Scottish Prison Commission

Speech delivered on Thu 11th Sep 2008

The report of the Scottish Prisons Commission makes compelling reading and sets out a strategy for prisons that is based essentially on what works, identifies realistically what prisons can and cannot do and puts the public's safety at the centre of its consideration, so it is profoundly disappointing to hear the response to it from the Labour Party and Conservatives.

The report argues starkly that

"Scotland's prisons hold too many prisoners on short sentences where there is no real expectation of being able to punish, rehabilitate or deter",

which are the main objectives of penal policy.

Henry McLeish's group also argues that the public are up for a debate on the matter. Most people know that prison gives hard-pressed communities a little relief from troublemakers, that imprisonment is necessary to protect the public against dangerous criminals and that short sentences rarely solve the problem.

The report contains many recommendations and insights. The Liberal Democrats strongly support many of them, but we have reservations about, or a different view on, others. Penal policy is a complex issue, and I urge the cabinet secretary to move carefully as he makes progress on that agenda. The report would benefit from closer examination, not least by the Parliament's Justice Committee. A wider public debate is also required to examine the proposals in detail and to determine exactly what they mean in practice, how they might be implemented and whether some of them should be implemented.

Let us be more specific: 83 per cent of sentences in 2005-06 were for six months or less, and 57 per cent were for less than 90 days. The relief to the community is brief and no one could expect a change in behaviour in that limited time. Indeed, prison can be a college for criminals because of the association with older and more hardened types that it brings about. How much more is that the case for the more than 200 people under 18 years old who are held in Scottish prisons? That is a continuing blot on Scotland, and ending it must be a top priority for us.

What about the finances? It costs up to £40,000 to keep a person in prison for a year. It costs £28,080 a year to go to Eton, a modest £28,005 to go to Harrow and a snip at £23,499 to board at Fettes-the sort of places that produce the odd Prime Minister or two.

It is difficult to compare like with like in this field. There are unacceptably high reoffending rates for every type of sentence-Bill Aitken was right to touch on that-whether in prison or the community. Reconviction rates for those given community, restorative or rehabilitative sentences are better but probably relate to a different tranche of criminal. We must recognise that. The 60 per cent reoffending rate for prison is matched by only a slightly lower rate for probation and a 42 per cent rate for community service. The difference is that the cost of community service is just below £1,500 for six months. The important point is how to improve the situation, focus on it and find the best options to implement-options that make a difference and have lower reconviction and reoffending rates.

There is no magic wand. All the calls for tough sentences and mandatory imprisonment, for prisoners to pay with the sweat of their brow or for us not to pander to prisoners-I wish the cabinet secretary would refrain from such alliterative phrases-that we often hear from populist politicians looking for a headline do not appear to deter people from committing crimes or re-offending when they come out. The commission states:

"there is an obvious reason for this. The most important drivers of offending and re-offending are ... social and cultural" and lie" beyond the reach of the penal system".

The cabinet secretary wants payback to the community to be central. That is right in many cases, but it must be matched by action to tackle the other causal factors that have produced highly antisocial attitudes, addiction, anger and frustration in offenders. It is highly significant that half the crime in Scotland is committed by people from just 155 of the country's 1,222 council wards.

Of course, that is borne out by common sense. Scotland has one of the highest rates of prisoner numbers in Europe and sentences across the board are getting longer, but there is no noticeable effect on crime rates. High percentages of the prison population are functionally illiterate and 70 per cent suffer from mental health or severe addiction problems and have no skills.

Justice delayed is justice denied for the community, the victim and, indeed, the perpetrator. There is common ground on having a faster-moving system in which people and facilities are in place immediately after sentence for the convicted person to start repaying their debt to society and start the alcohol addiction project, the anger management course or whatever. The victim and the wider community are entitled to expect a proper and timeous sentence that works, and it is more likely to work if it starts straight away.

In that context, I was impressed by the experience of the north Liverpool community justice centre-which is referred to in the report-where the sentencing judge had a range of on-site services at his disposal to tackle the problems beyond offending. He can get immediate information about options and uses regular reviews to check progress. Too often in our system that does not happen: there is no place on a vital project, or probation officers are unable to see the offenders. We back the commission's call for a problem-solving, evidence-based approach because the old ways will no longer do.

The Government needs a timetable and a clear and costed action plan that will map out what is available, where the gaps are, how they will be filled, what is to happen in every sheriffdom and community in Scotland and, crucially, ensure that there is effective public and professional monitoring of progress.

Reform of our penal system to make it work for the community, cut crime and safeguard the public is one of the most significant projects for a generation. Central to that is slashing ineffective short-term prison sentences, releasing resources for what is proven to work and having a different kind of sentencing that is backed up with better rehabilitation and more investment in tackling the underlying causes of crime and diverting young people who are likely to offend.

Imprisoning non-dangerous criminals for short periods does not work and costs a fortune. The Scottish Prisons Commission report should be given a fair run. There should be a full debate on the matter and we should decide in due course which of its proposals to take forward to achieve the objectives that it rightly sets out.

To read this debate in full please click on the link below:

Related Link:

Scottish Prison Commission.