gives the offender no opportunity to pay something back for the wrong they have done does not in our view constitute a smart sentence.
Minor offenders should have the opportunity to right their wrongs by doing something for the community. Those who need help to turn away from a life of crime should receive that help alongside an appropriate punishment. We need to use our prisons effectively, so that they can do their work appropriately.
The Scottish Government is committed to delivering a world-leading prison service run by dedicated public servants. We believe that that model will best protect the public and reduce re-offending most effectively. I take the opportunity to commend the commitment and professionalism of the Scottish Prison Service.
In August, we announced the suspension of the procurement process for the new prison on the site of HMP Low Moss. The private sector will still be invited to bid for the design and construction of the prison, but it will be operated by public sector professionals.
We also announced that a new publicly run prison for the north-east will be built in the Peterhead area, to replace the out-of-date prisons at Peterhead and Aberdeen.
If Bishopbriggs had remained in the private sector with Kilmarnock and Addiewell, just more than a quarter of Scotland's design capacity places for prisoners would have been operated by the private sector. That would have been the highest proportion in the developed world - greater than in the USA or in any other nation that pursues private prisons.
There is more to the issue than buildings and staff. We need to take a fresh and impartial look at the challenges presented by the use of prison in Scotland today. We do not believe that the previous Administration's policies intended to break all records on the prison population in the face of falling crime figures, but that is what is happening.
We support the principle of ending automatic and unconditional early release and remain committed to delivering that in our offender management strategy, but we must ensure that any change does not compound current problems and put intolerable pressures on prisons and justice services in the community.
We have therefore decided to establish an independent commission to consider the purpose and use of imprisonment in contemporary Scotland. It will report by next June. I am happy to tell Parliament that one of its former First Ministers - Henry McLeish - has agreed to chair the commission. That shows our view of how important the issue is. He has the blend of skills and experience that that testing role will require.
The commission's remit will be to discuss the purpose and impact of imprisonment in contemporary Scotland and to make a report. I have set the commission the following objectives. It is to consider how imprisonment is used in Scotland and how that use fits with the Scottish Government's wider strategic objectives. It is to raise the issue's public profile and provide better information to allow a deeper understanding of the options, outcomes and costs. It is to compare the underpinning rationale with current law and practice, including the impact on courts, prisons and community justice services of the early-release provisions of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007. It will report and make recommendations by 30 June 2008.
The full membership of the commission is being finalised and will be announced soon. The commission will comprise a wide range of interests that go well beyond the criminal justice arena. In the review of community penalties that is under way and in the commission, we see all the strands that are contributing to our development of a coherent penal policy.
The subject is complex. Dostoevsky said that the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. Scotland is undoubtedly a civilised society, but perhaps it relies on prison to do too much with too many. It is simple to say that we will build more prisons, but resources are not infinite and each new prison means one fewer new hospital, school or community investment that would benefit the people of Scotland. That is why we need a coherent penal policy and why I have pleasure in moving the motion.
I move, that the Parliament believes that Scotland should develop a progressive penal policy which improves public safety, delivers appropriate and proportionate punishment, ensures that the interests of victims and communities are given proper consideration, contributes to reducing re-offending and encourages rehabilitation in order to build a safer and stronger Scotland; recognises that, in the case of some offenders, custody is the only appropriate disposal, and welcomes the proposal to establish an independent commission to consider the purpose and use of prison."