Hansard

It is clear that there is a fair degree of agreement across the chamber this afternoon. I associate myself with many of the comments that other members have made.

We know that the most persistent reoffenders are those who serve short-term sentences. The revolving door in and out of prison is used by many in our communities. If we could slow down that movement, we would see an easing of prisoner numbers and of other pressures on the justice system. For that to happen, we require those who enter the justice system—many of whom live chaotic lives, whether due to poverty, drugs or the psychological problems that they suffer—to be shown a path other than to the front door of a prison. We require a management system that can be at home in a national policy context but which is flexible enough to allow local decisions to be made that ensure that local priorities are met.

Therefore, I welcome the consultation document as well as the report of the commission on women offenders, which was chaired by Dame Elish Angiolini. Both documents are valuable, in that they bring to the debate information that could previously have been seen as anecdotal.

I am a member of the Public Audit Committee, which last year scrutinised Audit Scotland’s report, “Reducing Reoffending in Scotland”. A clearer picture has emerged of the actions that are required. CJAs across the country are not uniform. They have different governance systems, arrangements and lines of accountability and there are different levels of success on reoffending. Certainly, CJAs have brought organisations together, but it was obvious that they work, as people say in horrible managementspeak, in silos. Communication between many CJA partners is limited and, as a result, the system can fail the people whom it was designed to deal with.

Dealing with cross-territory prisoners is another problem. A good example would be a woman serving a short-term sentence at Cornton Vale prison who comes from, say, Aberdeen or Galashiels. On release, does she have a family and home to return to? She is highly unlikely to have a job lined up, so does she have a point of contact to help her, especially if she is released on a Friday afternoon when there is little time to arrange benefits or council services?

Throughcare is difficult enough at local level, let alone on a cross-territory basis. It is also something that CJAs and other partners have difficulty managing. That is why I am not all that keen on option B in the consultation. I am also not convinced that local authorities are fully geared up to provide throughcare and other services on their own. The third sector, the national health service and others must have a part to play, particularly in evolving a national strategy.

However, local authorities are vital partners in delivering with other stakeholders a plan for their own area and tying in national and local priorities. I have no real view at this time of whether I prefer option A or option C—I am certainly not going to introduce an option D, as Christine Grahame suggested she might—but if we are to go down the road of national management, a form of true local accountability will have to be found.

Every speaker in the debate will have some real-life stories to tell. I will give members two examples. A few months ago, David McLetchie and I visited Saughton prison in Edinburgh. We looked at the facilities and talked to staff and prisoners. We tried to ascertain the difficulties faced by staff and prisoners—in particular, how to get prisoners back on track through the prison system. We met two prisoners who were being released the following week and who had quite clear views that the 18 months that both had served was nothing more than—I quote—“an inconvenience”. It was not the first sentence that they had served, they had not learned anything in their time inside, and I do not suppose that it will be the last sentence that they will serve. Facilities are geared up for longer-term prisoners. The system cannot work for short-term prisoners; there is just not enough time for the rehabilitation side of things to work.

The second example involves a male aged around 17 whom I met with members of the Streetwork organisation. He was leading a group of younger boys. In front of them, he was bullish. He was proud to have already done time in a young offenders institution. He also appeared proud that he had another charge against him and that it was likely that he would find himself sentenced to time inside an adult prison for the first time. Only afterwards, when we started to talk to him after we got him away from the youngsters he was with, did we realise that perhaps he was not quite so bullish after all. He saw his life in prison as inevitable, but if he had the full support that perhaps he deserves, there would be a way out for that lad.

Those are two examples of why we need a total redesign. The partners that we have already are vital. They have experience, but the issue is the management of bringing the system together. I thoroughly believe that there is hope for the people out there, that we have a way forward and that there is common ground across all these benches. We can make this work and ease the pressure on the prison system.

I am convinced that we should get rid of short-term prison sentences. When I became an MSP, I came here thinking that many of the problems that we face locally should be sorted out by sending people to prison. I have learned that sentences of anything less than two and a half to three years are a waste of time—I have been converted to that. There are better ways to deal with people in our system.

I support the cabinet secretary’s motion.

15:49