The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-1219, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on reducing reoffending and improving the effectiveness of custodial and non-custodial sentences, and one amendment to the motion.

For too many years now, it has been the case that too many offenders in Scotland are offending time and again. In 2002, more than two out of every three people who were convicted of a crime or offence had offended before. The most recent figures show that 60 per cent of offenders are reconvicted within two years of release from prison. The figures show that 58 per cent of those who received a probation order and 42 per cent of those who began a community sentence order are reconvicted.

Those figures are not acceptable. Every single one of those offences represents someone in this country whose life has been damaged by the criminal actions of another. Lives have been damaged—too often lives have been lost—by the choices that one person has made about how they will behave, regardless of the cost to another human being.

The issue is about more than system failure. It is neither abstract nor theoretical: it is real and it is directly about the lives of ordinary women, men and children throughout this country. Therefore, the Government in Scotland has decided to confront the issue and all its challenges head on. We will act decisively to reduce reoffending.

We know where we need to be; the question is how best to get there. To reduce reoffending we need a criminal justice service that meets three straightforward tests. The service must first be an integrated service in which all offenders are managed consistently and appropriately throughout their sentences and in a way that manages their reintegration into our communities. Secondly, it must be a service of excellence that is focused on reducing reoffending, not on other issues. Thirdly, it must be a service that is structured and organised to deliver what we need, which is a consistent, sustained reduction in reoffending.

I am sure that everyone in the chamber today knows someone from their community whose life has been blighted by reoffending. Such people include individuals and families whose lives have been touched by crime and reoffending; victims of assault, theft, housebreaking, or antisocial behaviour, and other families that have been damaged—sometimes torn apart—when one member of the family offends repeatedly. That is the true cost of not managing sentenced offenders effectively.

I want a criminal justice system that is on the side of ordinary, decent people and a criminal justice service that is on the side of the many, not the few. I want a service that delivers the protection that people need and deserve. I want an integrated service to ensure that they are no gaps for offenders to fall through and no chinks for them to exploit so that they can avoid being held accountable for their actions and responsible for the choices that they make about the kind of lives that they lead. That is the challenge that faces our criminal justice service and which the service must face up to.

Some people will tell me that the problem of reoffending has no single solution. They are right and I agree with them, which is why the Government in Scotland is leading the most comprehensive justice reform programme for a generation. It includes High Court reform, the McInnes review, the Sentencing Commission, measures against antisocial behaviour, the risk management authority, and drug testing and treatment orders.

However, all those measures are not enough. More needs to be done because we need to end the revolving door of criminal behaviour, which is too often the norm. We will do that by recognising that the individual who offends is responsible for their choice and its consequences, and by building recognition of that fundamental principle into everything that we do with and offer to such individuals. We will demand of them that they accept that responsibility and that they face up to the consequences. It is important that we then offer them the chance to change their attitudes, behaviours and lifestyles. To do that, we and the service need to improve the way in which we manage, supervise and support offenders while they serve their sentences.

There are no easy answers or simple solutions. I have never been in the business of giving offenders more excuses than too many of them can come up with themselves. However, I believe that change is possible. If offenders take that responsibility, we should offer them the chance to change.

It is undoubted that factors in an individual's life can lead them to believe that a criminal act is acceptable or unavoidable. Drugs, alcohol and a life's experience of violence can all affect criminal behaviour. We need to recognise that and to develop sentence regimes that address, minimise or control factors that contribute to offending behaviour, and which maximise factors that encourage law-abiding lives. That is not about being soft on offenders, but about reducing crime and increasing safety in our communities.

We will not simply throw more resources at the system. Between 1992 and 2002, criminal justice social work budgets more than trebled from £18 million to £63 million. In the same period, the Scottish Prison Service's budget nearly doubled from £122 million to £229 million. Over 10 years, resources increased in real terms, yet all those additional resources failed to reduce reoffending. Therefore, despite what some might argue, additional resources are not necessarily the answer.

I will go further than that. Before I argue for additional resources, I want to be satisfied that every pound of public money that we spend now is being used to maximum effect. We need to examine critically the criminal justice service to identify its weaknesses and inefficiencies and then to develop a smarter integrated system that delivers the results that we want.

We already know much of what we need to do. People who are sent to prison are more likely to reoffend than those who are given community sentences, but the rise in the number of short-term prison sentences continues. In 2002, 97 per cent of all custodial sentences were for less than 4 years and 82 per cent were for 6 months or less.

We know that when an offender goes to prison, the links between that individual and the community are severed, but links with family, friends, home and the workplace can have a positive effect on an offender's behaviour. On release, those connections need to be re-established.

Supervision on release is not a legal requirement for short-term prisoners, but those offenders are most liable to reoffend. There is no time during those offenders' short sentences to deal with their attitudes and behaviour. Their community connections are severed and they have no supervision or support on release. If we are serious about reducing reoffending, that scenario makes no sense.

There is more. Community interventions are delivered by local authorities and voluntary sector organisations. Their availability, quality, objectives and results vary throughout Scotland. Inconsistencies make evaluation extremely difficult, so we do not always know which interventions are the most effective or are effective at all in reducing reoffending.

When an offender moves between prison and the community or from one local authority area to another, there is too often discontinuity or duplication of interventions. That lack of co-ordination and consistency damages and undermines our capacity to supervise and manage such an individual for the maximum reduction in reoffending.

There are also strategic issues that must be considered. There is no single organisation that has as its objective the reduction of reoffending rates, but shared objectives and clear lines of accountability are absolutely critical if we are to have the integrated management of offenders that we need in order to challenge their behaviour, supervise their actions and help them to take the opportunities that are on offer to change their lives and stop committing crime.

An individual who enters the criminal justice system will encounter a number of separate agencies, each of which works to its own agenda. At the most basic level, his details do not transfer from one organisation to another as he moves through the system. He could be assessed several times by different agencies, undertake a series of programmes or find himself subject to different interventions that are delivered by different agencies that have no shared objective. He might undertake no programmes at all. That is the current scenario; it is ineffective, wasteful and inefficient. It does not work well enough for public safety, for the staff in the service or for the offender.

I am not blaming anyone who works with or manages offenders, because I know that prison officers, social workers and workers from the voluntary sector are dedicated professionals who work under difficult situations with difficult issues every day. However, the system is also failing them—it holds them back from doing the best job they can. I am talking about a system failure, which must be tackled.

There is a strong and widely recognised argument for closer integration of the agencies that are responsible for delivering offender services. Closer integration could close the gaps in offender management that I have described. How can we achieve that? The experience of single agencies in Sweden, Finland, Norway, New Zealand and other countries suggests that they can provide consistent and effective interventions, common objectives and clear accountability for reducing reoffending. They can develop integrated offender management services and can direct maximum resources to reducing reoffending rather than to running the system.

That model is worthy of consideration, although I recognise that there are other models—for example, the national probation services of Germany and the Netherlands, and the administration of sentences by a central Government department, which happens in the Republic of Ireland and Catalonia. There are many ideas out there.

I believe in open debate. No one has a monopoly on good ideas. That is the spirit in which I decided to broaden our partnership agreement commitment to consult on the establishment of a single agency, so that we can more fully examine reoffending and what can be done to reduce it. I hope that in the short time that has been available to me, I have impressed colleagues with the context and scale of the problem that we face.

The consultation is an open consultation and I welcome all contributions that add value to the discussion, whether from victims or offenders and their families who have experienced the criminal justice system from different perspectives, or from the general public who live in Scotland's communities, whose contributions are also important. I say to my parliamentary colleagues that the debate is not a debate only for the professionals and I urge and challenge them to reach out and involve the communities that they represent and to let their voices be heard.

Minor change for minor improvement is not the issue for debate. The issues that we all need to address are how we can improve matters and what kind and scale of change we should make. I think that all of us would agree that building a safer Scotland is our goal and that there can be no finer goal. Taking on the challenge of reducing reoffending is central to that goal. I therefore commend the motion to members.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the publication of Reduce, Rehabilitate, Reform - A Consultation on Reducing Reoffending in Scotland and recognises the need for significant improvement and change in the management of offenders serving custodial and non-custodial sentences in order to reduce reoffending and step up the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.

I am always happy to discuss reoffending. The minister did not say much with which I would take issue, but sooner or later the Scottish Executive will have to stop talking about reoffending and do something about it.

The latest stage in the talkathon has been the publication of a pretty vacuous—even by the Scottish Executive's standards—consultation document, which is, intriguingly, called "Re:duce Re:habilitate Re:form—A Consultation on Reducing Reoffending in Scotland", which suggests that it might be time for a new offence of abuse of the English language. The online forum that is part of the consultation process has so far received a grand total of 10 responses, four of which are from an e-mail user known as "Scottish Executive". I am trying to make the point that we do not need gimmicks at this stage. I agree with the minister that we need debate, but more than that, we need action from the Scottish Executive, whose job it is to take decisions and get something done.

We know that Scotland has a problem with reoffending—we have debated the matter in the chamber on many occasions. Our recidivism rates are among the highest in Europe. Too often our prison doors are revolving doors. However, there is an inextricable link between reoffending and our penal policy. We send more people to prison than any other country in Europe. It is recognised by all parties in the chamber—with the possible exception of the Conservatives, who I will allow to speak for themselves—that the reality for many offenders is that prison just does not work. Some 60 per cent of offenders who are released from prison go on to commit further offences. We know that the success rates of community-based disposals are much higher, although it is true that prisoners who have committed particularly heinous crimes should be in prison.

Above all else, we need leadership from politicians—that is not the responsibility of Government alone, because Opposition parties must also accept responsibility—to persuade people that prison is not always the answer and that alternatives to custody are often better, more effective and tougher than prison sentences. Sentencing is ultimately a matter for judges and I am a great believer in judicial independence, but our job as politicians is to ensure that, in the first instance, we raise the debate and do not always play to the tabloid agenda. We must ensure that judges have a range of alternatives available to them, that they have confidence in those alternatives and that they feel able to use them.

We have had the debate on previous occasions and it is regrettable that the most notable contribution that the Executive has made to widening the range of alternatives to custody over recent months has been to withdraw funding from the Airborne Initiative. That was a step backwards in a debate that should be advancing.

Although reform of sentencing policy is fundamental and underpins all efforts to reduce reoffending, I agree with the minister that we have to look at the bigger picture. We have to look more at the routes out of crime that we are providing for offenders. We have to ask ourselves what support and encouragement is being offered to offenders—whether those offenders are serving custodial or non-custodial sentences—to enable them to maintain a crime-free life thereafter. Like the Scottish Executive, I believe that that requires more integration in the system. It requires more integration within and between the various agencies.

The Scottish Executive's big idea for achieving that integration is to have a single national correctional agency to bring together the Scottish Prison Service and criminal justice social work. I welcome the comments that the minister made about not having a closed mind on the matter—that is positive. That idea is the focus of my amendment today. I ask the minister to read the amendment carefully. In it, I do not say that the SNP is implacably opposed to a single agency; I say that we are not yet persuaded by the idea. I am not persuaded that major organisational upheaval will, in and of itself, make the difference that we all want to see.

Research that was carried out for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—not an organisation with which I always agree—has found no international evidence that single agencies work to reduce offending. I agree that the two halves of the system have to work together better. Nobody would look at the Scottish Prison Service and criminal justice social work and say, "The status quo is working perfectly and no change is required." However, is the best solution to bring those two organisations together? Better partnership working is required, so I ask the Executive to consider some arrangement along the lines of the joint future approach, when the national health service and community care were brought together to work more effectively without the kind of structural upheaval that would have been involved in a full-scale merger.

We also need to transfer resources from prisons to fund community sentences, but the question that we have to ask and answer is how a single agency will achieve that end.

For me, however, the biggest question about the proposal for a single agency stems from the fact that integration between the SPS and criminal justice social work is only one part of the jigsaw. Arguably, the more important links that we need to strengthen are those between the correctional services and the services that have been shown to help to reduce reoffending. Supporting access to health, education and employment will do more than anything else will to keep people out of crime. A single agency would leave those services, and the agencies that provide those services, on the outside looking in.

A single agency is something that works well as a line in a manifesto. I do not mean that to sound like a dig; all political parties are prone to doing that sort of thing. However, more questions than answers arise when the proposal is considered more carefully.

My intention is not to take an ideological or entrenched party position on the issue. If the Executive can produce compelling evidence to show that a single agency has a part to play in a package of measures to reduce offending, the Scottish National Party will give the proposal a fair wind. If not, we will oppose it. In those circumstances, such an agency will be a diversion from the real debate, which is about partnership and resources and about having the courage as politicians to change our approach to sentencing over the long term.

I move amendment S2M-1219.1, to insert at end:

"but is, as yet, not persuaded of the case for a single national correctional agency."

I am not usually gripped by the text of Executive motions. The language that is normally deployed invites me to welcome, praise, commend, warmly endorse or fulsomely enthuse over some perceived attribute of Executive activity. It usually stops just short of inviting me to embrace the Minister for Justice on the floor of the chamber with attendant shouts of jubilant acclamation.

As long as you leave it at the minister.

The minister—and Mr Henry—are safe because today is different. Today I can praise the candid language of the motion, in particular the phrase

"That the Parliament notes the publication" of the consultation document. The motion does not invite us to welcome or praise the publication. I have to say, however, that it is hardly written in the spirited language of ringing endorsement. The rest of the motion is also frank: it recognises the need for significant improvement and change and accepts the need to step up efficiency and effectiveness.

Far from being a clarion declaration of success, I have to say that the motion is a frank admission by the Scottish Executive that little has been done in the past five years to try to deal with the genuine problem of reoffending. It may be that Labour is content to let the blame for that lie with its Liberal Democrat partners because, of course, responsibility for justice in the first session of the Parliament rested with Mr Jim Wallace, who was then the Minister for Justice.

Having looked at the consultation, I have to say that it is difficult to welcome something that contains no proposals, but merely sets out the difficulties that prevail in Scotland. The reality is that, since 1999, the Scottish Executive has deluged Scotland with consultations. We have just about reached consultation burnout and, once electoral opt-out is added, we have an unfortunate tandem. People are fed up with Scottish Executive blether; they want some Scottish Executive bottle in the form of proposals and solutions.

I have listened to what the minister said about the prospect—I accept that it is no more than that—of a single national corrective agency. I share the reservations that Nicola Sturgeon expressed, but I feel a little more strongly about the matter. There is evidence that public sector departments have been slow to speak to one another across a wide range of topics over the past decade. That problem has been compounded by disparate technology systems that have, in fact, further impeded the process of communication.

A rigorous audit is required of the individual departments that are involved in the whole matter of offending and reoffending, in order to establish how they deal with technology, what the efficiency of their operations is and how their management structures attend to authority, responsibility and oversight. It seems that if we are prepared to look at the individual structures and the individual sectoral players, we could go a considerable distance down the road of improving communication of information. That would be a vital step to take; it would address what I consider at the moment to be a deficiency.

I also think that solutions can be implemented now. I do not expect the minister to agree with the solutions, but my party believes that measures could be taken at the moment, one of which would be the ending of automatic early release from prison. That in itself is only a part solution; the other part of the equation is improved rehabilitation. I am acutely aware that many prisoners on early release are victims of drug abuse and drug addiction. We have to make a marked improvement in how we cope with this situation.

I also think that there is a strong case for investigating the availability of drug treatment and testing orders for offenders whose cases are heard in the district courts. A huge number of offenders who come before those courts suffer from substance abuse problems. At the moment, it is only when that person graduates—ironically, because of a more serious crime pattern—to the sheriff court that that drug problem is addressed.

The idea of electing conveners of police forces to ensure that more police are put on the beat met with derision in this chamber when it was advocated by the Conservatives previously, but I think that the need for such action is becoming increasingly clear. The minister would, I am sure, accept that the Executive cannot ensure that more police go into our communities. The Executive might endeavour to allocate additional resources but, at the end of the day, we are in the operational hands of chief constables. There is a genuine concern in the chamber—certainly on the part of the Conservatives and the SNP—that there are not enough police in our communities. Increased democratic involvement of the public in the way that has been suggested would make a difference.

Annabel Goldie raises an interesting concept when she not only talks about the need for additional police in communities but questions the ability to influence operationally the way in which those police are used. She correctly points out the fact that the Executive, local councils and so on cannot dictate operational matters to chief constables. What would her solution be to ensure that politicians ensure that police are deployed in the way that she wants them to be?

There is a world of difference between political control of the police—which would be inimical to everyone in this chamber, I am sure—and introducing an advanced degree of democratic involvement that would allow the public to have some say in the general provision of law enforcement in their areas. The solutions that I have outlined could make a practical difference.

One area about which I am concerned in respect of the attitude of the Scottish Executive concerns the Airborne Initiative. That situation makes manifest the deficiencies of the Executive's approach as well as the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats. The project was dealing with some of our toughest young offenders and, according to an evaluation, was providing a useful addition to the range of non-custodial programmes for offenders who were otherwise at risk of a custodial sentence. Indeed, in their election manifesto last year, the Liberal Democrats hailed it as an exemplary model. However, despite that, the Executive, which comprises Labour and the Liberal Democrats, closed it down in February this year.

Although the motion earns praise for honesty and will be supported because it is an honest motion—I should point out that I am prepared to support the SNP amendment as well—it is an all-too-revealing exposé of what I am afraid is a rather depressing failure.

I agree with a great deal of what has been said already. It is absolutely crucial that we tackle the key problem of reoffending, which is a blight on all our communities and which, one way or another, affects every family in the country.

One thing that we can agree on is that there is no easy answer. There are partial answers, some of which we have heard already. I agree with Annabel Goldie that having police on the street deters people from offending, and there is much to be said for measures such as the extension of drug treatment orders. Furthermore, we need to consider proposals relating to integration. However, there are no easy answers: if resources were enough, the resources that we have invested in our five years in Government would have brought greater change than they have so far. Resources are not, in and of themselves, the answer.

We have record numbers of prisoners in our prisons and growing numbers of people on a range of community disposals, yet reoffending continues to be a growing problem. We welcome the Executive's open consultation on the issue. It is no secret that the Liberal Democrats and Labour disagree at the core of the issue in that the Liberal Democrats are sceptical about the single-agency solution. However, I think that the consultation says that that is only one potential solution out of many.

I was interested to hear some of the examples from outwith Scotland that the minister gave. It is important for us to look around the world to see what might work instead of looking narrowly at one possible solution. I welcome the fact that the Justice 1 Committee is to begin an investigation into rehabilitation in our prisons—that will be a useful contribution.

Some 60 per cent of offenders who are released from prisons and 42 per cent of offenders who began a community service order will be reconvicted within two years. Although the figure for community disposals is better, it is still not good enough. We need local and national strategies that are backed up by proper resourcing and which support all the partners who work in the field. That includes not only people in criminal justice, but people in the voluntary sector, people who deal with addiction and people in local authorities who deal with housing, early education, children in care and so on. It is crucial that all those people be brought together.

We should focus on reducing the number of people in our prisons—we say that repeatedly, but the figures still increase. Prison should be for the most serious offenders and for people who are a serious danger to the public. It should not be used for people who are there for only a short time; to be frank, that does not work. It is also an expensive option; a six-month prison sentence costs £15,000 whereas a community service order for the same period costs £1,400. I point out in passing that prison is cheaper than the Airborne Initiative, but it is still not good value for money.

We must ensure that the rehabilitation services that we provide represent good value not only in terms of the money that is spent from the public purse but in terms of how many people reoffend at the end. Prison is not giving good value on either of those things, and it often represents bad value. That is why we support the Executive's efforts to extend community disposals such as drug treatment and testing orders and restriction of liberty orders with safeguards. We must challenge offenders to take responsibility, to make reparation, to engage in restorative justice and, if possible, to remain in their communities to put something back as payment for their offences, rather than drag them from their communities and put them in prison, where none of those things will happen.

All the evidence suggests that community disposals are more effective. They allow people to remain in their communities, perhaps in employment, in accommodation and in family structures. It is crucial that community disposals be properly supported by the right personnel, the right programmes and the right amount of resources. Currently, only those who are given a custodial sentence of more than four years are statutorily entitled to supervision by criminal justice social workers on release. YouthLink Scotland and others have highlighted the patchy nature of transitional support for young offenders, and those who serve short sentences are unlikely to get the care and support that they need. In fact, for 83 per cent of those in custody no aspect of offending behaviour will be addressed in prison at all. That is not acceptable.

There needs to be better communication and integration of services. That means greater sharing of data and a more uniform approach to the provision of services so that people can continue with their rehabilitation if they move around the country. The most effective programmes address individuals' needs and their reasons for reoffending, and give the support that is required to turn them away from crime. There are people who think that the only way to integrate the services is through a single correctional agency. I welcome the minister's comments and her open mind on that. We remain sceptical, but we are committed to consultation on the matter and we will reserve judgment until that is complete. We must listen to the opinions and experiences of people who work in the system and those of offenders and victims.

We recognise the concerns that have been expressed, but the key question is whether setting up a single agency will achieve the objective of reducing reoffending rates. We will not support the SNP amendment today. During the coming weeks, we will listen to the justice community and to communities throughout Scotland on the matter. We will then be ready, as a party of Government, to tackle the issue head-on with proper commitment and proper resourcing.

We move to open debate. I expect to be able to call all members who wish to speak if members are disciplined about the use of the six minutes.

Of the individuals who were convicted of a crime or offence in 2002, about 70,000 were reoffenders. The focus of our criminal justice system is increasingly on reoffending and persistent offenders. The police approach to crime is to tackle not only individuals who commit crime but persistent offenders, and that is the right approach.

Reoffending is a complex issue. We should not get carried away with the idea that we can manage every case or that, if we have the right policy, we will solve all of it. Clearly, there are limitations to what we can achieve. Some offenders will continue to reoffend despite our policies. However, we could change the course of many recidivists' lives if we gave them the right opportunities and support. That is why this opportunity for consultation is too important to miss and I whole-heartedly support it. Like Margaret Smith, I alert members of the Parliament to the fact and emphasise to ministers that the Justice 1 Committee is conducting an inquiry into the specific issue of rehabilitation in prisons. I hope that we will be allowed to put forward our findings into the consultation process.

Offending behaviour is dealt with by the Scottish Prison Service primarily through structured programmes incorporating psychological principles that are known to impact on the way in which individuals think. It uses cognitive skills, anger management, drug prevention programmes and the STOP programme, which has been talked about in Parliament before. It is claimed that community programmes are much more effective in preventing reoffending, although research into that is limited. However, it is impossible to make comparisons unless the same offender and the outcome are compared. The nature of the more serious criminals who are in custody and the nature of prison itself mean that we are always at a disadvantage with people who are deprived of their liberty, who are naturally going to be disconnected from their communities; therefore, it is wrong to make comparisons directly between what prison can achieve and what community sentencing can achieve. I believe in alternatives to custody. The Executive is pushing down the right road, but we must strive for higher standards in those programmes and ensure that those who make the judgments have faith in the system.

I am of the opposite opinion to that of Nicola Sturgeon on the prospect of a single agency. I have a tendency to be very interested indeed in it. It may have started off as a line in a manifesto, but the more that I think about it, the more obvious it is to me that there needs to be central co-ordination of the services that we provide. The Prison Service runs a very good throughcare service and in the visits that I have made as part of my work in justice I have seen that it is striving for a better-quality system. However, it is clear to me that the throughcare service is disconnected from the rest of the service.

Does the member distinguish between what may be practical problems of communication and structural deficiencies? Does she agree that, before we proceed to structural change that might result in the creation of another quango, we should look carefully at existing communication in the system?

I totally accept that that is exactly the kind of examination that we want to have. I would not support the creation of an agency that was another quango—I have got a thing about quangos, anyway. I would not support the idea of a single agency if I did not think that there were structural problems.

The Executive has committed millions of pounds to the excellent post-prisoner release programme, which tries to ensure the sustainability of prisoners who have already got themselves off drugs. They undertake a 12-week programme, with assistance, out in the community. Let us be clear: that is where it all falls apart. A prisoner who has done very well and who has benefited from the rehabilitation programmes in prison goes out into the community, but the agencies do not come together to allow that person to continue on the programmes that they have benefited from. I am clear that there is something to be gained from looking at the situation in a more central way.

I have listened to the Prison Service and to the criminal justice social work service and I get the impression that each is arguing that it is better at doing that work. I think that it would be better to bring the two together and involve both in running the service. I ask the minister, in winding up, to consider whether there might be a greater opportunity for local accountability under a single agency structure. Could communities get more of a say in the methods or practices that we use to reduce reoffending?

I am miles behind what I was going to say, so I will summarise a point that I have made many times. There is a fantastic opportunity to end the vicious cycle of women's offending. I welcome whole-heartedly the establishment of the time-out centre. We must satisfy ourselves that that means that there will be a reduction in the number of women who go to Cornton Vale. Drug treatment and testing orders should also be available for lower tariff crimes, which may happen under the McInnes proposals. As the minister said, we should not be afraid to consider ideas from other countries. Like Michael Matheson, I believe that it is worth considering weekend custody as a way of ensuring that someone is able to maintain their employment.

I welcome the approach that the ministers are taking to this issue. They are ruling nothing out and there is much to be gained from all of us chipping in ideas.

If we are prepared to change, we must change how we prepare. This consultation document is very thin.

I want to address some specific issues that may illuminate the debate. In doing so, I remind us all that, on 5 September 2002, the Minister for Justice said:

"We have always recognised the work of the staff at Peterhead as world class. We have always pledged that their work and the ethos that they have created will be protected."

He continued:

"Peterhead will remain open and will be the centre for the treatment of long-term sex offenders in Scotland."—[Official Report, 5 September 2002; c 13375 and 13386.]

At the time, I welcomed those comments warmly, both from a constituency interest and in the wider public interest of people in Scotland. It was and remains my view that where Peterhead has led on reducing reoffending, others should and can follow. Rehabilitation and the reduction of reoffending are at the heart of the ethos and focus of all staff at Peterhead and form its core commitment—as exemplified by the international recognition of its achievements and the award of beacon status by the office of the Prime Minister. If we do not reduce reoffending after conviction by using prison and people repeat their offence—if we simply cycle them out and they roll back in the door within a short time—the whole purpose of the conviction and punishment that brought them into prison is lost.

It is disappointing that the minister's consultation document makes no substantive reference either to the achievements of Peterhead in showing a way forward with a particular class of prisoners or to the way in which a single correctional agency might incorporate a national centre for long-term sex offenders. Peterhead is excellent in performance, if not yet in facilities. How does it fit in?

One would imagine that the Scottish Prison Service would wish to praise the regime at Peterhead to the skies, but there is not a word about it. It is hard to escape the belief that SPS management continues to pursue an agenda to downgrade the work of the prison. We are making good progress on installing power in cells but, after 20 months, we have yet to find a way of eliminating slopping out. This morning's statement by the First Minister did not help in that regard.

There is little point in improving our record in reducing reoffending elsewhere if at Peterhead we lose the ability to do that for long-term sex offenders. This is not just a personal obsession of Stewart Stevenson, the member for Banff and Buchan, where Peterhead prison is located. Last week I received an e-mail from a prisoner—who has now been released—that praised the holistic approach of Peterhead and the staff who make it work. When considering reoffending and its reduction, the minister must not be dragged down the road of imagining that only programmes in prison will make the difference. Reducing reoffending—reorienting offenders in prison—is a dawn-to-dusk activity that involves all those with whom prisoners come into contact.

Prison visitors, chaplains, contractors and even MSPs do not meet prisoners unless they have been briefed on the aims and purposes in relation to changing prisoners' attitudes and beliefs. That is to ensure that none of us creates the opportunity for prisoners to escape from the relentless but humane pressure to reform by understanding the nature of their crimes and what they must do to prevent themselves from reoffending.

I am not persuaded of the need for a single, unified body, although I am less bigoted about that matter than is my colleague Nicola Sturgeon. I am delighted that Margaret Smith said that she was not yet persuaded of the need for such a body, but how she can then refuse to support an amendment that has that thought at its core baffles me. To support the SNP amendment is not to oppose the Executive. I say to her and to other members, "Courage, mes amis," and urge them to read the SNP amendment carefully and then vote for it at 5 o'clock.

I have in the past extended an invitation to the minister to visit Peterhead. I note in the consultation document that she intends to go round the country. I repeat my personal invitation to her to visit the staff of Peterhead prison and the Peterhead community, which supports what goes on in the prison and realises the importance of that work. Let me add a bit of spice to my invitation to the minister. Within a short drive from the prison is the United Kingdom's vegetarian pub of the year, which also has a good selection of vegan dishes. I will buy the meal if the minister will buy into Peterhead's lessons on reducing reoffending. I support my colleague Nicola Sturgeon's amendment.

The debate on how best to reduce reoffending and to rehabilitate and reform offenders is an important one that has the potential to impact radically on the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. By far the best way of reducing reoffending is to prevent an offence from being committed in the first place. Evidence from the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice shows that most adult offenders start committing offences as young people. Therefore, effective prevention involves identifying young children at risk as soon as possible, before a pattern of offending becomes established.

The consortium identifies a range of preventive intervention strategies for children at risk, which includes ensuring that they have quality pre-school education and that their parents are involved with, and receive a visit from, health professionals. Further, the parents should receive education in parenting skills. It seems that a multi-agency approach is much more effective than a criminal correction agency would be. I support the SNP's amendment in that regard.

Measures such as those to which I have referred, coupled with a greater police presence on our streets, help to prevent low-level offences, such as vandalism, from escalating into something more serious. However, for those who offend and reoffend, the appropriateness of alternative sanctions to custody should be considered, with prison remaining the ultimate sanction if all else fails. In the case of fine defaulters who have wilfully refused to pay, recovery should be made by deducting the fine from benefits or salaries, as the McInnes report recommended and the Conservatives have long advocated.

For other offences that might otherwise attract a short-term prison sentence, the appropriateness of imposing a custodial sentence or an alternative to custody is determined, in theory, by looking at the offence or pattern of offending and deciding whether there is a public safety issue. In practice, as Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending points out, court decisions are often based on what is available rather than on what is most effective. In other words, there is a resource problem because the alternative to custody is often not available. As Annabel Goldie pointed out, if a drug-related offence has been committed, it may be appropriate to consider a drug treatment and testing order, which requires an offender, if they consent, to undergo treatment for drug misuse. However, such orders are available only through the sheriff courts and are not an option in Scottish district courts, which deal with the minor offences that tend to involve a concentration of young people. As a result of the lack of resource, the opportunity is lost for early intervention to impose the sanction that is the most appropriate to address the offending behaviour.

Alternatives to custody must be properly resourced if they are to work. That is especially the case in relation to community service orders and supervised attendance orders, both of which require intense input from social workers. Given the current shortage of social workers in Scotland, we must question how effectively such orders are being implemented. The minister said that additional resources are not always the answer. I agree with that, but the resource problem that I have outlined is real and affects our ability to deliver the sanction that can most appropriately address the offending behaviour. I call on the minister to take note of that and to act accordingly.

I do not know whether there has been a survey of the number of consultations that have taken place since 1999, but members might be interested to know that there have been more than 700. I call on the minister to consult a little less and to act a little more, especially by putting resources into alternatives to custody.

I have often criticised Executive motions for being bland, but I strongly recommend the motion in this debate, which examines the issue honestly and critically.

It is quite reasonable for people such as Margaret Smith and me to say that we are a long way from being convinced of the need for a single correctional agency. However, given that the Executive has issued a consultation document on the matter, it is not sensible for supporters of the Executive to say that they do not want such an agency. We may set out our concerns, but we must then give the consultation a fair chance and examine the matter carefully. The motion, rather than the amendment, is therefore well worth supporting.

Does Donald Gorrie—or any member of the Liberal party—intend to criticise the idea of a single correctional agency in his response to the consultation?

Yes.

We must first try to find out what works. There are different points of view, as the difficulties over the Airborne Initiative showed. Some people thought that the project worked and some thought that it did not. We must thoroughly examine the difficult work of preventing offending and reoffending, which can trespass into dangerous areas in which help is offered that might be risky. The Justice 1 Committee, which Pauline McNeill convenes, or another committee, should thoroughly evaluate the alternatives to custody and consider past approaches as well as look ahead, to identify what works and what we should invest in.

We need a coherent, national strategy, but there is no such strategy at the moment. Such a strategy would have to be delivered locally, because systems vary in different parts of the country. Some local authorities and voluntary organisations run good schemes. The strategy would have to include concordats between the Scottish Prison Service and the social work service, so that each service knew what it must deliver to the other. Interesting pilot schemes are going on in—I think—two areas, in which local criminal justice boards are chaired by sheriffs principal. Those schemes have developed from ideas that were put forward by the Crown Agent, Andrew Normand, and they represent good examples of the co-operation that is needed. We must work at delivering such co-operation locally in accordance with a national strategy.

However, Governments tend to provide very focused funds for particular schemes. It would be much better if they provided social work services with adequate funding and told them to get on with things as best they can. That would allow proper scrutiny to take place and improvements to be made in areas where those services are not delivering. In any case, it would be much better if they could introduce local initiatives without having to jump through hoops.

To achieve that, we need someone like the inspector of prisons who would be an inspector of alternatives to custody. Instead of having a uniform bureaucracy running the whole thing, we need a gadfly who will go around establishments, recommend good practice that others can learn from, criticise bad practice and help people to come together in a much better way.

Some very good projects are currently running in prisons. As prisons are overcrowded, they cannot deliver proper education and address people's offending behaviour. I recently visited the Fairbridge project, which has a good track record of working outside jails with difficult young people. It has been working inside jails for a couple of years and, over the past year, it has been very successful in helping more than 100 young people in prisons and in Polmont young offenders institution. The project seems to be interesting those young people in education. When, as a member of the Justice 1 Committee, I visited prisons once a week, I formed the impression that although prison education services were excellent, they were never used because the system did not work like that. However, the Fairbridge project seems to have got over that problem.

We must invest more people and resources not only in alternatives to custody but in helping people earlier. Children's services are grossly under-resourced in staff and funding. The earlier we can help families and children with difficulties, the more we will reduce the number of people we have to deal with through custody or alternatives to custody.

This afternoon's debate has one of those general, aspirational titles such as "Action to Promote Women", "Better Behaviour, Better Learning", "Improving Scotland's Health" or indeed "World Peace" with which few could disagree. As a result, I will address some general themes instead of looking at specific details.

Although a fair amount of cold water has been poured on the Executive's consultation document, I welcome it and congratulate ministers on taking the issue seriously. Such an approach is so much more constructive than some people's attitudes to issues of offending. Even in parliamentary debates, the language used in relation to these issues is punctuated by mindless name-calling for the sake of a few cheap tabloid headlines.

We should welcome many of the ideas in the consultation. If they are followed to a logical conclusion, they will force a move away from the tough on crime side of Labour's old slogan and require more of a focus on causes. One of the most important elements is the emphasis on support for released prisoners. A great deal could be achieved if the Executive could ensure that all ex-prisoners had the help that they needed to build a stable life on their release. As the consultation points out, that means addressing issues such as accommodation, employment, health services and family ties. However, it also means less tangible concepts such as hope, self-respect and a respected place in wider society.

I also greatly welcome the goal of ensuring that Scottish society views prison as the ultimate sanction for the most serious offenders and people who pose an unacceptable risk. However, the endorsement of retribution as a purpose of the prison system is not to be welcomed. Prison as a means of physically protecting the public from people who endanger them is of course indispensable. Prison as a place of rehabilitation is even better. However, the endorsement of the concept of retribution by an Executive that has stated its own commitment to a Christian society is wrong. I am not a Christian and I am certainly not a theologian, but I seem to remember something from the worship that I endured in schools about forgiveness and turning the other cheek. How sad it is to read this week that such sentiments will still be chanted and sung in our schools when retribution will still be a goal of our justice system.

Does the member accept that what I have said today—and, indeed, the thread that runs through the whole consultation document—is about getting offenders to take responsibility for their actions and about putting respect back into our local communities? Does he accept that there is nothing wrong with either of those concepts?

I can endorse those concepts, but I cannot endorse this from the Executive's consultation document on reducing reoffending:

"Prison sentences are necessary ... to fulfil the goals of retribution and deterrence."

That language is entirely unhelpful.

Abandoning the notion of retribution does not mean opening the jails and letting everyone walk free, any more than forgiveness has to mean turning the other cheek. The Executive endorses the principle of restorative justice but seems determined to place it within a justice system that is based on notions that are directly opposed to that principle. The way forward has to be a truly restorative system that deals with more than just the question of who committed what crimes and how we should express society's anger about them. Such a system would be more likely to succeed in reducing reoffending. It would mean using prisons—prisons that are adequate and that treat human beings as human beings, rather than the squalid warehouses that still exist—only to protect society from danger or to ensure compliance with rehabilitation programmes that are otherwise available in the community.

Does the member not agree that it is entirely reasonable for someone who is the victim of a serious crime to want that crime to be marked as a serious crime? Sometimes it is not enough just to establish that the person who committed the crime will not be able to commit it on someone else. Some crimes are sufficiently serious that they have to be marked as such, even if the people who committed them are not a threat to anyone else.

The next paragraph of my speech is about victims. I hope that it will answer Ms Lamont's point.

The Executive has given high priority to victims' needs and for good reason. Supporting victims can reduce the impact of individual crimes and the fear of crime in general. However, to focus only on victims would be as misguided as to ignore them completely. Such a focus can lead to a sense that all we have to do is react to crime, rather than explore new and challenging ideas. It can also reinforce the notion of a clear division between victims and offenders. In reality, many of us are both victims and offenders at various points in our lives. Pauline McNeill's question in today's First Minister's question time on slopping out in prisons reminded me of that. It is too easy to decry the payment of compensation to prisoners by labelling them as convicted criminals. They are convicted criminals, of course, but they are also the victims of a human rights violation. It is their victimhood that demands compensation. Offenders and victims are not always separate groups in society. A recognition of that would help to promote serious consideration of what are complex issues. Pointing the finger of blame can never do that.

I sincerely congratulate the Executive on opening debate on this issue, and I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on her assertion, in her speech today, of her belief in rehabilitation, and on her acknowledgement of the harm that prison can do. However, society is a long way from taking those ideas to their logical conclusion. I hope that the results of the consultation will show that to be true.

I am sure that members will be wise enough to resist Annabel Goldie's consistent attempt, however charming, to rewrite history. Reoffending is not a problem that simply appeared five years ago; it was a problem during the dark decades of the Conservative Government and I did not see Annabel Goldie attempting to do anything about it then.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the context in which we approach this debate. Three statistics jump out: Scotland has the fourth highest rate of imprisonment in the European Union; in 2002, 82 per cent of custodial sentences were for six months or less; and 70 per cent of all individuals who were convicted of a crime or offence in 2002 were actually reoffenders.

The aim of putting someone in prison is twofold. Prison is about punishing the offender; I hope that Patrick Harvie is not suggesting that people who commit serious crimes should not pay for them in some way and should be merely let off. However, prison is also about rehabilitation, which enables us to stop people committing crimes in the future.

Why are we failing to deter so many individuals from reoffending? It may seem obvious to say that prison isolates offenders from their families and their communities. Isolation may indeed be necessary for those who are convicted of serious crimes, but the majority of offenders who are sent to prison on less serious charges suffer from it—it is probably the hardest hurdle for them to overcome on their release. An ex-prisoner will often struggle to find a job or even to secure accommodation. They might have lost touch with family and friends and might be suffering from drug or alcohol addiction. Being released from prison into a community in which there is no apparent support network makes it more, rather than less, likely that the individual will reoffend.

Rehabilitation is a difficult task, especially in the short term. When an offender is serving a sentence of six months or less, addressing the root causes of their behaviour and providing rehabilitation is certainly challenging and I am sure that the minister will be aware of the concerns that exist about the efficacy of the programmes that are available in prisons for those offenders who are on short-term sentences. We are beginning to acknowledge that, given the complexity of need, the most effective sentences—whether they are custodial or non-custodial—are those that take into account the much broader problem areas of the offender's life, such as health, addiction, literacy and employment.

Prison is an expensive resource; it costs about £15,000 to fund a six-month prison placement. Do not get me wrong—if that provided the answers, we might not be having this debate, but it is clear that prison does not tackle reoffending. I think that it is time that we considered more effective and long-term alternatives to short-term prison sentences.

What works? There are examples of—and better awareness and use of—community reparation as an effective means of dealing with offenders. In addition, the findings from SACRO's alcohol education probation programme have highlighted the positive effects of alternatives to custody. The programme was designed to give participants a much better understanding of the effects of alcohol and a greater ability to control their use of it. Of the 68 people who completed the programme, 71 per cent had no further convictions after one year.

Another example of a reasonable service to do with tackling reoffending is the constructs project in West Dunbartonshire, which acts as an alternative to probation or prison. Offenders focus on addressing the consequences and impact of their offending behaviour and on some of the underlying causes, such as alcohol and drug abuse. Whatever the intervention, it is essential that it is provided as early as possible—before the offending becomes more serious—that it addresses individual needs and that it is available consistently throughout Scotland.

I say to Patrick Harvie that we must acknowledge that there will be people who still require to go to prison. We must get much better at providing throughcare and aftercare for those people. It is particularly damning of the prison service that offenders can be released into the community without having a home to go to. That means that they end up sleeping rough, the consequence of which is that one of the first things that they do is to reoffend.

As part of the consideration of other ways to reduce reoffending, I recognise that there will be a debate about structural change, but I think that we have the emphasis slightly wrong. Before we start to have a debate about institutional clutter, it is much more important for us to agree what works, what we need to achieve and what our objectives are. In my view, we need to broaden the scope of our search for answers on reducing reoffending. The statistics make it clear that not all the answers lie exclusively with the criminal justice system or prisons. We must realise that if we are to achieve long-term success as opposed to a short-term fix, we need to focus our attention and resources on reducing levels of reoffending.

I assure you, Presiding Officer, that I will be judicious in my use of language in this debate.

No reoffending.

I will enter into the spat between Miss Goldie and Ms Baillie on the stats. A great deal of sense has been spoken. The statistics are not new. It is almost 25 years since I embarked on a traineeship as a solicitor in Glasgow in a criminal defence firm, and the statistics were as bad then as they are now. The blame does not lie with one Government, past or present. To some extent, the statistics are a mark of shame on all society.

I do not wish to exculpate the Executive, but reoffending is a major issue, and the Executive deserves credit for addressing it. However, it is not promoting any action. We stand for election to implement a manifesto. The Executive is correct to consult, because it is important to do so in a democracy—we do not wish to have tyranny by the majority—but it is important that at some stage we stop the talking and start the action, as Nicola Sturgeon said. At the end of the day, we know roughly where we have to go—it was mentioned by Jackie Baillie and others—we know what action has to be taken, and we have to have the political courage to take it.

A number of members, including Kenny MacAskill, have criticised the amount of consultation. Does Kenny MacAskill suggest that we should stop consulting completely and just act?

Absolutely not. There is a time and a place for consultation, but there is a time when it has to stop and action has to be delivered. We are keeping our options open regarding the single correctional agency. Consultation should take place on that. However, if we recognise that there is a fundamental problem with the number of people who are going to prison, and a failure to examine alternatives, we have to take action.

That brings me to the statistics, which are shameful. We all recognise that we have a demographic problem, in that we have a declining number of young people. With that declining number of young people, we should see a decline in the rate of offending. Any criminologist would say that. The expected decline in the rate of offending is not unusual or peculiar to Scotland; it goes with the terrain. However, the statistics are clear that, notwithstanding the reduction in the number of young people in our community, more people are going into prison. Something fundamental is wrong. One reason for that situation is drugs, which have changed matters fundamentally. I see that the Minister for Justice agrees with that. Drugs have changed the nature of the game.

I no longer practise law, but I have held discussions with criminal lawyers and people who are involved in the protection of children and children's services, and they all accept that things have moved on and that drugs are a fundamental problem. We will not solve the drugs problem in our society simply by locking up more and more people. That is not to say that, in many instances, people who take drugs should not be put in prison to protect the public and for retribution. However, the situation has changed, and we are putting far too many people behind bars who should be dealt with differently. Those people are not just female offenders or people who cannot pay their fines, but people who have a drug problem. We must address that situation, because it is a social problem, not a criminal justice problem.

I disagree with Mr Harvie when he says that retribution should not apply. I do not mean that we should go down the route of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and replicate Saudi Arabian justice. The purpose of having community service orders, compensation orders and the ability to impose fines is to recognise that society has a right to say, "You have transgressed. You have acted in a way that is unacceptable. Not only do we wish to stop you and ensure that you do not reoffend, but we wish you to make recompense to your fellow citizens who have suffered as a result of your behaviour." I see nothing outrageous or unreasonable in that.

In what way is a community paid back or recompensed, rather than protected, when someone is put in prison?

I was referring to the purpose of community service orders and compensation orders. A community is not paid back when a prison sentence is given, although it often receives protection. I have had the misfortune to represent sociopathic people from whom society needs to be protected. If Patrick Harvie does not realise that some people in our society are highly dangerous and need to be incarcerated not only for our protection, but for their protection, he needs to make a deeper investigation of the social problems that exist.

My other criticism of the Executive is on the idea of a single correctional agency, on which I am not sold. As a representative of the city of Edinburgh, I am aware of the City of Edinburgh Council's proposal along the lines of, "Let's kick the social work department." I admit that, in 20-odd years as a lawyer, I gave the social work department a fair kicking at times. People frequently attack social work departments; they are seldom defended. However, the matter must be viewed holistically. I worry that if we put criminal justice social work in prisons together with the prisons agency, we may not realise the necessity for holistic social work that looks outside the prison walls to the family, drug use and so on. A single agency might replicate some of the problems that may arise in Edinburgh as a result of the Labour group's proposed changes in the social work department. Politicians frequently abuse such departments—I am as culpable as anyone—but it is about time that we had the courage to defend them and protect the broader benefits of their work.

Lenin, a man who knew about spending time in prison, once advised that ours is not to laugh or cry, but to understand. However, we sometimes cannot help but cry. Scotland's record on sending people to jail and reducing reoffending is woeful. As the minister and others have said, we have record numbers of people in jail—at present, the figure is 6,400 and some estimate that it will reach 8,000 by 2012. We must not forget the terrible conditions that exist in many establishments, which include overcrowding and slopping out; Donald Gorrie mentioned that. As members have said, the reoffending rates are disappointing, with 60 per cent of offenders reoffending within two years.

Many questions arise from those figures. Why do we have those levels of reoffending? Who are we dealing with? Who are we trying to rehabilitate? Why are we failing? The minister has said today and in the consultation document that individuals are responsible for their actions. Of course they are, but that is only half the answer and half the question. I remind the minister that, compared with the average citizen, prisoners are 13 times more likely to have been in care, 10 times more likely to have been a regular truant, 15 times more likely to be HIV positive and 2.5 times more likely to have had a family member convicted.

The Government's social exclusion unit highlights that 80 per cent of prisoners have the writing skills of an 11-year-old; that 65 per cent have the numeracy skills of an 11-year-old; and that 50 per cent have the reading skills of an 11-year-old. The figures also show that 70 per cent of prisoners have a mental disorder and 70 per cent have a drug problem. We must remember and reflect on the fact that that is the type of person with whom the Scottish Prison Service deals. The social exclusion unit's point is that the link between social exclusion and reoffending is inextricable. Unless we recognise that central point, any plans to reduce the level of reoffending will be condemned to failure.

Comment has rightly been made about the need to prevent crime and we have heard that in some circumstances it is right both to punish the individual and protect individuals and the community. Colin Fox describes, graphically and correctly, a tragic situation whereby too many people are in prison because they are the product of individual circumstances, family circumstances and the kind of community that they come from. I accept everything that he is saying. However, does he accept that the difficulty that we face is that the current system is clearly not delivering in the ways that he suggests it should? We are trying to find alternatives to a system that is clearly failing.

I thank the Deputy Minister for Justice for his intervention and I will come to that point.

This is an important debate, in the context of the points that I have made. What must strike any observer is that there is a strong desire in every quarter—I include the Executive—to reduce the reoffending levels and the prison population, but that we are failing to achieve that.

This morning, I attended a protest that was held outside the City of Edinburgh Council headquarters. The protest was about plans to break up the council's social work department and separate the functions that were previously integrated; the plan is to move from a single agency to a multi-agency approach. Kenny MacAskill mentioned that. It is interesting that the criminal justice social work department has been left high and dry—people in that department believe that they are awaiting absorption into the single agency that is outlined in the Executive's document.

The timing of the debate is curious. The consultation document makes it clear that the deadline is 25 May, so there are still about four weeks to go. We are having the debate before the consultation is complete and before the submissions from other organisations have been published.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

I hope that the Executive is not trying to pre-empt the consultation and besmirch the democratic process. If criminal justice social work and the Scottish Prison Service are absorbed into one agency, the democratic accountability of current social work services will be lost, criminal justice social work will be separated from the rest of the council social work services and another quango will be established. No wonder Unison, the Association of Directors of Social Work, COSLA and many others are opposed to the plan. Like other members, I will support Nicola Sturgeon's amendment.

Social work in Scotland has to be sold as a profession. The Executive has to do more to promote social work and to celebrate the thousands of successes that it has every day. The public perception of social work is woeful and social workers are the whipping boys for every failure, so it is no wonder that there is a crisis in recruitment. The Executive needs to celebrate and promote the successes of social work and encourage more young people and adults who are looking for a career change to go into the profession and have the rewarding experiences that it can offer.

Other members, such as Jackie Baillie, have posed the question, "What works?" The consultation document refers to the experience in Finland, which started from the same levels of custody and reoffending as us. Finland has successfully reduced both those levels to among the lowest in Europe, because it has chosen to opt for conditional and community services instead of custodial sentences. The difference between Finland and Scotland is that there is a political will in Finland to go down such a road, whereas no such political will exists here.

Matters relating to rehabilitation, such as supervision and providing every offender with a dedicated social worker, have cost implications, but the cost of failure is bigger still. It costs £32,000 to keep somebody in jail for a year and ex-prisoners in Scotland are responsible for more than £1 billion-worth of crime. The answer is to have fully funded programmes that are accountable, assessed and evaluated.

This is an extremely important debate, because the consultation focuses us on what society requires from our criminal justice system. I say to Colin Fox that the debate is part of the consultation process—his views have now been heard publicly as part of the consultation. We must also focus on how we deliver.

There must be punishment for those who offend—the punishment is being locked up in prison or being made to do community service. However, we need an integrated strategy to prevent offenders who have served their punishment from offending again and again. That has not been dealt with sufficiently in the past. To make that happen, we need consistent, properly evaluated and robust rehabilitation programmes and throughcare and aftercare for offenders, whether they are prisoners or people who are doing their time in the community. We need a thorough evaluation of community disposals, because although the figures say that 62 per cent of prisoners reoffend and that only 45 per cent of those who have community disposals reoffend, we do not know whether we are comparing like with like and what types of offender go to prison or perform community service.

Although we think that the programmes at Peterhead are excellent, we do not know whether they work, because we do not have an evaluation of them.

rose—

I know what Stewart Stevenson wants to say, so I will not give way.

Maureen Macmillan can say it for me.

I know that everything seems fine so far, but we also know that the effectiveness of programmes for sex offenders must be examined in the long term.

Will the member take a brief intervention?

No, thank you. I want to move on.

Evaluation has to be done. In the previous session, the Justice 1 Committee spent months and months on examining alternatives to custody. In the end, we could not make a decision, because no proper evaluation was available of what the alternatives did. We had a gut feeling that they produced the goods, but we had no evidence to support that feeling. We could see that some good programmes were offered, but they were not consistent throughout the country.

There is strong pressure to replace all very short prison sentences with community disposals, because short sentences disrupt offenders' lives to the extent that reoffending becomes almost inevitable. However, that must be balanced against the need for appropriate punishment and community safety. We need to consider not just prison versus community disposals, but how the prison experience can rehabilitate and allow better engagement with family problems, housing problems, substance misuse and—most important—basic literacy and numeracy problems. At present, those needs are more easily addressed by multi-agency working through the community disposal route, but it should not be impossible to have something like that in prisons and certainly when an offender leaves prison.

It is difficult to understand the prison authorities' acceptance that nothing much can be achieved by way of rehabilitation for prisoners who serve sentences of under four years. There is no statutory requirement to support such prisoners on release. Four years is a long time and it is enough time to make a difference to somebody's life.

Prisons have some good programmes on anger management and very good examples of education. I would like basic literacy and numeracy to be an integral part of the prison regime. At the moment, education seems to be optional and many prisoners prefer not to follow education programmes but to earn money working—no matter how mindless the task. I would like prisoners to be encouraged to engage in education programmes, perhaps through financial incentives.

Work in prisons is hit and miss. Granted, any kind of work is better than none, but we should teach prisoners transferable skills that can be used in the outside world. It would be preferable to provide prisoners with Scottish vocational qualifications or certificates of competence in skills that can help them into employment when their sentences are over. The availability of work in prisons should not depend only on outside organisations awarding contracts to prisons.

In my visits to prisons in the past five years as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and of the Justice 1 Committee, I have become aware from speaking to prisoners that they are terrified of what lies in store in the outside world. After nine or 10 years behind walls, they worry about where they will live, how they will make a living and how they will interact with the community. Organisations can help. The Helping Offenders Prisoners Families project that I came across at Saughton aims to give excellent support, but it is not replicated throughout the country.

In Aberdeen, the Justice 1 Committee was told that men leaving prison walked straight into the clutches of drug dealers. The police even pointed out the corner where that happened. In Inverness, an ex-prison officer who now works for SACRO told me that ex-prisoners would turn up at prison gates to ask for help from prison officers who could not help them because their job ended when the prisoner was released and they no longer had a role.

We need a seamless transition from prison to support networks. Criminal justice social workers take over from prison officers. They do a tremendous job, but they are severely overstretched and are very aware of the almost insurmountable difficulties that long-term offenders experience with integrating. One Saughton inmate who was serving his third term told me that each time he was released from prison, he went straight to the pub, got drunk, assaulted someone and went straight back to jail. We must be able to intervene between the prison and the pub and between the prison and the drug dealer.

I know from criminal justice social workers that many offenders with whom they deal have been victims of physical or sexual abuse as youngsters. We must therefore address their psychological needs and low self-esteem.

We do not have an easy task ahead. There are questions about how support will be delivered and we must be careful that we do not alienate any of the players. I know that criminal justice social workers in particular would welcome a chance to make their views known.

We now move to winding-up speeches.

I start by addressing the SNP's amendment, which suggests inserting at the end of the motion the words:

"but is, as yet, not persuaded of the case for a single national correctional agency."

I say to the SNP that if it had put in the words "or against" after "the case for", the amendment might have been more successful.

The raw figures appear to paint a gloomy picture of reoffending in Scotland—the minister and many other members have referred to that. Some 60 per cent of young offenders and 44 per cent of adult offenders reoffend within two years of their release. That is a damning figure that this country cannot be proud of. The only glimmer of hope is that things are better than they were under the Tories, when 70 to 80 per cent of juveniles leaving prison custody reoffended.

Today's debate has been timely, as people are now beginning to realise what the Liberal Democrats have been saying for some time. Prison is simply a training ground for criminals and does not work for a vast number of people. I repeat what Jackie Baillie said. Some 82 per cent of prison sentences are for six months or less and there is no statutory aftercare or supervision for people who have received such sentences. Margaret Smith referred to the fact that many of those people—of course, many are young people—simply do not need to be in prison. The effect of those short sentences is that victims do not get the justice that they deserve and criminals will not in any way be turned away from their behaviour.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently emphasised the need for a rehabilitative and restorative approach. Such measures would include drug treatment and testing orders, electronic tagging, acceptable behaviour contracts, supervised attendance orders and speeding up community service programmes. I entirely agree with Kenny MacAskill, who referred to people who take drugs and the number of people who are in prison for having very small amounts of drugs. Yesterday, we heard from a chief constable at the joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee on the budget that often criminals are taken to a police station with tiny amounts of cannabis on them and are then charged; many of them end up in prison. We must seriously consider that area.

It is important to discuss the management of offending, but more important is how we ensure that the victims get the justice that they deserve, that prison works for the small number of dangerous criminals and that non-custodial sentences focus on educating people away from offending and towards recompensing victims.

The work of Fairbridge, which is based in Leith in Edinburgh and to which Donald Gorrie has already referred, is a good example of what can be done. Fairbridge runs access courses in Scottish prisons involving 100 young people. Few of those young people have formal qualifications, 45 per cent have no experience of work and 26 per cent have difficulties with reading and writing. Since January, 77 per cent of those who have been released continue to engage with Fairbridge, although—sadly—20 per cent have returned to prison. For a good number of those young people, perhaps the way forward is for engagement to happen before they enter prison.

Annabel Goldie confirmed that she wanted to end automatic early release. It is sad that the Tories still want simply to lock up more people. I assume that if the policy of automatic early release was ended, we would end up with more people in prison, but surely the debate today is about keeping people out of prison. The Tories' policies are focused on custodial sentences and punishment.

Mr Pringle misunderstands what I said. Automatic early release is release from prison for people who have had a sentence imposed and for whom, therefore, in the opinion of a judge, prison has been deemed appropriate. I want to get rid of the completely dishonest arithmetic that is involved in imposing prison sentences. The public overwhelmingly wants that, too, and it would not change the discretion of the court to determine when prison is suitable.

My point was that such a policy would mean more people ending up in prison. The overwhelming evidence shows that custodial sentences do not work for the majority of criminals. They do not act as a deterrent and mean that victims are more likely to be subject to further attacks.

I refer to Patrick Harvie's comments briefly: prisons are about retribution—prison is society's retribution, as other people have said. He might not like it, I might not like it, but it is a fact.

A topic that, sadly, is not covered by today's motion is that the best way in which to deal with offending is to make sure that it does not happen in the first place. At yesterday's joint meeting of the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee, I was pleased that the chief constable of Strathclyde police put it on the record that there have never been more police in Scotland than there are now. That shows the commitment that the Executive and the coalition have to policing. Although I disagree with the Tories, the issue is about more police being on the beat.

I welcome the consultation, but I remain to be convinced whether the centralisation of services is the best way forward. That approach would remove local accountability for the community-based sentences that are administered by council social work departments. We need an organisation that is locally based and which can deliver the key aims and objectives that we all want, subject to local conditions.

The idea that organisational restructuring will have a significant impact on reoffending is misguided. I hope that the consultation focuses on the real barriers to reducing reoffending, which are sentencing policy and funding, rather than bureaucracy. We all want a criminal justice system that gives victims justice and prevents the criminal from reoffending, but whether a central agency that would control all prisons and restorative justice schemes is the way forward remains to be seen at the end of the consultation process.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under rule 8.2.6 of standing orders, would you be minded to accept a motion without notice, to accept an amendment to amendment S2M-1219.1, which would substitute "of" with the words "for or against" if I provided that to you in writing before 5 o' clock?

Although I appreciate the member's motivation, and I am seriously tempted, I am not minded to accept such a motion on this occasion.

This has been a good debate, predicated in part by the fact that the Executive's motion encouraged a fairly rational discussion. At the end of what has been a difficult couple of weeks for the minister, she will be relieved to hear that, like Annabel Goldie, I am not about to embrace her on the chamber floor. The Deputy Minister for Justice will be even more relieved.

A number of the points that have come out of the debate are worthy of being examined in greater detail. The minister, like Nicola Sturgeon and Margaret Smith in particular, misinterprets certain figures. It is true that the recidivism rate for those who have served custodial sentences is unacceptably high. Pauline McNeill was right to highlight that, when one compares that rate to the recidivism rates for the other disposals, it is not totally out of synch with them. Those who have been sentenced to custody are at the heavier end of the criminality scale and, in that respect, the fact that 60 per cent of them reoffend within two years is hardly surprising. That the 58 per cent who are made subject to a probation order reoffend is disturbing; it is equally disturbing that the 42 per cent who are sentenced to community service reoffend.

We should look at other figures, including one that will make disturbing reading for us all, namely that for every 100,000 of the Scottish population, 115 people are in jail at any one time. That is a depressing figure. It is equally depressing that for every 100 people in Scotland, 8.3 crimes are committed. If one compares our figures to those of some of our European partners, the picture becomes even more disturbing. In Spain, the figure is 2.3 crimes per 100 people and in Portugal, the figure is 3.6 crimes per 100 people. However, Spain locks up almost identical numbers of people as Scotland and Portugal locks up more, at 124 per 100,000. Therefore, the argument might be that prison works.

I would like to spend some time talking about the alternatives that do not work, although they could be made to work with a little more foresight and force and much more imagination. The vast majority of disposals imposed by Scottish criminal courts are fines, and the rate of non-payment of those fines is totally and utterly unacceptable. Although the Executive has introduced the supervised attendance order as a non-custodial alternative to those fines, I do not think that that will work, as I have said before. However, what undoubtedly would work and what would remove the problem of people going to jail for unpaid fines—which nobody wants—is for those fines to be deducted from salaries and benefits. I am sorry to keep banging on about that, but until such time as the minister is prepared to do it, we will have the problem.

Bill Aitken keeps banging on about it and I keep banging on with the same answer. The courts have the power to do that at present in certain circumstances.

The minister is well aware of the convoluted process that the courts are required to go through. Contact must be made with the Benefits Agency in each individual case, and it is up to the Benefits Agency, not the court, to decide whether the benefit can be deducted at source.

Bill Aitken will also recall that we had an interesting discussion on the recommendations of the McInnes review. At that time, his party agreed that the process to which he refers was a wasteful use of both court time and police time, and that it would be better to have a separate agency to deal with the issue of fine collection.

I shall come to that later in my speech, but until such time as fines are paid, we will have a problem, because fines do not bite and they do not deter people from criminality.

I am greatly in favour of community service, because I think that it has the ability to bring firmly home to an offender the consequences of their misbehaviour, especially where the offence of vandalism is concerned. The last time that I asked the Deputy Minister for Justice's much lamented predecessor about the completion rate for community service orders, I was told that it ran at between 60 and 75 per cent. Frankly, that is unacceptable. Equally frankly, I have some difficulty in accepting those figures as totally accurate.

This may be apocryphal, but I understand that social work departments regard a 50 per cent compliance rate as acceptable, and the number of breaches reported to sheriff courts throughout Scotland indicates that that is the attitude that social work departments are adopting. Until people actually have to do community service and comply with the order of the court—which I stress is a direct alternative to custody—community service orders will simply not work either.

There is concern that there should be such a high recidivism rate and people are asking why probation orders are not working. I have to say, frankly, that I do not know, but it seems to me that social work departments, much as they may be defended by Colin Fox, are not being nearly hands-on enough with offenders. I accept that there may be a resource problem, but that is something that must be looked at.

There have been some interesting contributions to the debate. I quite admired Stewart Stevenson's attempt to get the Liberals to make a decision. Stewart is not normally so naive. He asked Margaret Smith how she could speak for something and then vote against it. The answer is that she is, after all, a Liberal.

It has been interesting to listen to the debate. I have never seen anybody look so pale as Mike Pringle looked when Stewart Stevenson raised his proposal for a motion without notice. For some reason, the Liberal Democrats have been twisting and turning on a rather pedantic point about our amendment. Let us be clear about what the amendment says and what its purpose is. It says that we are "as yet, not persuaded". That means that we are open-minded and that we will listen to the arguments and the debate. The purpose of the amendment is to push the Executive to present evidence that makes the argument for a single correctional agency, if that is what it believes in. If it produces convincing, persuasive evidence, we will back that proposal. That is what the amendment says, and it should be taken in that spirit. Given that all three of the Liberal Democrat speakers in the debate spoke against the single correctional agency, or had doubts about it, I ask the Liberal Democrats to reconsider their position and to support the SNP amendment.

We have an open mind and a neutral position on this issue. However, the SNP's amendment says that the party is

"as yet, not persuaded of the case for a single national correctional agency."

My point is that surely the neutral position during a consultation is to be undecided about the case not only for but against. I would have been interested in what might have happened if there had been an amendment to the amendment.

That is just pathetic.

I am sorry that the Presiding Officer did not accept the amendment to the amendment because it would have been interesting to see the Liberal Democrats twisting and turning to get out of that one. As Nicola Sturgeon says, the Liberal Democrats' position is pathetic.

Many speakers, such as Pauline McNeill, covered the issue of custodial sentences versus non-custodial sentences. I will not go over all the arguments, but I will say that it has been entirely appropriate to have this interesting debate as part of the consultation exercise—I do not agree with what Colin Fox said earlier on that point.

A number of members, including Annabel Goldie, talked about the idea of electing members of police boards. Although the idea is interesting, it is not one with which I agree. I do not think that it would have any effect on reoffending or criminality and I do not see the purpose in it.

I want to concentrate on two examples of SNP policies that could cut reoffending and were in our manifesto last year.

The idea of unit fines must be given serious consideration. Where is the justice in a system that results in someone who earns £100,000 a year paying the same fine as someone who earns £10,000? Proportionally, who pays more? Surely justice is meant to be equal for all and seen to be equal for all. The only fair way to do that is to take into account the ability to pay. We must make the fine fit the circumstances of the person so that both well-off and poor offenders feel the sentence equally. A blanket fine system penalises the poorer members of society much more than the well off. Indeed, it could be argued that fines that are not related to income levels almost completely negate the punitive effect of fining the better off. If everyone knew that the fine that they faced was going to be related to their financial circumstances, that might influence their behaviour, possibly leading to a decrease in the amount of minor offences committed and the consequent savings that that would provide.

The second issue that I want to highlight was mentioned earlier by Pauline McNeill and is strongly supported by the SNP: weekend or flexible detention for certain types of offenders. That policy has worked well in other countries and we should seriously consider it. The Executive's consultation document says that, while offenders are in custody

"their links with their communities and families are disrupted, thus making it difficult to reintegrate even after only a short period."

That is absolutely correct.

Will the member give way?

I do not have enough time.

Weekend imprisonment would allow the offender to continue in employment, keep close contact with their family and help them to avoid falling into the crime culture in prisons. The evidence backs up the view that retaining employment and keeping families together helps to stop people spiralling down into the role of repeat offender.

The other major benefit of flexible detention is that it keeps the offender out of society when they are most likely to reoffend. Using prisons to protect communities is entirely appropriate. On that point, I disagree with Patrick Harvie's comments. Clearly, the benefit is that the imprisoned person is out of the community and does not have the opportunity to reoffend and disrupt the lives of the people in that community. Such a payback is extremely worth while.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.

While that type of sentencing is not appropriate for every offender, the merits of its use must be clear to all with regard to offenders such as football hooligans and those convicted of drunk-and-disorderly offences, including breach of the peace and common assault. When flexible detention has been used abroad, football hooligans and those who are guilty of drunk-and-disorderly offences have been sentenced to spend their weekends in prison, which takes away their opportunity to get into the circumstances in which they offend.

The Executive's consultation document estimates that

"13,000 children in Scotland each year are affected by the imprisonment of a parent".

That is an horrendous and appalling figure that shames our society. Weekend imprisonment impacts on family life but not to the extent that a one, three or six-month prison sentence would; such sentences result in the loss of employment and the breaking up of family life. The introduction of weekend detention would give courts greater sentencing options without necessarily increasing prison numbers.

During the debate, we heard many good speeches from across the chamber. Kenny MacAskill's speech about the change that drugs have wrought on our society was particularly relevant.

This has been a good, open debate and I am glad that it will form part of the consultation process. I hope that members will support the SNP amendment in the spirit in which it is intended.

It is important to have a debate at this stage and I reassure Colin Fox that there is nothing sinister in its timing. We are genuinely trying to encourage a discussion on an issue that is not just complex, but troubling for our communities, for us as politicians and for many people who engage with the system.

Before I move on to the particulars, I will reinforce some of the points that Cathy Jamieson made. The context of the debate is that all members in the chamber, and too many people throughout our communities, know someone whose life has, directly or indirectly, been affected, damaged or blighted by crime, which has sometimes been committed by someone who has reoffended. Families are touched by robbery or the robbery of a family member. Houses are broken into. People are assaulted or mugged. People's lives are blighted and damaged by others who behave irresponsibly around them. Families are tragically damaged by the actions of someone who commits a criminal offence. Many parents despair because they see their child enter into a life of crime owing to drugs or drink, for example. Some families try to help the child and devote themselves and their time and money to get the child out of the problem; sometimes they fail, they despair and their health is affected. We all see the human consequences that crime and reoffending bring.

Colin Fox graphically described the tragedy that many people who end up in prison face before they get there. People enter into a life of crime for a variety of reasons. Some have come through the care system, some have reading and writing difficulties and some come from difficult family backgrounds. That is not to excuse their individual actions or to deny their individual responsibility, but it is right to try to understand what brings people to that desperate situation.

A number of members have spoken about the need for more social workers and asked whether our proposal is an attack on them. It is absolutely not an attack on social workers. It is right to consider the need for more social workers. Indeed, I have to say that, even before she was the Minister for Justice, Cathy Jamieson probably did more than anyone in the Parliament to try to increase the number of social workers who are employed in Scotland and the number of people who are training to be social workers. She has a long personal and professional commitment to improving the social work profession and its status. That fundamentally remains our approach, but we also need to recognise that to give everyone who has a criminal conviction a social worker is not the solution. The unique skills and influence that social workers can bring are imperative, but we should not underestimate a person's individual responsibility to change their life for the better and we cannot emphasise enough the responsibility that they have to the community.

In an excellent speech, Kenny MacAskill talked about a range of factors, but particularly the change that drugs have brought to our communities and to the criminal justice system. We know the damage that drugs—sometimes building on an alcohol problem—can do. That all needs to be addressed, whether in the community or in prison.

We know that, when a person ends up in prison, a link is damagingly broken between them and the community so that they are unable properly to engage with family, friends and others. They are then sometimes not properly prepared for coming back into the community. We need to address that problem and we are worried that no proper work is being done in that respect for short-term prisoners. We believe that it is necessary to do something.

Nicola Sturgeon needs to make up her mind. She said that we need action, not talk, but then she said that we need a debate. That contradiction is typical of her. In fact, we need a debate, then we need action. I say to her and to other members that COSLA and others were engaged in the preparation of the consultation document, which Stewart Stevenson described as thin, but from which Stewart Maxwell was able to quote extensively. We have made an attempt to engage a wide range of people by asking questions. We know what the problem is—we all know that there is a difficulty—but very few of us have a clear solution. What I have heard today is a general consensus. Although there are difficulties, no one is prepared to take the bold step of saying, "The system isn't working. Here is what we propose to do." COSLA and others are talking about the need for radical and bold policy changes. Well, we are anxious to hear what those bold and radical policy changes should be. What we propose in the document is a recognition that the current system is not working and that something better needs to be put in its place.

As Nicola Sturgeon said, there needs to be better integration; as Annabel Goldie said, there needs to be an improvement in rehabilitation; and, as others have said, we need to consider greater use of DTTOs as a way of ensuring that people do not go to prison.

Pauline McNeill made an excellent suggestion. We are talking about structural change, because the present system is not working; we are saying not that the criminal justice social work service is not working, but that the prison system is not working; we are saying that prisoners are not being properly prepared in prison for returning to the community; and we are arguing that something else should be put in place of prison sentences. Given all that, why, in any new agency, should there not be—as Pauline McNeill said—better local accountability and better opportunities for local politicians and local communities to influence what goes on in our prisons? Pauline McNeill's suggestion offers us an opportunity to secure better local accountability, which will be a critical part of any proposal that we make.

Jackie Baillie's comments on the problems of providing rehabilitation for people who have short-term sentences are critical. She is absolutely right to say that, if prisons were providing the answers, we would not be having this debate. We need early intervention.

It is clear, from the comments that have been made, that some members are not persuaded by our proposals at this stage. They may not be persuaded by what we are saying just now, but no one seems to be persuaded by the system that we currently have.

I offer a challenge to every member. We want them to engage in the debate, to be political leaders and to go back to their communities and hear what is being said not just by social workers, the Scottish Prison Service and the voluntary organisations, but by the victims of crime. We want them to go back to their local communities and ask the families of prisoners what they believe is necessary. We want them to take some responsibility in this process. We want them to be leaders and to believe that they have a contribution to make.

If, at the end of the process, those members are not persuaded by what we say, they have a duty to tell us what alternatives would make the present system work better, given that they have said that it is not working. We have a duty to the Parliament, the wider community and the whole country. The present system, which is not working, needs to be improved. If we simply do nothing and go on delivering what we are currently delivering, we will have failed.