Meeting of the Parliament 18 September 2019
Mr Kerr has brought a philosophical debate to the chamber. I have to say that I increasingly find Mr Kerr’s views distasteful. I am not convinced that they are personally held but I know that he is keen on an evidence base for issues.
I do not want to have this debate on Mr Kerr’s ground. I understood that this was to be a debate about the wider aspects of our justice system, so I find it unhelpful for people to keep throwing out the mantra about a lack of public confidence in the justice system, and I do not know where Mr Kerr’s base for that would be. If we shape our views around exceptional events rather than the norm, we are going to have some difficulty.
We know about the view that Mr Kerr takes, because his motion talks about short sentences and the presumption against them. I will quote from the evidence that the Justice Committee received from Community Justice Scotland:
“there continues to be widespread support among professionals and academics, particularly stakeholders in community justice, for the use of community options over short custodial sentences wherever possible and appropriate.”
Appropriateness is the thing. I think that it was the cabinet secretary who talked about having confidence in the judiciary. I have confidence in our judiciary ensuring that the public is protected from individuals who pose a threat to them.
It is important that the wider implications of some of the things that have been suggested are also taken on board. Members have talked about the discussions that have been had in recent days about our totally unacceptable prison population. The idea that private companies are profiting from that prison population—I am sure that that appeals to Mr Kerr and his party—is also entirely unacceptable.
Mr Kelly talked about recognising some of the drivers of crime. Police Scotland has acknowledged that social conditions are a factor that drives its workload. We must acknowledge that.
On the point about victims, the view of Community Justice Scotland was:
“Short sentences are associated with greater rates of reoffending than other sentencing options. This suggests that if we are serious about preventing the creation of new victims, something different is required.”
That is what is missing from this debate. Members will be aware that the Scottish Green Party submitted an amendment to the motion, but it was not selected. It covered some of the things that we need to be doing.
We recognise the benefits of greater diversion from prosecution and we encourage that. We know that alternatives to custodial sentences require the judiciary to have faith in them. If it is to have faith in those alternatives, they must be robust, and if they are to be robust, they must be properly funded. Rather than millions going to provide additional places in private prisons, we should imagine the impact that that money would have if it was put into community options. We really need to get on with that.
The other thing that we need to get on with is the reinstatement of throughcare support in the Scottish Prison Service. I see nodding heads. That is about capacity and the implications of having overcrowded prisons. The Justice Committee heard yesterday from Prison Officers Association Scotland about the unacceptable number of assaults that are being caused by overcrowding, and their implications for staff. Any employer will assess the implications of the workplace conditions for their staff. A well-documented implication of the situation is that the number of officers who are off because of an assault or because of pressure of work simply compounds the problem.
We do not need to put more people in prison. We need to find robust alternatives to that. We also need to debate this in terms of finance. It seems that there is a broad consensus among four of the parties in Parliament that we need to move away from the embarrassing situation of having the largest prison population. That means a transfer of resources.
16:13