Plenary, 25 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, September 25, 2003

Official Report 693KB pdf

---

Criminal Justice System

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-380, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on public confidence in the criminal justice system. There are two amendments to the motion. I invite those members who want to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I welcome the opportunity to bring this debate to the Parliament. If the issue that is hot on the lips of Scotland is the cost of the new Parliament building, the second most frequently voiced concern is undoubtedly the state of law and order in Scotland.

In my experience of speaking to audiences throughout Scotland, I have found that two particular aspects of the problem are preoccupying the minds of the public—sentencing and policing. I therefore welcome the fact that those concerns have been recognised by the First Minister, who has rightly identified as critical the regaining of trust and confidence in our criminal justice system. Equally, I am pleased to propose for genuine debate the other issue that is critical to public confidence—policing in our communities.

Implicit within the phrase "regaining trust and confidence" is recognition that somewhere along the line, trust and confidence have gone. Sadly, gone they have, in a big way. According to the 2001-02 Scottish household survey, a crime is committed every 1.2 minutes—in the time that this debate will take, 62 more crimes will have been committed—a violent attack takes place every 32 minutes, and every day there is a drug-related death. Disquietingly, 24 per cent of Scots feel not particularly safe or not safe at all when they are walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark.

If we look at the Executive's crime statistics for 2002 and compare them with a base point of 1997, we see that rape and attempted rape are up 24 per cent, non-sexual crimes of violence are up 25 per cent and drug crime is up 37 per cent. From the prison statistics that are provided by the Scottish Executive, we see that the number of persons who were recalled from supervision or licence is up 430 per cent and, according to the General Register Office for Scotland, drug-related deaths are up 70 per cent. Lawlessness in Scotland has reached unacceptable levels and public confidence has disintegrated.

That leads to yet another undesirable and unquantifiable consequence, which is that many people no longer report crime because they believe that there is no point in doing so. People are unconvinced that the perpetrators will be detected and charged. Even if that is accomplished, they believe that the subsequent court process will be tortuous and unpredictable.

For many members of the public, the final straw is the prospect of automatic early release from prison. The public are as fed up with the situation as they are with the sight of ministers weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth. The public want political leadership; they want action to be taken now.

The first step towards re-engagement with the public is higher police visibility in our communities. The best intelligence in crime detection comes from forming a relationship with the community. The police cannot detect crime and deter criminal activity by sitting with a laptop in a command centre. Of course, strategic intelligence policing has a role to play, but not in isolation.

The founder of the modern police force, Sir Robert Peel, said:

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

That is why my party has several suggestions to make. First, we would place before the police an additional resource of £45 million to facilitate concentration on neighbourhood activity. If anyone seriously questions the wisdom of that approach, they need only look at New York. In the 1980s and 1990s, New York had an appalling record on crime and, interestingly, community policing had withered away. Rudolph Giuliani applied three principles to address the situation in New York: crime should be seen as a crime and not as a social statement; police should be deployed in the streets, working in partnership with communities; and the criminal justice system should work swiftly, with effective action being taken against reoffenders. During Rudolph Giuliani's eight years in office, crime fell by 60 per cent.

Secondly, we would require all police boards, through their chief constables, to prepare a neighbourhood protection plan that was designed to deliver a zero tolerance approach to crime.

Thirdly, we would require regular publication of localised crime statistics to highlight areas that were in need of attention and methods of best practice. Given that that information is currently available to crime prevention panels throughout Scotland, I fail to understand why it cannot be made available to the public at large.

I call on the Scottish Executive to comment on our proposals; I urge its members to come forward with their own thoughts. There is capacity for debate in this area and I hope for some constructive distillation of thoughts.

It is not enough to reconnect the police with communities. I welcome the intention to reform High Court procedure in Scotland. Indeed, I am certain that the McInnes review will make proposals for summary court procedure. Those proposals, of themselves, will not reinstate public confidence in the criminal justice system. They are merely lubricants for a mechanism that has in part become rusted.

The nub of the problem is that, for as long as automatic early release applies to sentences that are imposed by the courts, the public will continue to have a major problem with the criminal justice system. I agree that it was a Conservative Government that introduced that well-intended measure. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions—as the Liberal Democrats frequently find out. However, it was the Conservatives who, recognising that the measure was not working, abolished automatic remission in 1997. The Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 laid down that early release would take place only if it had been earned by co-operation and good behaviour. It also set down that the maximum remission would be one sixth of the original sentence. However, the reprieve never happened. The Labour Government at Westminster repealed the provision, which is why we are where we are today.

If anyone has any lingering doubts over the continuing nonsense about automatic early release, they need only look at today's newspapers. They will see that appeal judges have doubled the prison sentence of a stealth rapist from 18 months to three years, which is good news, as far as the public and I are concerned. However, the Executive's refusal to end automatic early release means that the sentence will be brought back to 18 months. I doubt that the public will understand the sense of that.

The sentencing commission has been asked to look at automatic early release, but only for sentences of less than four years. What a nonsense that will create; criminal A, who is sentenced to five years will spend two years and eight months in prison while criminal B, who is sentenced to four years, will spend four years in prison.

If the First Minister is serious about regaining the public's trust and confidence in the criminal justice system, his two priorities have to be neighbourhood policing and an end to automatic early release.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the recognition by the First Minister of the need to "regain trust and confidence" in our criminal justice system; believes that a step towards restoring such confidence would be to introduce honesty in sentencing by re-enacting sections 33 to 41 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997, which were repealed by section 108 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; notes that public confidence has been further undermined by the lack of visible policing in too many communities, and calls on the Scottish Executive to consider how accountability to the public in the delivery of police services might be enhanced.

The hypocrisy and deceit that the Conservatives display in any discussion of early release is quite breathtaking, as are some of their references to the sentencing commission. It is clear that the Conservatives have not listened to what the Executive is saying. Last week, the First Minister made it clear—yet again—that automatic early release of prisoners will be considered by the judicially led sentencing commission and that it will be a priority for the commission.

Indeed, Cathy Jamieson made it very clear that the commission will not kick things into the long grass. She said that the commission would report on a rolling basis on the clear priorities that have been established by the Executive. Annabel Goldie said

"The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions",

when she spoke about the change to the law that was introduced by the Conservatives. Although she is right about that, what she did not do was to put the matter in context. The Conservatives introduced the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 on the basis of many years of deliberation, including by the Kincraig committee, which was established by the Conservatives. The Conservative Government then took four or five years to introduce legislation.

It was not the case that in 1997 the Conservatives discovered that the road to hell was paved with good intentions and that there was a problem. What we had was a very clear act of political expediency ahead of the 1997 election. There is provision in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 that allows the Secretary for State for Scotland to make by subordinate legislation changes to early release. The Conservatives chose not to do that, but instead introduced hasty legislation ahead of the 1997 election. They did so for reasons that were purely political and which had nothing to do with tackling crime or with law and order. They simply wanted to try, as they desperately saw it, to enhance their election prospects in Scotland.

Before Annabel Goldie speaks, she might want to reflect on what her party said at the time in its white paper "Crime and Punishment". It said that the changes that it was to introduce in the 1997 legislation would be

"dependent on a number of factors",

one of which was obviously the

"sentencing practice by the courts."

The white paper also said:

"If there was no change in sentences imposed, the effect on prison population would be an increase of … 1,000 in the first year"

and

"2,200 in the fifth year."

Notwithstanding the huge change in prison numbers that was anticipated, paragraph 16.9 of the white paper went on to say:

"All increases in expenditure arising from the proposals … will be accommodated within planned resources."

There was not a single extra penny for the huge increases in prisoner numbers that were anticipated by the Conservatives. I say to Annabel Goldie that that was why there had to be a change in legislation in 1998. What the Conservatives did was irresponsible and uncosted and the prison places were not prepared. The measure would have led to mayhem and disaster.

I refute that in its totality. Interesting though the minister's history lesson may be, we are now in 2003. Scotland has a devolved Parliament that has responsibility for law and order, yet we are in a shocking state. The public know that and want the Scottish Executive to tell them what is happening.

I ask the minister for a point of clarification on the sentencing commission. When the Minister for Justice confirmed that the commission will look at automatic early release, she said that it would do that only in respect of sentences of fewer than four years. Is that the—

You have overrun your time, Miss Goldie.

While we are on the subject of three-year and four-year sentences, I point out that proposals that Bill Aitken brought forward in the previous parliamentary session on behalf of the Conservatives during consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill would have meant that people serving a three-year sentence would have had to serve longer in prison than those who had been sentenced to four years, simply because of the foolhardy and cackhanded way that the Tories had treated the matter. We certainly intend that the sentencing commission will examine the broader range of issues and ensure that some of the problems that have been identified are tackled. [Interruption.] I am not sure about the time, Presiding Officer.

The clock has been inadvertently restarted. I will keep my eye on the time and will let you know when you are into your last minute.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Obviously, we must get issues such as short sentencing, long sentencing and parole right; the sentencing commission will consider those matters. However, we accept that short sentences sometimes do little to deter and nothing to rehabilitate offenders. We cannot afford to have prison populations increasing without examining the underlying causes for that, which is why we want to have a debate on the need for a single agency. Although we want to consider credible alternatives to imprisonment that the judiciary can trust, we will also examine how to make sentences effective for people who have to serve them.

On policing, police officer numbers are at record levels. At the end of June, there were 15,560 police officers in the Scottish police service, which is an increase of 335 since June 2002 and an increase of 848 since June 2000. Over the past three years, support staff numbers have also increased by 891 to 6,066 in whole-time equivalent terms.

Staffing increases have been made possible by record levels of funding. This year, the total revenue and capital funding for and in connection with the police will top £1 billion. We have made our commitment. Indeed, in the partnership agreement, we also made commitments to increase the number of police officers on operational duty, to assist chief constables to meet their target of an increase by 500 in the number of special constables and to expand the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. We are acting on our pledges. On top of all that, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has already pledged to increase the number of officers on operational duty by 250 by 2005-06 and we will also consider releasing 300 experienced police officers from escorting and other duties for operational tasks.

We are providing resources and the framework for the police to operate within, we are examining sentencing and we are taking a responsible approach to all law and order issues. We are putting our money where our mouth is, which is something that the Conservatives failed to do in the past. People will see that this Administration in this Parliament makes effective arguments while the Conservatives simply express hot air.

I move amendment S2M-380.3, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Scottish Executive's decision to establish a judicially-led Sentencing Commission and the commitment to introduce legislation to modernise the operation of the High Court; recognises that the Scottish Executive will act on the McInnes Review and will bring forward further proposals for court reform; notes the measures being introduced that will give more support to victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, and believes that the record number of police officers in Scotland, the substantial increase in civilian staff and the moves to release police officers for front-line duties will enhance delivery of police services in local communities."

If you zero the clock halfway through my speech, Presiding Officer, maybe I will get eight minutes like Hugh Henry did.

There is widespread recognition that our justice system has a number of problems. However, in reflecting on the Conservative motion, I agree with the minister that the sentencing commission is best placed to examine the issue of early release; indeed, that has been an SNP policy for some time. It is irresponsible of the Tories to suggest that we should abandon early release when our prison system cannot cope with the current number of prisoners. We must examine the issue not in isolation but as part of the bigger picture of the justice system.

Will the member give way?

No—I have very limited time.

On the speech on justice that the First Minister made last week, I must confess that I found the parts of it that I read to be rather confused. I noticed that he did not mention the privatisation of police cells and those who man them, which now appears to be Executive policy. The SNP will oppose that measure, although the Executive might be able to form a right-wing alliance with the Conservative party to push it through.

In his speech, the First Minister set out his platform for regaining public confidence in the justice system. For example, he said that the blame culture in the system had to stop; its different components must stop blaming one another for the system's problems. He then proceeded to blame those who work within the justice system for causing those problems. Any attempt to end the blame culture must start at the top; the First Minister should take the lead.

In this short debate, I will touch on two main areas of concern—policing and prosecution. As we have heard today, ministers often rattle on about the fact that there are record police numbers. However, they do not tell us about the extra burdens and duties that have been placed on the police because of sex offenders legislation, the establishment of surveillance units under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 and compliance with recent health and safety directives and the new European Union working time directive. As anyone in the police force in Scotland will point out, the effect of any additional officers—however modest that number might be—is automatically neutralised because of those extra burdens.

I understand why constituents complain constantly that we do not have enough police officers in our communities and that, when the police are contacted, they say that there will be a delay in responding to the call because of a shortage of manpower. That type of response undermines people's confidence in the justice system. As a result, if we are trying to regain the public's confidence and trust, we should be honest with them. It is okay to say that there are record numbers of police; however, we also have to make it clear that those numbers do not address the current level of demand.

I will turn briefly to the issue of prosecution services. In its manifesto for the previous Scottish Parliament elections, new Labour stated that it had

"delivered … the highest … clear-up rates since the Second World War".

That is correct. However, we have not been told that since 1997 the number of prosecutions has collapsed by almost one sixth. Since 1997-98, the number of cases marked "no proceedings" rose from 12.5 per cent to 17 per cent last year. I understand why people wonder about the point of reporting incidents when they are told that there will be a delay when they contact the police and when they find out that more cases are marked "no proceedings" when they are referred to the procurator fiscal. Even the police wonder about the point of referring cases to the procurator fiscal. If we are to change the way in which our justice system is run, we must have more honesty and we must ensure that we deliver the necessary resources.

From the comments of constituents who have spoken to me, it is clear that their combined experience of the police and prosecution services has undermined their trust and confidence in the system. It is time to support the staff who are doing a difficult job within the system and ensure that they have the resources to do the job properly.

I move amendment S2M-380.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:

"notes the First Minister's recent recognition of the problems within the justice system; notes that public confidence in our justice system is undermined by insufficient resourcing of our police and prosecution service, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to ensure that future funding of the justice system reflects the demands being placed upon it."

All members agree that there is a real crisis of public confidence in the criminal justice system. Indeed, we see it day in, day out and week in, week out at our surgeries and in our constituencies. I have been a victim of crime four times over the past two years and the other day I received a citation from the Crown Office to appear as a witness in court. I had no idea what I was being cited for, given that I have been a victim of crime four times. No one had ever told me that the crime of which I had been a victim had been cleared up or that something had been solved and somebody arrested. I had to telephone the Crown Office to find out why I was being cited; in the end, it turned out that I was being cited as a witness to a crime that had happened six months before the crime that I had initially been told on the phone I was being cited for.

That kind of thing happens all the time to people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. People are kept waiting in court, which is an issue that we hope to address through High Court reforms and the work that the McInnes committee is doing on summary justice. Moreover, the public have to make call after call to the police. Michael Matheson is right to say that, although there are 800 more police officers and 1,000 more civilians assisting the police, the burden on our police officers is constantly growing. In the constituency that I represent, the police who should be on the street are often called in to deal with policing issues in Edinburgh city centre. As a result, I am pleased by Cathy Jamieson's comment that she is examining the number of police officers and funding throughout Scotland and that she is looking in particular into the request from the chief constable in Edinburgh.

It is also clear that the issue is very complex. That may be part of the reason behind the Conservatives' confusion on the matter. They introduced a policy of mandatory early release in 1993 and then—miraculously, just before an election—repealed it in 1997. However, it is clear that they suggested the repeal of automatic release in 1997 without thinking through the impact of that policy in terms of the increase in the prison population. At the time, Lord McCluskey said:

"They acknowledge that there is likely to be an effect upon the criminal justice system of a very disruptive kind."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 1997; Vol 578, c 1815.]

That statement stands now, as it did in 1997. There would be a very disruptive impact in terms of the numbers of prisoners going into a prison system that, according to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons yesterday, is holding record numbers and cannot cope. Staff cannot cope and people are not able to get the treatment and care that they need in prison to try to prevent them from offending again when they come out, which is surely part of what prison should be all about. That is one of the problems with the Conservatives' proposals.

There is another problem. If somebody is released on licence before they have reached the end of their sentence, there is a period in which they can be assisted by social workers to get themselves back into some kind of normal life in the community. If we take away from prisoners any incentive to behave themselves and to try to be rehabilitated, what message does that send to people in prison? I am not saying that I am not in favour of automatic release. However, the sentencing commission will be independent and judiciary-led, and we should appreciate our judiciary. For the most part, with the odd extreme exception, members of the judiciary do a good job and are good public servants. An independently led sentencing commission is more likely to come up with a system that not only deals with the problem of public confidence, which has been outlined by Annabel Goldie and by the First Minister, but addresses the complexities of the debate, such as what will happen to prison numbers if we change the present arrangements.

The sentencing commission is the right body to examine bail, remand, fines and automatic early release. I shall welcome its report when I see it.

Before I open the debate, I should tell members that although I intend to allow all members five minutes, that time limit will include interventions and it will be a very tight five minutes. If members do not stick to that limit, other members will not be called. I call Margaret Mitchell.

My colleague Annabel Goldie has highlighted two measures—ending automatic remission and putting more police on the street—that would play an important part in restoring confidence in the criminal justice system. However, there are other measures that would help to restore confidence and regain trust.

Those measures include first, improving the efficiency of courts. To be frank, there is little point in catching criminals if the courts are not capable of dealing with them. On that point, I agree with Michael Matheson; too many cases are being shelved. A startling example of that is the staggering 17,000 criminal cases that were dropped last year, which represents as many as 72 cases a day not making it to court. Furthermore, it is taking longer to bring the accused to trial—on average, three weeks longer than it did in 1998-99. The solution is to speed up the court system by properly resourcing the Procurator Fiscal Service with more procurators fiscal and by introducing weekend and evening courts to reduce the backlog.

Secondly, we must ensure that effective alternatives to custody are in place, with adequate sanctions for when breaches occur. Enforcement of existing alternatives to custody has given rise to concern because of the lack of proper supervision of community service orders, and because of cynicism and disillusion that so many fines go unpaid. Last year, 7,074 fine defaulters were sent to prison, which works out at a daily average of 61. Although they do not make a huge contribution to overcrowding in prisons because they stay for only short periods, fine defaulters are an unnecessary drain on the public purse. According to the Scottish Prison Service's annual report for 2001-02, the average cost of a prison place is £30,177 per annum, which works out at £82.66 a day. That money could be used to ensure that alternatives to custody, such as community service orders and supervised attendance orders, are properly resourced.

There are two categories of fine defaulters: those who genuinely cannot pay and those who are wilful fine defaulters. Those who genuinely cannot pay have the opportunity to opt for supervised attendance orders. That has worked well in Hamilton district court, where a social worker meets the fine defaulter prior to their appearance at the means court and helps them to fill out a form that accurately lists their income and necessary spending commitments. That exercise helps the defaulter to make a realistic evaluation of what, if anything, can be offered to the court to clear the debt. If it becomes apparent that the defaulter simply cannot pay, the social worker explains that a supervised attendance order is an alternative that is geared to sorting out the problem that led to the person's being unable to pay the fine and, if possible, to addressing the underlying causes of the behaviour, such as drink or drug abuse, that led to the imposition of the fine in the first place.

Does Margaret Mitchell agree that it would be more appropriate to have a fines system that ensured that fines are in proportion to people's income, than it is to penalise people who are in poverty? A £200 fine to a pensioner means a lot, but a £200 fine to someone on Margaret Mitchell's wages is very little. It is a question of establishing a system that is more sensitive to people's circumstances. What she proposes does not recognise that.

Sentencing is the priority of the judge, and a justice of the peace in a court takes account of that. It is already built into the system.

The exercise that I have described would help fine defaulters to make realistic evaluations of what must be offered. The pilot exercise in Hamilton, which is aimed at encouraging more use of supervised attendance orders, gives the justice of the peace more information about defaulters' real means and helps defaulters to make an honest evaluation of what they can pay.

Public confidence will continue to be undermined if wilful defaulters, such as our very own Tommy Sheridan, are allowed to sneer at the system and manipulate it to their advantage. Defaulters such as Tommy have the means to pay but opt instead to let the taxpayer pick up the tab. That is clearly unacceptable. There is a means by which to rectify that problem, which is to implement section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or section 221 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.

The measures that I have outlined and those that were highlighted by Annabel Goldie would go some considerable way to restoring confidence and trust in the criminal justice system in Scotland. All that is required is the political will to implement them.

The question whether the public have confidence in our criminal justice system probably depends on what people's experiences have been; for many people, those experiences have certainly not been good. The First Minister has called for a restoration of public confidence in the system because, having listened to people's views, he believes that many people have not had a good experience of our criminal justice system. I have confidence in our agencies, but I believe that there is a need for reform. The justice committees of the previous session of Parliament called for joining up of the system. I believe that that was an important call.

We have all dealt with cases in which constituents complain about delays or postponement of trials, trial outcomes' not being satisfactory and the general treatment of victims and witnesses in the system. I had a case recently in which a trial was postponed on 10 occasions. It was a very serious trial, but the witnesses were threatening to pull out because they simply could not endure having to face another cancellation. The Crown Office often gets the blame for those problems, but it is important to establish who does what in the system. The Crown Office is not responsible for running the courts; rather, the Scottish Courts Administration, which is a separate organisation, is responsible for that.

One of the biggest reasons for delay is the lack of witnesses. Witnesses fail to turn up because citations do not arrive in time or because people's addresses are not properly recorded. We must fix the system, although I know that there are some pilot schemes in place to do so.

I voice a word of caution about Margaret Mitchell's call for evening courts and weekend work. I do not oppose that idea per se, but she should not run away with the idea that our fiscals and agencies do not work at the weekends, because they certainly do. We must build that in to any proposal.

There have never been more seizures, more arrests or so many changes to the criminal justice system. No one can deny that the Labour-Liberal partnership has taken bold steps to reform the criminal justice system, but the question is: what will we do next? It is a fact that there are record police numbers, but the debate on police visibility versus intelligence-led policing is a crucial one. We should not underestimate the quality of policing that we can get from intelligence-led policing. For example, crime management systems are able to determine that a number of housebreakings are taking place in a particular street and allow us to identify who might be responsible for them.

I will address the question of honesty in sentencing. Successive Governments have wrestled with the question of what sentencing is for. Is it for punishment, deterrent, public safety, rehabilitation or even retribution, or perhaps all five? Perhaps we will never agree on which of those elements should be included in sentencing, but that is also an important debate. The Tories want honesty in sentencing. We certainly need clarity and consistency in sentencing, which is why I support the sentencing commission.

We have not been able to address the question of rehabilitation in our prisons to any great extent over recent years. That has been due mainly to overcrowding and a failing prison estate. If we were to follow through the specific proposal that Bill Aitken talked about in the previous session of Parliament there would be serious overcrowding—his proposal would lead to an increase of about 1,800 prisoners. We would certainly not be able to address the question of rehabilitation in our prisons if we had to deal with more prison numbers. Bill Aitken suggested during the previous session that his proposals would not give rise to an increase because judges would take prison numbers into account. Let us be clear about who does what in the system: judges are not responsible for prison numbers and they should not be required to take that into account in sentencing. We have to manage prison numbers, whatever decisions we take. That is not a matter for judges.

Annabel Goldie asks for political leadership. I think that we have that. We have introduced the sentencing commission, reform of the Crown Office, support for victims of crime and reform of the High Court and youth courts, to mention but a few of the reforms that are taking place.

The Parole Board for Scotland, which is responsible for early release on licence, has largely got it right, although there is perhaps room for improvement.

As other members have said, more use must be made of community sentencing in order that we can address the question of what we do in our prisons. We need to know where we are going in relation to alternatives to custody. There is considerable consensus in the Parliament that we need to move more quickly to ensure that more options are available and that those options are used. There is evidence that in certain cases community sentencing can be more effective than prison. The Executive should be pressed to tell us where it is going on that issue.

It is possible to have a criminal justice system that meets public expectations on serious crime. The crucial issue that we must address as politicians is people's direct experiences of the system. I hope that we get a further chance to do that.

It is not often that I speak in justice debates as I tend to concentrate on economic matters, but this is an extremely important subject that affects every community in Scotland.

I will make three points; I hope that the minister will take them in the spirit in which they are delivered. My first point—I will explain to the minister privately later why I am raising the issue—is that I think that it is time that the Executive checked progress in implementing the changes to the Scottish Criminal Record Office's fingerprinting service because of some recent difficulties. Unfortunately, matters are still sub judice so I do not want to say any more than that, but I draw the matter to the Executive's attention.

My second point relates to an issue that Pauline McNeill mentioned—reform of prisoners. We seem to concentrate, with justification, on using prison as a punishment for crime. Other countries put much more emphasis on trying to reform people who are serving prison sentences with a view to ensuring that a higher percentage of them do not reoffend when they get out of prison. It seems to me that we must put more resources into, and give more attention to, reforming an offender's character as well as punishing them for the crime. If I may say so, the private prison in Kilmarnock is particularly poor at performing that aspect of its remit, which highlights the danger of bringing the profit motive into the prison service—essential services such as reform and rehabilitation of prisoners are given low priority and do not receive the attention and resources that they deserve.

My third point is that the profile of crime in Scotland and in many other European countries shows that drug or alcohol abuse is often involved somewhere along the line. The first committee that I served on in Parliament was the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee back in 1999. We carried out an inquiry into drug misuse in Scotland. I remember vividly going to Cumnock to take evidence in private from two drug addicts. They told us that it was their belief that up to 30 per cent of the population in Cumnock were regular abusers of drugs. Cumnock is a very poor community with high levels of unemployment and deprivation.

The following week we went to Aberdeen, which is at the other end of the spectrum economically—it is a relatively prosperous area. We were again told by drug addicts who gave evidence in private in Aberdeen that they reckoned that up to 30 per cent of the adult population of Aberdeen were involved in some kind of drug abuse. That was specifically about drugs as opposed to alcohol.

I would like to put on the record some information that the Justice 1 and Justice 2 Committees have been given. There is some evidence that sheriffs are taking that kind of issue into account in determining what they choose to do with the accused. They feel that there is more chance of the person getting the drugs rehabilitation treatment, care and attention that they need if they put them into prison than if they leave them on the streets of Cumnock or Aberdeen.

I accept that point.

The point that I am making is that we must address the issue of drug and alcohol misuse—alcohol is often a bigger problem than drugs—if we are to get to the root causes of crime in our society. Much of the debate is about, and much attention is paid to, what happens once the crime is committed. We must investigate better means of prevention. One way of doing that would be to improve dramatically the services that are available in respect of drug and alcohol abuse and misuse.

I have raised three points: first, I would like the Executive to re-examine the fingerprinting service that is provided; secondly, it should consider the rehabilitation—or lack of it—of prisoners, in particular in the private prison in Kilmarnock; and thirdly, the Executive should revisit the question of what additional effort needs to go in to dealing with the problems of drug and alcohol misuse.

I call Karen Whitefield, who has a very tight five minutes. I will then have to restrict the time that is allocated to speeches to four minutes.

The Tory party's choice of subject for the debate is strange. It is strange that the Tories should feel that now is an appropriate time to feign interest in the criminal justice system, when the Scottish Executive has embarked on the most ambitious and radical set of criminal justice reforms in generations, when it has delivered increased resources to our police, prisons and criminal justice system and when reducing antisocial behaviour in our communities is a key priority.

The Executive is bringing forward those proposals and making that investment because it has listened to the concerns of ordinary people. Throughout the summer, the Executive consulted widely on the problems that face communities so that their experiences could help to shape the antisocial behaviour bill. Yet the Tories choose today to call for an increase in police numbers. Between 1993 and 1997 police numbers fell by almost 1,500. Today, there are record levels of policing in Scotland. Miss Goldie's concern for high-visibility policing seems somewhat hollow to me and to the people whom I represent.

Circumstances in the early 1990s in Scotland were totally different from circumstances nowadays. Nobody would disagree that circumstances were different everywhere in Europe then. The issue is not what the Tories feign to do. Does the member accept that, as we speak, the public in Scotland have a real concern about automatic early release and levels of policing?

The issue is that we are listening to the communities that we represent and are working hard to introduce measures to tackle and address their concerns.

It is strange that the Tories have chosen to call for more resources when their underlying policy is to cut public expenditure. Never mind honesty in sentencing—it would be much better if there were honesty in Tory policy.

From talking to my constituents, I know that youth crime and antisocial behaviour continue to make the lives of many people in our communities a misery. Those problems are often caused by a small hard core of individuals who have little or no regard for anyone but themselves. Decent people in communities throughout Scotland are desperate for such problems to be tackled.

That is why I welcome the Executive's measures to tackle such problems. Measures such as the forthcoming antisocial behaviour bill, the creation of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, the confiscation of drug dealers' assets and profits and the introduction of an increased number of closed-circuit television cameras demonstrate that the Executive not only talks tough on crime but acts.

Of course, the Tories would have us believe that being tough on crime means simply locking up more people. I am confident that the sentencing commission will ensure that Scotland will have one of the toughest and most effective sentencing regimes in the world. I do not mean simply that more people will be locked up. We should imprison those who are most violent and most persistent and who pose the greatest threat, but equally we should always aim to rehabilitate wherever that is possible.

Recently, I listened to a speech by Sheriff Hugh Neilson, who is involved in the youth court pilot in Hamilton. He believes that the combination of early intervention and intensive interagency working—which are the key characteristics of the youth court pilot—will deliver substantial benefits in reduced levels of recidivism.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that much needs to be done to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour effectively in our communities and there is no doubt that the Executive, the courts, the police and all the agencies that are involved in the criminal justice field must redouble their efforts. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the Executive is determined to deliver on those issues and to make a real difference to the communities that we seek to serve.

Colin Fox has four minutes.

The Parliament appears to have debated law and order many times in the five months for which I have been an MSP. However, one of the public's concerns has not been addressed in any of those debates—the widespread belief in Scotland that there is one law for the rich and another, severer law for the poor. I am sure that, in recent years, the population of Scotland has thought that Lord Archer, Jonathan Aitken and Ernest Saunders of Guinness represent the rich exceptions in the prison population rather than the rule. Public perceptions and confidence in the criminal justice system can often be affected by the hysteria that is whipped up by politicians in the chamber and outside it.

Last night, I had the pleasure of attending a presentation by Edinburgh's children's panel which, like many of its counterparts throughout Scotland, does a valuable job in dealing with children who fall foul of the law. The Edinburgh children's panel was too polite to mention this matter, but it must have been incensed by remarks that the Tory leader David McLetchie made in Sighthill the night before. He said:

"People don't have confidence in the Children's panel … It doesn't bring home to youth offenders the differences between right and wrong."

That is a shameful insult to the thousands of volunteer panellists in Scotland who deal with youngsters day in, day out. Their work is admired throughout the world. In their own words, they address the "needs and deeds" of youngsters' behaviour. It would have been better if Mr McLetchie had encouraged people in Sighthill and elsewhere to volunteer to become panellists to see for themselves what panellists are dealing with.

Will the member give way?

I have only four minutes, which is a minute less than the time that other members have had.

The Tories talk about honesty in sentencing policy. They must address the fact that, compared with other countries in Europe, Scotland sends one of the highest proportions of its population to jail. Some 117 people out of every 100,000 are sent to jail. There have been record levels for the past two years, but the Tories propose building more prisons and sending more people to jail. That is a bankrupt idea, if ever there was one. Nothing has been learned. It costs £28,000 per year for each prisoner to languish in jail. Criminologists throughout the world agree that the length of a sentence is no deterrent whatever to committing a crime. As Pauline McNeill and other members have mentioned, prisons have a poor record on rehabilitation. Is it any wonder that, according to figures released by Safeguading Communities, Reducing Offending in Scotland, 53 per cent of the Scottish population believe that most people come out of prison worse than when they went in? That is the reality.

I am reminded of the film "Primary Colors", in which the Bill Clinton character says that any idiot can burn down a barn. In other words, it is easy to criticise. However, I point the Executive in the direction of an example that works—work in Finland. We should consider the Finnish example in the light of Scotland's experience. Finland is roughly the same size as Scotland, but it sends people to jail at less than half the rate at which we do—52 in every 100,000 people. Its crime record is studied internationally and its prison population is lower than it was 20 years ago. Finland investigates alternatives to incarceration and has a progressive system.

What is the effect of such liberalism? Does it lead to rampant crime? No, it does not. Unlike the situation in Scotland, 82 per cent of Finns say that they have no fear of going to the top of the road for a pint of milk late at night. That figure is the lowest in the world.

I offer that experience to the minister. The public in Scotland want an effective criminal justice system that works and not simply a harsher system. The public want a cure for the problem and not a harsher response.

In the short time that is available to me, I too would like to focus on sentencing.

We need to put matters in perspective. Tens of thousands of people are sentenced by the courts each year and only a handful of cases make it to the pages of the press on the basis that the sentence is considered to be inappropriate. Where cases make it to the press, considerable dismay results, but we should keep a sense of perspective about the scale of the problem.

However, we cannot afford to be complacent. We recognise the real sense of injustice that the public feel in such situations, but research from SACRO—which has been mentioned—indicates that the public want a more effective system rather than a harsher system. That should guide all our deliberations.

I welcome the fact that the Executive has set up a sentencing commission, which was a Labour manifesto commitment. The commission will consider improving the consistency of sentencing, the effectiveness of sentencing in reducing reoffending and arrangements for early release from prison. That is a helpful approach to ensure that we balance the protection of the public and appropriate punishment with the need to maintain trust and confidence in our justice system, and in sentencing in particular.

Annabel Goldie spoke about the need for political leadership. We should consider Tory political leadership in relation to early release. As we have heard, the Tories passed the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which made provision that a prisoner serving less than four years would be released automatically after half their sentence had been served. As the minister said, with an election looming in 1997, there was a hello to political expediency. Malcolm Rifkind showed a burst of literary taste by borrowing from Dostoevsky, but showed little substantial thinking in introducing the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997. Parole was abolished and any real prospect of early release for good behaviour was reduced.

Annabel Goldie claims that the Tories have seen the light. She said that we should forget the past and that we are all right now. However, the Tories cannot wipe away their history. The people of Scotland will not let them do that. If the Tories were serious about their plans, the cost of implementing them would have been built into their spending plans. How much was set aside? Nothing.

I will finish with a short but important history lesson. Under the Tories, crime doubled, the number of criminals caught fell by a third, recorded crime increased by 166 per cent and police numbers were reduced. Members should look beyond the Tories' crocodile tears. Their legacy is one of high crime levels and massive under-investment. That puts the debate, which was initiated by the Tories, in context, because the Tories are all talk and no action.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I am in my final 30 seconds.

Yes, we need to reform the criminal justice system. However, unlike the Tories, Labour has the objectives of more police officers on operational duty and on the beat, an effective prosecution service, courts that deliver a fair trial, appropriate sentences for those convicted and, ultimately, a reduction in reoffending. Unlike the Tories, we are on the side of the hard-pressed communities who daily experience the consequences of crime.

What do the general public—our voters—want from the justice system? I believe that they want a fair system that brings criminals to justice and assures the public that the law is protecting them. The public believe that courts are perhaps too lenient and that judges are sometimes out of touch. The public do not understand why someone who is sentenced to 12 months or two years is released after six months or one year.

Do the public really understand the justice system? In 2002, an NFO System 3 survey on sentencing concluded:

"Public views on appropriate sentencing are however varied and complex. When asked to consider the details of specific cases members of the public generally opt for disposals which are broadly in line with those that would be imposed by the courts."

Many perhaps think that the courts or the prosecution service serve the criminals rather than the public. Too often, people are reluctant to report crime to the police or come forward as witnesses. If they do so, they often say afterwards that they wish they had not done so because their experience of the court system was not a good one.

Those are all understandable concerns that I believe the Executive is well aware of, which is why it has put justice at the top of its agenda. As Hugh Henry said, there are more police officers than ever before and we are committed to recruiting further police officers in this parliamentary session. The extra police will perhaps alleviate the problem to which Michael Matheson referred.

Part of the justice agenda is the sentencing commission, which will be led by a judge of considerable experience, Lord MacLean. He will be able to examine in depth all aspects of sentencing, including sentencing effectiveness, early release and the use of bail and remand. The commission will tackle the public's continuing concerns and I believe that it will rebuild public confidence in the justice system. I hope that the commission will also examine how to keep people out of prison in this day and age. For example, should fine defaulters go to prison? There should be another way of dealing with that offence. Imprisoning fine defaulters is perhaps the single reason for Cornton Vale women's prison being full.

Annabel Goldie's motion asks us to re-enact sections 33 to 41 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 and end the automatic release of prisoners. I suggest that doing that would result in a significant increase in the work load of courts because an increasing number of accused people would opt for a not guilty plea and take their chance in court on the day. Perhaps Annabel Goldie wants the legal profession to increase its take-home pay to more than its present level. I agree with Pauline McNeill that Annabel Goldie's policy would result in more overcrowding in prisons. Surely we do not want that. As other members said, the Tories' plan would probably lead to an extra 1,800 or more prisoners in the prisons' daily population. What would that cost us?

Time has moved on and we must look forward. We must examine the current situation and decide where we are trying to get to. The partnership agreement put reform of the justice system at the top of the Executive's agenda. I believe that the reform of the High Court will address Margaret Mitchell's concerns. I also believe that the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill's proposal to give more support to victims and witnesses will make the general public more confident about reporting crimes to the police and going to court. All the measures to which I have referred are only the start of restoring confidence in the Scottish judicial system.

The debate has been interesting and many good points have been made from all parts of the chamber. I will try to deal with some of those points in the few minutes that I have.

Annabel Goldie started by referring to the Scottish household survey of 2001-2, about which she made valuable points. However, the survey also found that a third of women, a quarter of young people between the ages of 16 and 24 and more than half of people of pensionable age felt that it was unsafe to walk in their communities after dark. Obviously, the problem is not only the fact of crime but perceptions of crime.

The substantive issue of early release, which is referred to in the Tory motion, cannot be dealt with in isolation. That is why the Scottish National Party agrees with allowing the sentencing commission to do its job. Hugh Henry, Michael Matheson, Margaret Smith and many other members commented on that. We must give the commission the independence and the time to come up with proposals that we can debate at a future point.

If we did as the Tories suggest and suddenly stopped the automatic early release of prisoners without dealing with the overcrowding in our prisons, our overstretched system would collapse. Again, that point was made by many members, including Michael Matheson, Hugh Henry and Margaret Smith. We must deal with the issue of early release in the round and not in isolation. If we are serious, we will consider the number of people who are sent to prison in the first place, especially those who are imprisoned for minor offences such as the non-payment of fines. That is the way to go, rather than simply getting rid of automatic early release.

Margaret Mitchell talked about fines and fine defaulters. However, I agree with what Michael Matheson said about unit fines. Many countries throughout Europe use unit fines, which would be an effective way of dealing with the problem of the non-payment of fines. Statistics show that a high proportion of female prisoners are in prison for fine defaulting. Surely there is a fairer, more constructive way of dealing with that offence.

I agree with other members that there must be a way of ensuring that when offenders are released back into society they are ready to play a useful part in society. That is why there must be an increase in the number of programmes within prisons to help rehabilitate offenders prior to their release. Margaret Smith, Karen Whitefield and Alex Neil made good points on that issue. Our aim must be to reduce the current high incidence of recidivist behaviour. Public confidence in the justice system would be much higher if we achieved serious reductions in the number of released prisoners who reoffend.

Some of the most important points raised in the debate were around ideas on alternatives to custody. Again, Margaret Smith, Margaret Mitchell and Pauline McNeill made excellent points on that subject. We must take a serious look at all the ideas in that area, including the suggestion of weekend sentencing. We must also ensure that we consider the best and most successful examples of alternatives to custody from around the world. It is not good enough only to say that we have more police and that we have spent more money. That in itself will not do anything. We must match resources to the demands of the system. Saying that there are more resources does not mean that they match the system's needs. That is clearly shown by the increase in cases that end in no proceedings from 12.5 per cent in 1997 to 17 per cent in 2002-3.

I pay tribute to Colin Fox's comments on children's panels. I agree that the Tory leader was utterly wrong in his comments about panels. Margaret Smith's comments about her personal experience of the justice system were helpful. Personal experience brings a light to the subject that is often missing from our speeches. It is important that we take the personal experience of individuals into account when we deal with the justice system.

I hope that the SNP amendment to the motion will be supported, as it tackles the idea that we must match resources to the demands within the system.

The debate has been exceptionally good for a short one. All parties have made a number of well-considered and appropriate suggestions. I pledge that Cathy Jamieson and I will examine carefully suggestions that are worth considering in more detail. In fact, many of the suggestions were in tune with what we are already considering.

Several members brought out the fact that, although we are doing a number of things and doing them well, many other aspects of our criminal justice system need to be improved. That is why the Executive is putting so much emphasis on challenging the way in which we operate and on challenging ourselves and others to do much better.

Pauline McNeill spoke about some of the problems in the court system, such as the length of time that it takes for cases to go through court and some of the problems that are associated with witnesses not turning up. A number of organisational aspects will have to be given clear consideration.

I will build on some of the comments that Annabel Goldie and others made on the way in which the police operate. The police will continue to have a debate on how they use their resources, on visibility and on intelligence-led policing.

What we have been saying about rehabilitation is fundamental. I was encouraged by the number of members who said that prison should not only be about imprisoning violent people and taking them off the street. Karen Whitefield is absolutely right that those who commit serious crimes need to be imprisoned and taken off our street, but she and others also spoke about the need for change. Alex Neil spoke about the need to reform prisoners. Colin Fox spoke graphically about the Finnish experience, which is not unique.

I say to Alex Neil, Colin Fox and others that some of the issues with rehabilitation—the fact that prisoners are not being prepared for release and the fact that we have such high reoffending rates—are precisely the reasons why we are so intent on having a debate about a single corrections agency. The social work services are not working as effectively as they could with prisons. The agencies in general are not working well together.

The minister talked about Annabel Goldie. Does he agree that the legal fraternity is very much to blame for encouraging guilty people to plead not guilty up to the 11th hour, thereby tying up police time—Annabel Goldie wants to see police on the street—and curtailing the time that they should be out doing their duties? The judicial fraternity must look inwards before it can get the confidence of the people.

The debate is not about trying to apportion blame; it is about trying to identify problems and come up with solutions. Annabel Goldie talked about the sentencing commission. I say to her that Cathy Jamieson has made it clear that we will not rule out anything on the sentencing commission. We want a full investigation into all aspects of sentencing. We will give priorities and guidelines on that. Many of the comments that have been made will be given careful consideration.

When we debate imprisonment, it is clear that the Tories are still being deceitful and dishonest. They promise that more people will go to prison for longer, but they do not identify the resource issues. Just as in 1993 and 1997, they are not answering the question. Perhaps the Tories are about to surprise us with their own alternative to custody. Perhaps they are going to draw on Rosie Kane's experience and come up with an offer of community imprisonment in which they agree to take in prisoners. The sentencing commission might want to think about whether an offender would want three months with Annabel Goldie or three years in Barlinnie. That would certainly be a difficult choice.

Hugh Henry began the debate by accusing the Conservatives of not listening. I have news for him: the problem is that we have been listening and, over the past few weeks and months, we have heard Jack McConnell talking tough about locking people up, Cathy Jamieson talking soft about rehabilitation and, this morning, Hugh Henry largely talking nonsense. Part of the problem is that we simply do not know where the Executive stands on the issue. Its policies do not have a credibility gap; they have a credibility chasm. Where does the schizophrenic Executive stand on some of the most important issues that affect Scottish people today?

I will make one thing clear: the Conservatives believe in making things easy for people. That is why, after due consideration and a lot of thought, we lodged amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill—debated in the Parliament earlier this year—which are now exactly in line with the First Minister's thinking. What was Hugh Henry's response on that occasion? He voted most of those measures down. Certainly, the wiser counsel that we offered prevailed to some extent, in that the nonsense of 16 and 17-year-olds going through the children's hearings system was done away with. However, if the Executive really wanted to do something, all it had to do was to accept my amendments. Unfortunately, it did not.

I am not surprised that Bill Aitken can hardly keep his face straight, because I do not think that even he believed that. Does he not accept that the consequence of what he proposed in the debate on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill would have been that those who had been sentenced to three years would have spent longer in prison than those sentenced to four years?

As Annabel Goldie graphically illustrated in her speech, that is exactly the way that the Executive is heading. When the matter came before the Parliament, I said that remission should be done away with in its entirety. That would have resolved the difficulty.

As I have dealt with the minister, I will make one more point about the Executive's policy. We have not heard from the Executive whether the sentencing commission will consider early release overall, or only for short-term sentences. There is genuine doubt on our part on that.

I clarify that the sentencing commission will consider all those issues.

I am obliged.

I will now deal with some of the other speeches. Uncharacteristically, Michael Matheson made some pretty sound points. He dealt with the increased pressures on the police and the fact that there is considerable public apathy on the reporting of crime. He began to drift from the straight and narrow on unit fines, which are SNP policy. It is entirely open to any judge who is imposing a fine to take fully into consideration the offender's means. Indeed, the High Court requires that they do so.

That point relates to the amount that the offender repays. It is about a proportionate fine for the individual. A millionaire should pay more than a pensioner if they are found guilty of the same crime, and we do not have that facility in the system.

Mr Matheson is wrong on that point. The High Court has held that it is totally appropriate for two offenders in the same case to be fined different amounts.

Pauline McNeill made a sound speech on the Scottish Courts Administration and clarity in sentencing and then failed rather badly to expand on her ideas on community sentencing. We all believe that community sentences would keep a lot of people out of jail if they worked. However, when the former Deputy Minister for Justice tells me that something like 25 per cent of community service orders are not fully complied with, and when I have sound reasons for believing that 50 per cent of them are not fully complied with, I think that they are seen not to be working.

Alex Neil said that he did not often speak on justice matters. The obvious advice that I have to give him is that he should stick to what he is good at. Apart from coming out with the old canard of Kilmarnock prison, he did not have too much to contribute.

Colin Fox started off with the plaintive cry that it is basically the rich who gets the pleasure and the poor who takes the blame and attacked David McLetchie for stating that people had no confidence in the children's panel system. I can tell him that many children's panel members do not have confidence in the system either, as a third of them resign every year. There is clearly an issue there.

Will the member give way?

I am in my last minute—I am genuinely sorry not to be able to give way.

Colin Fox raised the matter of Finland jailing fewer people than anywhere else. I have some interesting statistics for him. Although he is quite right about that, people in Finland also seem to commit more crimes per head of population than is the case anywhere else—the figure of 7.4 per 100 population is much higher than in most comparable European countries.

This has been a fairly good debate, with some constructive contributions. The Executive is very much on trial, however, as is the justice system. There has been far too much talk and a total absence of action to date. The people of Scotland will be watching anxiously to see what develops in the months ahead.