Meeting of the Parliament 20 February 2025
I, too, welcome the debate and the independent sentencing review. I know that it is dangerous to prejudge such things, but I confidently expect such a review to confirm the blunt reality that our justice system is too reliant on prison.
My confidence is reinforced by the fact that part 1 of the UK independent sentencing review’s report, which was published earlier this week, came to that very conclusion. That review is headed by former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke, who was withering in his criticism of what he described as the “penal populism” of some politicians. I have far too much respect for Liam Kerr—as he knows—to accuse him of such, but the repeated mantra of some in his party, who talk about soft-touch justice when our country has the highest prison population level per capita in western Europe, seems to fit Mr Gauke’s description rather well.
Although some of the criticisms in the Tory amendment are entirely valid, the apparent desire to lock up even more of our population is not. I urge Liam Kerr to follow the advice of his former colleague David Gauke. After all, it appears to be common sense.
Of course, prison is and will remain the best and only option for those who pose a danger to society. Even then, public safety demands that every effort be made to rehabilitate as well as to punish. We know that, in many instances, prison sentences are an ineffective deterrent and increase the likelihood of reoffending. If our number 1 priority really is, as it must be, to keep communities across Scotland safe, we need to recognise that there are often more effective tools for reducing crime than prison.
It is true that such decisions are for an independent judiciary but, as politicians, we have a role to play, partly in resisting the “penal populism” identified by David Gauke, but also in ensuring that the alternative options that are available to judges and sheriffs are properly resourced, robustly enforced and consistently available. That is not the case at present, as others have observed. Although that will certainly come at a cost, that cost is dwarfed by the cost of building more and more prisons to lock up more and more people, who will then be released to continue reoffending more and more often. I believe that sentencing and penal policy should reflect that reality and be guided by the evidence.
Although it cannot be the primary motivation, the review needs to reflect the context of the dangerous overcrowding that we see in our prisons. That overcrowding is dangerous for staff, for prisoners and, ultimately, for communities. Even though the Government was warned about the developing crisis for years, its action was, I would argue, slow and insufficient. It is certainly fair to argue that actions can take time to have an effect, but that argument becomes less persuasive over time.
Even now, there seems to be a lack of urgency. As Liam Kerr fairly noted, the cabinet secretary first announced her intention to commission a review of sentencing exactly a year ago. In that time, Scotland’s prison population has continued to balloon and Parliament has been asked to sanction two separate emergency prisoner releases, while granting sweeping future powers to ministers.
Although I welcome the review and believe that it is necessary, and I certainly wish Martyn Evans and his colleagues well, I think that Pauline McNeill is right to argue that it will take time for the review group to carry out its work and to come forward with recommendations. That is time that Scotland’s prison population can ill afford.
Scotland’s prisons are at a tipping point. That was the stark warning that Teresa Medhurst, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, gave last year. She was right to highlight the consequent risks for staff, for prisoners and, ultimately, for communities, to which I have already referred. Scottish Liberal Democrats support efforts that will reduce the use of prison sentences in favour of alternatives that we know are more effective and keep our communities safe. However, I cannot help feeling that the time that it has taken to get to this point suggests that the Government is still not fully facing up to the scale and urgency of the action that is required, and that must change.