Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2015
I congratulate Labour on bringing the issue of women offenders to the chamber. I am sympathetic to the intent behind the motion, but it misses the mark with regard to focusing on the issues that must be clarified and resolved if we are not to find ourselves in the same situation many months—or even years—from now, still pursuing an unrealised Angiolini-type strategy to deal with this vexing problem.
I pay tribute to the cabinet secretary for being prepared, even at this late stage, to reverse the plans for HMP Inverclyde. However, questions must be asked about why the decision to commission the prison was taken in the first place and why it has been reversed only at this late stage, after a staggering £7.8 million has been spent on the proposals. At a time when budgets are being squeezed across the board, that represents a significant dent in the public purse, which takes us back to the drawing board and creates yet more uncertainty about the way forward.
The Government has recognised the need for a national women’s prison, but the Labour motion fails to mention that, although Kezia Dugdale clarified the position. It is worth taking a moment to set out why such a prison is needed.
First, women are not in a different category from male offenders purely because of their gender but rather, as Dame Elish Angiolini emphasised, because there is a need to address the “distinct features and characteristics” of female offending.
Secondly, there is no doubt that there are dangerous—and even evil—women, just as there are men who fall into that category. Yesterday was Holocaust memorial day, which also marked 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, where approximately 1 million Jews were exterminated. It was a chilling reminder that some of the cruellest and most feared guards in Auschwitz were women.
Decades later, in the United Kingdom, there is a clear and present danger that results from a known increase in the number of women terrorists who are joining the Islamic State and who are not just perfectly prepared for, but fully committed to, carrying out the most evil atrocities.
I also found in my teaching experience in a previous life that a disruptive female pupil could be much more problematic than a male pupil. It is crucial that, in devising and delivering the best way forward to tackle female offending, and in sympathising with and seeking to put in place the most effective treatment for the vast majority of women prisoners, we avoid the temptation to look at the issue through rose-tinted glasses.
Instead, there is a need for a forensic and realistic assessment of the risk that women offenders present, which acknowledges that some—albeit a very small percentage—of the female offender population will, by the nature of their crimes, require a prison sentence for the public’s protection.
For the debate to be of tangible value, we want to hear a clear indication of precisely how the Government intends to move forward, including what provision is being made for the 218-type centres that tackle the higher lifetime incidence of severe and repeated physical and sexual victimisation, the higher rates of poor mental health and the greater tendency to self-harm that are recognised as being distinguishing features of women offenders. The evidence from judges, including sheriffs, makes it perfectly clear that they value having 218-type centres as a disposal and support many more of them being available as an option for sentencing.
It is depressing that, instead of giving a distinct commitment to 218-type centres and an explanation of how they will be resourced and financed, the Government has merely stated that the Scottish Prison Service
“will now undertake a period of extensive engagement with key partners.”
Community service and disposals have been mentioned, but not precisely the 218-type services that are the key. This is after the Equal Opportunities Committee conducted an inquiry into female offenders in the criminal justice system in 2008 and after the commission on women offenders, which was led by the former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini, published its comprehensive recommendations on women offenders in 2012, having consulted more than 100 individuals and organisations.
Seven years later, unless there is some meat on the bones and some concrete proposals, it looks very much as if we are back to square 1. Rather than vague statements about funding community projects that are not specified and about how it is imperative for service providers to work collaboratively with the criminal justice system, there should be a clear indication of how the 218-type centres, in line with the constructive proposals in the Angiolini report, will be funded and established.
I move amendment S4M-12160.3, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert:
“notes the decision of the Scottish Government to reverse its previously published plans for a female prison in Inverclyde; seeks clarity about the proposals for the new prison together with an explanation as to why this decision was taken so late in the day; further seeks information relating to the financial ramifications of the decision, and believes that the report produced by the Commission on Women Offenders led by Dame Elish Angiolini has constructive proposals for dealing with women offenders.”
15:42Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.
- S4M-12160.3 Women Offenders Motion