Community Prisons

– in the Scottish Parliament at 3:55 pm on 13 January 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party 3:55, 13 January 2010

The next item of business is a Public Petitions Committee debate on petition PE1150, on community prisons. Time is relatively tight, so I would appreciate adherence to time limits.

Photo of John Farquhar Munro John Farquhar Munro Liberal Democrat 4:02, 13 January 2010

I am pleased to open this Public Petitions Committee debate on our consideration of PE1150, which urges the Scottish Government to consider whether large prisons that are remote from prisoners' families offer the best way of rehabilitating offenders or whether, as an alternative, localised community prisons should be supported much more strongly to maintain genuinely easy access to family links and other community virtues.

I am sure that MSPs will focus on individual cases that they wish to raise with the cabinet secretary. I shall talk more generally and outline the committee's consideration so far of the petition. I shall also ask specific questions for the cabinet secretary to answer in his opening or closing speech. The committee's convener will close for the committee.

Members will notice that we have not lodged a motion. We want this afternoon's discussion to feed into our consideration of the issues that the petition raises. We have not undertaken an inquiry in the traditional sense, so we have not produced a report. However, we have considered the petition on eight occasions, which go back to June 2008. We have heard oral evidence three times—first from the petitioner, then from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in February 2009, and then from representatives of Grampian Police and Families Outside, whom we met at Fraserburgh academy in March 2009. We have received 14 written submissions from bodies that include the Scottish Prison Service, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People and Sacro.

I will make a few general points before putting some specific questions to the cabinet secretary. I draw attention to the term "community prison", to which the petition refers. I am aware that that expression has no recognised definition, but for the purposes of the debate we are talking about prisons that are community facing. One aspect of their community-facing purpose is that, as the Scottish Prison Service has confirmed, prisoners are, where possible, placed in the establishment that is closest to their families and local communities. However, that is not always possible. I note from its written evidence that the Scottish Prison Service is committed to delivering increasingly community-facing prisons, and I am sure that we all welcome such a commitment.

My first question to the cabinet secretary is to ask him to demonstrate to the Parliament and the Public Petitions Committee how the Scottish Prison Service is delivering on that commitment. He may wish to outline any statistical evidence that he has to show the number of prisoners who are at prisons that are close to their families and local communities. He may also wish to outline any research that supports the existence of such a policy and that shows that it is bringing benefits.

The problems that families experience in maintaining contact with someone in prison as a result of travel and transport difficulties were highlighted by Families Outside. Its "Do Not Pass Go... Travel Links to Scottish Prisons" research from 2007 set out a number of strategic and operational recommendations.

My second question for the cabinet secretary is: what actions has the Scottish Government taken in response to that report? I appreciate that some of the issues might fall within the portfolio of the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change—for example, the proposal that accessibility to prisons should be added to the national transport strategy—but it would be useful to hear what work the Government has done on improving travel and transport arrangements to prisons for families and others.

Thirdly, will the cabinet secretary set out what evidence the Scottish Government has on the impact that the location and ease of travel to a prison have on the maintenance of family ties and on a prisoner's resettlement on release?

The fourth question is when in the continuing development of its policy on prisons—in particular on their community-facing aspects—Government representatives last met bodies such as Families Outside and Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People to discuss the issue and what suggestions made by them were taken forward for implementation.

The final issue to put to the cabinet secretary was raised by Sacro in its written evidence. It feels that there are inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the continuity between prisons and community interventions. Sacro drew attention to the need for community-facing prisons to work closely with a range of community services. What will happen to prisoners when they are released into the community? There should be better community involvement by prisons themselves and, ultimately, a reduction in prisoner numbers.

I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary's responses to the issues that I have raised.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party 4:08, 13 January 2010

I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the petition about the development of HM Prison Grampian. We will be more than happy to communicate with the Public Petitions Committee and indeed with its deputy convener on the specific questions that he has asked.

Community-facing prisons, which give the Scottish Prison Service the chance to work closely with local partners to deliver a joined-up sentence management regime, form a key element of our policy. That is the direction of travel that is being initiated by this Government. We are committed to public prisons, not to those that are run and operated for private profit. We are committed to moving towards community-facing prisons, and that is what we are now embarking on with HMP Grampian. I hope that the whole Parliament will unite in supporting that desire to have public community-facing prisons.

We must accept that the Government is currently investing significant amounts of money to deal with the inadequate prison estate that we inherited.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Can the minister explain how the promotion of community-facing prisons is best achieved by the closure of Aberdeen prison? Does he not believe that the best way for a prison to face the community is for it to be located in the community from which most of the prisoners come?

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

We could have a prison in every community of a certain size, but we could do so only at the expense of other things. We have been debating and discussing the Aberdeen western peripheral bypass—you pays your money and you makes your choice. Mr Macdonald could tell John Swinney that he wants not a western peripheral route but a prison, but he would then have to explain that to the people. The same argument applies to every community the length and breadth of Scotland: do people want new prisons or do they want houses, homes and hospitals?

Having inherited a prison estate that was unfit for purpose, we are doing what is necessary and appropriate to rebuild it. We made a commitment to keep a prison in the north-east of Scotland and we are delivering that. We said that the new prison would provide around 500 prisoner places and would be an innovative model—a community-facing prison that meets the entire prison needs for the north-east.

Managing offenders who are sentenced to prison is a challenging undertaking, but our Scottish Prison Service does that with professionalism and dedication. Working with prisoners to help them to address their risks and needs and to stop them re-offending can mean, at times, having to locate them for at least part of their sentence some distance from home. That may be because of a need for security or to give the prisoner access to services and programmes that will reduce their risk and/or the prospect of re-offending. That is effective offender management practice: we have dangerous people and not all of them can be housed in community-facing prisons.

A modern prison service must always be able to manage prisoners flexibly so that it can deal swiftly and appropriately with changes in prisoner numbers; provide the most effective means of maintaining security and good order; and, most importantly, offer the right supports and interventions to protect the public and reduce re-offending.

Creating community-facing prisons enables prisoners from the local area to serve their sentences, if at all possible, near the communities from which they come. At the moment, about 400 male prisoners from the Grampian area are in our prisons across Scotland with only about 130 of them in HMP Aberdeen—a prison that is years beyond its sell-by date, which makes it unfit for purpose and with no space for redevelopment. Also, around 50 women prisoners from the Grampian area are serving their sentences in the central belt.

The proposed new HMP Grampian will allow prisoners from the Grampian area to serve their sentences closer to their families, the communities from which they come and the services that they need to access for their return into the community. I am delighted that our proposals enjoy considerable support from Aberdeenshire Council and others in the community. The Scottish Prison Service will work closely with the northern community justice authority to build community links and maximise the benefits that proximity to family can offer in rehabilitating offenders.

I accept that some prisoners who serve sentences in HMP Aberdeen will be slightly further from home. However, in future, many more prisoners will be much closer to their communities and families than is the case at the moment. It is also definitely the case that they will be held in far more acceptable conditions. At the moment, only about one third of prisoners who come from the Grampian area serve their sentences in HMP Aberdeen. HMP Grampian will maximise the opportunity for partnership working between the Scottish Prison Service, community justice authority and partner agencies in local authorities. We all should welcome that.

I believe that the new prison will give a better service than is the case at the moment and, perhaps most importantly, maximise efforts to ensure the successful reintegration of offenders into the communities from which they come and help to break the cycle of crime and re-offending that blights many communities, whether in the city of Aberdeen and small communities in the north-east or anywhere else in Scotland.

Photo of Richard Baker Richard Baker Labour 4:14, 13 January 2010

I congratulate the Public Petitions Committee, David Wemyss and the prison visiting committee of Craiginches on their tenacity in bringing the issue before the Parliament.

At the heart of the petition is the important principle that prisons need to be truly community facing if they are to give offenders the best chance of rehabilitation. The chance of that happening is increased the nearer offenders are located to the support agencies that can help them and, crucially, their families. On this side, we believe that we should not abandon the idea that prison is a place not only of incarceration but where prisoners confront their offending and are supported in turning around their lives.

Those important principles are thrown into stark relief by the plans for the prison estate in the north-east. I refer to the closure of Craiginches prison and the building of the new HMP Grampian at Peterhead. Those plans will take prisoners further from their families, and the transport links between Aberdeen and Peterhead make that problematic. HMP Grampian will not be community facing for Aberdeen. It is telling that two important cross-party bodies—the prison visiting committee and the Public Petitions Committee—have advanced the concerns.

Photo of Richard Baker Richard Baker Labour

I do not think that I will have time, although I will if I have time later.

There is anxiety about the proposal across the parties. I disagree with the cabinet secretary on major aspects of justice policy, but I do not doubt his desire for more offenders to turn their lives around. That is why I simply cannot understand his making the proposal and I hope that he will reconsider it.

The previous Executive radically improved the overall prison estate. Dr McLellan recognised that but the cabinet secretary never does. I do not contest the fact that there is great need for improvements at Craiginches prison for it to be fit for purpose but, while HMP Grampian is awaited, no investment is being provided to improve Craiginches. In any case, the argument is simply that there should be a community prison in Aberdeen and alternative options nearer the city have not been examined properly.

Photo of Richard Baker Richard Baker Labour

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

The cabinet secretary will talk about planning issues and say that our arguments would result in delay in improving the local prison estate but, given the lack of clarity that the Parliament has been given on the plans for progressing HMP Grampian, I am in no way convinced that the decision cannot be revisited.

There are many other concerns, not least those that Grampian Police has expressed on prisoner transport and community safety, but I have time to close on only one. HMP Peterhead is currently a specialist unit for the treatment of sex offenders. That is not an uncontentious issue locally, but powerful arguments have been made for having a specialist unit that deals with the particularly difficult challenge of treating sex offenders.

The new HMP Grampian will not be such a specialist centre; sex offenders and their treatment will be dispersed throughout the prison estate. There are arguments for making such a change, but others have expressed concerns about the plans. I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with Professor Alec Spencer, who is a former governor of Peterhead and wrote a report on the matter for the previous Executive. I am in no way persuaded that closing the specialist unit at Peterhead is the right way to deal with sex offenders in our prison estate. Expertise has been built up there over the years, and closing the unit is more likely to be another weakness in the plans for our prisons in the north-east and, potentially, Scotland. The change needs far fuller debate.

In my view and the view of the vast majority of people who have taken an interest in the issue, the case that has been made for community prisons—in particular, for a genuine community prison in Aberdeen—is beyond doubt. That is not what the current plans represent. I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept that case, which has been made across the Parliament today.

Photo of Nanette Milne Nanette Milne Conservative 4:18, 13 January 2010

The petition that we are discussing has arisen out of the real and on-going concern of the Aberdeen prison visiting committee, backed by the Association of Visiting Committees for Scottish Penal Establishments, that the Government's proposals to replace Craiginches prison with a new, large, so-called community-facing prison within the grounds of HMP Peterhead will have an adverse impact on the significant number of Aberdeen residents—estimated at around 80 per cent of the inmates at Craiginches—who are remanded or serving their sentences within the boundaries of their local community.

Modern research points clearly to the positive—indeed, essential—contribution that regular and frequent contact with family members can make to the successful rehabilitation of offenders. The visiting committee fears that moving the prison to a site that is some 35 miles from Aberdeen and accessible only by car or an infrequent bus service will result in less family contact for many prisoners, whose relatives—particularly those with young children—will find the journey tedious, difficult and expensive.

The petitioners' concerns were clearly understood by Andrew McLellan who, just before he stood down as Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons for Scotland last summer, stressed the importance of family contact to the rehabilitation process and expressed his fear that forcing visitors to embark on a 70-mile round-trip to a new superjail in Peterhead would have a detrimental impact.

The Public Petitions Committee has discussed the petition at length since it was lodged in May 2008 and has taken evidence from a number of sources, including the cabinet secretary. To my mind, there is little doubt that, in an ideal world, a prison facility would be retained in Aberdeen.

What is proposed is a compromise that is based on financial expediency. Of course, money is very tight and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Craiginches prison, built in the Victorian era, is overcrowded and unfit for modern purpose, and it would be expensive to upgrade it. It is on a site that is likely to be of significant interest to developers, so it could be a potential nest egg for a cash-strapped Government. Land is, of course, expensive in Aberdeen, which makes a new build there less attractive in financially hard times, whereas there is ample ground in Peterhead for rebuilding alongside the existing prison, which is already in the ownership of the Scottish Prison Service.

It is therefore hardly surprising that the decision was made to site the new prison in Peterhead. However, it is disingenuous to claim that HMP Grampian will be a community-facing prison for Aberdeen. Certainly, female prisoners from the Aberdeen area who are currently housed in Cornton Vale and young offenders in Glenochil or Polmont will be nearer to their relatives than at present, but, with Craiginches prisoners significantly further from their relatives, few HMP Grampian inmates will be ideally placed to have regular family contact, given the public transport provision between Aberdeen and Peterhead.

While I do, of course, acknowledge the financial pressures on Government, it seems to me a retrograde step for rehabilitation to remove an existing facility from one of Scotland's major cities and replace it with a large institution some 35 miles away. I therefore hope that the cabinet secretary will consider very carefully the results of modern academic research and the concerns that Andrew McLellan and others have expressed. If, after due consideration of all that, he decides to press ahead with his current plans, I hope that he will be honest enough to state clearly and openly that that is far from an ideal solution for the prison population in Scotland, but rather a compromise that is based purely on financial constraints—and, indeed, that it is a regressive rather than a progressive step towards successful prisoner rehabilitation, and should be seen as such.

Photo of Nicol Stephen Nicol Stephen Liberal Democrat 4:21, 13 January 2010

Since the announcement in 2007 of the decision to build a new super-prison at Peterhead, there has been no adequate response by the Scottish National Party Government to the associated closure and removal of all prison places in Aberdeen. Scotland's third city, with a population of more than 200,000 people, will now have no remand cells or community prison cells and no prison of any shape, kind or nature. That flies in the face of every aspect of modern prison policy. The decision is wrong and misguided.

Rehabilitation is supposed to be a central principle of the Government's justice policy, but the decision to remove prison places from Aberdeen will reduce the amount of rehabilitation and increase reoffending. In short, crime in the city of Aberdeen will go up. There will be increased crime because of a decision by the SNP Government that runs totally counter to modern prison policy. It is obvious to the experts involved that the decision was taken for pork-barrel, party-political reasons at the expense of the city of Aberdeen.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

Will the member explain why, when he was Deputy First Minister, the last prison to be signed off was Low Moss, which was not to be community facing but privately owned? Does he now accept that the change of position by the Government such that the prison should be publicly owned is, in fact, beneficial?

Photo of Nicol Stephen Nicol Stephen Liberal Democrat

We are talking about the location and accessibility of prison facilities, and the cabinet secretary is completely ducking the issue by raising the red herring of Low Moss. It is simply inexplicable that a city of Aberdeen's scale and importance will be left with no community prison.

I commend the work of the Aberdeen prison visiting committee and the Public Petitions Committee on the issue. The cabinet secretary should be aware that there was cross-party support in the Public Petitions Committee for the view that the proposed move would represent the wrong choice for the city of Aberdeen and Scotland. That view was based on strong submissions from prison reform experts, many of whom have been quoted in this debate.

Families Outside is the only charity in Scotland that is dedicated exclusively to working with and supporting the families of offenders. Representing that organisation before the Public Petitions Committee, Susan Cross stated that

"maintaining family ties can reduce the risk of reoffending by up to six times. About 50 per cent of prisoners lose contact with their families during their time in prison, usually because of the cost and distance of visiting, both of which are obstacles to the contact that can help to reduce reoffending."—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 30 March 2009; c 1664.]

Her evidence has been endorsed, as we have heard, by Alec Spencer, professor of criminology at the University of Stirling, and Dr Andrew McLellan, who have been well quoted. Dr McLellan says that the plans will have a detrimental impact on the prison service in Scotland and that forcing visitors to embark on the 70-mile trip to the new super-prison that is planned in Peterhead is wrong.

Travel will be a major issue not only for the families and children but for social workers, support staff and public agencies. Let the Cabinet Secretary for Justice be in no doubt that there will be big challenges for the police and the court system if there are, as is currently planned, no remand cells for the city of Aberdeen. I challenge Mr MacAskill to make the return journey from Aberdeen to Peterhead prison by public transport so that he can understand the distances involved, the time that the journey takes, the inconvenience that it causes and the scale of the challenge that he is quite deliberately creating for families and the support services.

It is time for a change of heart and for this Government to deliver on its commitment to a modern justice system. The Government's decision seems doubly counterproductive and doubly ill-considered. I plead with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to review the decision and ensure that Aberdeen continues to have prison facilities.

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party 4:26, 13 January 2010

Since we are discussing Craiginches and Peterhead prisons, I want to take this opportunity to express my regret at the recent untimely death of Bill Rattray, a former governor of both establishments.

I take part in this Public Petitions Committee debate as someone who was a member of the Craiginches prison visiting committee from 1994 to 2006, during which time I visited the prison at least every two months and visited other prisons in Scotland, including Peterhead. Nobody could argue that Craiginches and Peterhead are fit for purpose, and they have not been so for many decades. I cannot put a figure on the number of times our visiting committee lobbied ministers on the urgent need for a new kitchen in Craiginches, to no avail. More important, we lobbied for a new visiting room and better facilities for partners and children, as the available facilities were and are woefully inadequate—indeed, I remember taking in toys for the amusement of the children who were visiting the prison. Apart from the fact that we were fobbed off with a few tables and chairs, nothing happened to the visitors room.

Obviously, the SPS, under successive Governments, was told that there should be no investment in Craiginches prison, because it would be window dressing and a waste of taxpayers' money in a prison that was well past its sell-by date. Richard Baker knows perfectly well why there has been no investment in Craiginches prison. I agree with others who have quoted Andrew McLellan's observation that good family contact is important for reducing reoffending. However, good family contact was not possible in Aberdeen prison.

As John Farquhar Munro said, there is no definition of a community prison. Aberdeen currently has a prison in its community, but in no way can it be described as a community prison. As far as I am aware, it has never housed convicted young offenders, and for the past few years it has not housed female offenders—I and others vigorously fought against that situation arising, but female prisoners were moved to Cornton Vale anyway.

As the minister indicated, the majority of prisoners from the north-east—56 per cent—are housed in the prison estate outside the Aberdeen postcode area. The decision to establish a new prison in Peterhead will create in the north-east a prison that can house long-term offenders, short-term offenders, sex offenders, women offenders and young offenders, and that can begin to reflect the north-east's community and become a north-east community prison that can begin to work on restorative justice—an issue that is dear to my heart and to Robin Harper's. Following the establishment of the prison, we can begin to work with families in the interests of reducing recidivism. Of course, we will never have a prison that can house 100 per cent of prisoners from the north-east, because of prisoner safety and gang culture issues.

Removing the uncertainty surrounding the prison estate in the north-east is welcomed by staff and their families. There is a high turnover of SPS staff in the north-east. Burn-out is a major issue, especially in the sex offender unit, but the fact that staff will have the opportunity to move within Peterhead prison and work with different groups will reduce the turnover.

Having had a prison in its midst, the community in Peterhead must be unique in accepting a replacement. Those who object to the siting of a prison for the north-east in Peterhead have not suggested in which other community a new prison might be sited.

Photo of Maureen Watt Maureen Watt Scottish National Party

I welcome the decision on the new prison. Let us look at the opportunities, not the threats.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour 4:30, 13 January 2010

The case for community-facing prisons could be made anywhere, not just in Aberdeen, but it is in Aberdeen that the conflict between the aspiration and the reality of Scottish Government policy is at its most acute. Only in Aberdeen is there a proposal—which was made by ministers in 2007—to close down a community-facing prison. Only in Aberdeen, Scotland's third city—which is home to most of those who are detained in the local prison—do ministers intend to respond to the problems of overcrowding and dilapidated facilities by doing away with the local prison altogether and, sadly, replacing it with a new prison in a quite different town.

As many will remember, there was a campaign in Peterhead against proposals to close Peterhead jail, which, as SNP members will recall, produced a manifesto commitment

"to the long-term future of Peterhead Prison including the rebuilding of the prison" and to protect and enhance the

"resource it provides in dealing with sex offenders in Scotland."

Of course, it was only because of that specialised work that Peterhead still had a prison at all, which is interesting in the context of the proposal to end that work, of which Richard Baker reminded us. Before the 2007 election, no one bothered to tell people in Aberdeen that the plan was to keep Peterhead prison open at the expense of the prison in Aberdeen.

Even after the election, ministers made no effort to consult informed local opinion in the city before announcing their intention to close its jail. Had they consulted people, they might have reached a quite different conclusion. For example, any of the four ward councillors could have told them that 20 per cent of the prisoners at Craiginches have home addresses within walking distance of the prison. Ministers might have been given the estimate by a senior member of the Aberdeen City Council administration that the holding of prisoners more than 30 miles beyond the city limits would result in the council's social work budget incurring £2 million in additional costs. They might have heard the police's concerns about the extra costs and the risks involved in holding remand prisoners so far away from the courts that must consider their cases. They might have heard the concerns of Families Outside about the impact on family cohesion and the prospects for rehabilitation of holding offenders in a place that is an hour by public transport from where their families live.

Thankfully, the Public Petitions Committee has heard a good deal of such evidence, and its members deserve credit for asking questions and pursuing the issue. Equally, Aberdeen prison visiting committee deserves credit for lodging the petition. Sadly, ministers have not listened—at least, not yet.

It was revealing that the constituency member for Banff and Buchan, the Scottish Government transport minister, told the local press and the prison governor of plans to build a new prison in Peterhead and to close Aberdeen prison a full week before the decision was announced by the justice secretary or the SPS.

Last year, Kenny MacAskill appeared before the Public Petitions Committee to defend his decision. I agree with him that

"we must do what we can to ensure that relationships can be continued and that families ... can visit. The maintenance of such relationships is beneficial to rehabilitation."—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 10 February 2009; c 1470.]

If the justice secretary must do what he can, he should start with the simplest step. Before he thinks about new community prisons, he should agree to keep the ones that we have. He should act on the welcome proposition that a replacement jail for Craiginches can be designed to accommodate adult males, women and young offenders, but he should abandon the proposition that that should be accompanied by the closure of Aberdeen prison, because there is no need to do that. Instead, the minister should engage in meaningful efforts to replace the existing buildings at Craiginches with the modern, fit-for-purpose prison that the city of Aberdeen is entitled to expect.

Photo of Nicol Stephen Nicol Stephen Liberal Democrat 4:34, 13 January 2010

I will be brief.

The situation is clear. As a result of the decision, rehabilitation for prisoners from the city of Aberdeen, recidivism, reoffending and crime in the city of Aberdeen will be worse. People will have to travel further, journey times will be longer, and prisoner transport will become more complex and costly. There will be a huge impact on the police and the court system.

I say to the cabinet secretary that by all means he should build a super-prison at Peterhead and bring to it long-term prisoners who previously resided in the city of Aberdeen or the north-east of Scotland. That would be fine. However, that super-prison should be built a bit smaller and at a lower cost, and resources should be diverted to ensure that there is still a community prison with remand cells in Aberdeen. There is cross-party support for that view in the chamber; stronger than that, there is widespread support for it in the justice community among experts on the Scottish prison and justice system. Doing otherwise would be perverse. The city of Aberdeen, which is the third largest city in Scotland, deserves to continue to have a community prison.

Photo of John Lamont John Lamont Conservative 4:36, 13 January 2010

A mix of opinions has been expressed in the debate. I suppose that the real point underlying the issue is how we balance public money spending restrictions with our wish to create an ideal. Such difficult questions undoubtedly will continue to arise with increasing pressures on the public purse.

There has been some investment in recent years in our prison estate—in HMP Addiewell, HMP Bishopbriggs and new developments at the HMP Edinburgh site—but many of our prisons have not been fit for purpose for some time. Aberdeen prison is one such establishment. The Scottish Government must find the best and most cost-effective way of improving and potentially expanding the prison estate without compromising safety, security and rehabilitation.

Contrary to popular belief, we do not believe in locking up criminals and throwing away the key. In an ideal world, prisons would not be needed, as there would be no crime, but we are discovering that ideals are not and cannot always be met. As long as there is crime, there will be a need for the disposal of custodial sentences—even sentences of six months or less, I say to the cabinet secretary. We must ensure that, once people have been sentenced to such punishments, everything is done to attempt to rehabilitate them and give them positive options and choices in life.

The creation of HMP Grampian at Peterhead may not be ideal. Several MSPs across the chamber have highlighted many problems that the move is likely to result in, and we share many of the concerns that have been expressed. The Scottish Government will need to demonstrate how it plans to address those concerns.

Evidence to the Public Petitions Committee on the petition stated that approximately 80 per cent of those who are serving custodial sentences in HMP Aberdeen are from the Aberdeen area. The cabinet secretary has pointed out that only around 50 per cent of those from the Aberdeen area who are serving a custodial sentence currently do so at HMP Aberdeen. A 70-mile round trip to visit a partner or parent is not an easy journey, especially where public transport links are not great. I know from the prison visits that I have made throughout the country and from talking to prison governors and staff that sometimes the only thing that can pull a person out of the vicious circle of reoffending and a life of crime is their family, particularly their children.

We recognise all the issues and problems that are raised with relocating the prison at Peterhead. However, the planned prison will allow better access visits for female prisoners and young offenders who are currently held in Cornton Vale, Polmont and Glenochil. The new arrangements will be considerably more convenient for their families. However, I look for an assurance from the Scottish Government that the specialists who are required to deal with such offenders will still be available at HMP Grampian.

There cannot be a prison in every town and every city, and there will always be difficulties in ensuring that every prisoner's needs are met. It is a question of striking the right balance. I have great sympathy for those who will find it difficult to visit a relative in HMP Grampian and for prisoners who will not have as much access to their families as others, but there is no ideal solution. I fear that the Peterhead solution is perhaps as good as we will get.

Photo of James Kelly James Kelly Labour 4:39, 13 January 2010

I welcome the opportunity to sum up the debate. I congratulate the petitioner, David Wemyss, on his work in bringing the petition to the Public Petitions Committee and then to the Parliament this afternoon. I commend the committee for the work that it has done to assess the issue and the way in which that was outlined by the committee's deputy convener, John Farquhar Munro.

The petition raises a number of serious issues relating to community prisons. Imprisonment has a number of purposes, including punishment for a crime and the hope that we will be able to ensure that those who are in prisons do not reoffend.

Nanette Milne and other members quoted Andrew McLellan, the former chief inspector of prisons, who in his annual report for 2006-07 cited important research showing that good family contact was important and contributed towards a reduction in reoffending. The Public Petitions Committee took on board that important finding.

A number of problems are associated with the decision to close Craiginches and, in effect, to move the prison to HMP Peterhead. As other members have said, the decision will move prisoners away from their families. As Nicol Stephen outlined, there is a real problem with transport links on the 35-mile journey—a 70-mile round trip—from Peterhead to Aberdeen. That makes it more difficult for families to visit prisoners and, therefore, for prisoners to retain the contact and reassurance that, hopefully, will contribute towards reducing reoffending.

As Richard Baker indicated, there must be serious concerns about the fact that the sex offender unit will no longer be centralised and sex offenders will be dispersed throughout Scotland. Recently there have been a number of alarming sex offender cases, which have brought to the fore concerns among the public. In the treatment of sex offenders, the public are looking for them to be kept in one central location, in so far as that is possible, so that specialised treatment can be provided in such cases.

Nicol Stephen made the alarming point that politics are in play in the decision. The prison has been moved to be sited in the Westminster constituency of the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament constituency of the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. As Lewis Macdonald said, in this case we should take into account not politics but the views of local people. From the views that members have expressed in this afternoon's debate and the local views that were communicated to the committee, it is clear that there is a strong view in the Aberdeen community that a community-facing prison should have been retained in the area.

John Farquhar Munro made some good points about community-facing prisons. In all honesty, the cabinet secretary did not make a robust case for his view that Peterhead would be a community-facing prison.

This has been a good debate, in which many strong points have been made, especially by local members. I urge the cabinet secretary to put politics aside in this case, to consider carefully the views that have been expressed here and by the Public Petitions Committee, and to ensure that, in the delivery of justice in the Aberdeen area, the views of local people and local prisoners' families are strongly taken into account.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party 4:44, 13 January 2010

Two clear themes have run through the debate: community prisons and the cash to pay for them. The chamber is united in seeing community prisons as a good thing. I welcome the comments of both Nanette Milne and John Lamont on how such prisons can work towards reintegrating people—that is their whole ethos.

However, there has been a great deal of cant and hypocrisy from those members whose parties were in the Executive for eight years. When they were in charge, they had an opportunity to deliver community-facing prisons. If we tally up the number of such prisons that were delivered by the Liberal-Labour Scottish Executive between 1999 and 2007—if Mr Stephen wants to interject to tell me the number, I will happily give way—we see that the number was zero.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

Dr Simpson, not one community-facing prison was delivered by the Labour-Liberal Executive.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

Not at the moment.

The first community-facing prison will be HMP Grampian. That is the direction of travel that has been set out by the Government—

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

Not at the moment.

HMP Grampian will be followed by HMP Highland, which will replace HMP Inverness, and HMP Inverclyde, which will replace HMP Greenock. We will deliver community-facing prisons; in eight years, the previous Executive delivered none.

I give way to the member.

Photo of Nicol Stephen Nicol Stephen Liberal Democrat

The point that the cabinet secretary has completely failed to address in his rant is that the super-jail that is being built at Peterhead is specifically not a community-facing prison for all the reasons that members from across the parties have highlighted this afternoon. Will the cabinet secretary please focus on the points that have been made in the debate rather than on the eight years when he was in opposition?

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

Those were the eight years in which the previous Executive failed to deliver one community-facing prison. The member cannot have it both ways.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

Sorry, but Mr Simpson did not speak in the debate.

The charge is that HMP Grampian is not a community-facing prison, but we have just heard criticism from the Labour benches that the prison will no longer house a specialist unit for sex offenders. What then is that prison? HMP Grampian is a community-facing prison that provides us with the opportunity to stop young men being required to go down to Polmont and to stop women offenders being required routinely to go to Cornton Vale. HMP Grampian is a community-facing prison that has been delivered by this Administration, as will be the subsequent prisons that we will deliver. The previous Executive had eight years and failed to deliver any.

That takes us to the question of cash. We welcome and support the fact that we had a great deal of honesty about that from the Conservatives. I would be the first to concede that prisons could be built wherever we wanted if we were prepared to spend the money. However, Labour and Liberal Democrat members did not say where the cost of such prisons would come from. Mr Stephen thinks that we could trim the cost at the edges. Should we cut back on security? Should we perhaps make the prison a bit less secure? Is that really what he wants to suggest for Peterhead? The fact of the matter is that prisons need to be paid for, but neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats has made any proposals on how they would fund an additional prison in addition to what the Government is spending.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

No. I do not have enough time.

We are investing £120 million on prison capacity each year. That is an increase of £20 million per year. We are delivering because the previous Executive failed to deliver. We are ensuring that we have a prison estate that is fit for purpose.

As I said, two themes have run through today's debate: community-facing prisons and cost—

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

No; I am in my final minute.

We all accept the need for community-facing prisons. I am glad that those who failed to deliver when they had the opportunity now recognise that. They should be a bit less churlish and more supportive of what the Government is doing in HMP Grampian.

People must realise that you pays your money and you takes your choice. As a Government, our priority is to ensure that we have a prison estate that is fit for purpose so that those who need to be in prison are detained there. It would be useful if the Opposition—in particular, the Labour Party—would support us on tackling the alcohol abuse that fills up our prisons and on dealing with the issue of short-term offenders, who get free bed and board when they should be out there clearing the snow for our old folk.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. The priority of this Government, having delivered a prison estate that is fit for purpose, is to invest in new homes, new houses, new schools and new hospitals. The priority for Mr Macdonald, apparently, is to have a new prison. He can have what he wants if he does not want the Aberdeen western peripheral route, new homes and new hospitals. That might be the direction of Labour, but it is not the direction of this Government. That is why we are committed to community prisons. We will fund the prison estate that we can manage, but we are putting in millions.

Photo of Frank McAveety Frank McAveety Labour 4:49, 13 January 2010

I speak in my role as convener of the Public Petitions Committee. I never thought that I would have to say this, but I hope to make a more mellow and gentle contribution than the one that we have heard in the past few minutes.

This afternoon's debate is being held in response to a petition that was submitted. We endeavour through the Public Petitions Committee process, irrespective of the heat and light that have been generated in today's debate, to discover whether we can assist petitioners in progressing the concerns that they have raised in their petition.

The minister has had an opportunity to appear before the committee, and we have received a substantial number of oral and written contributions; my deputy convener, John Farquhar Munro, identified the scale and extent of that evidence in his speech. He also raised a number of questions that have not been fully addressed in the responses that we have heard so far. I hope that the minister takes on board some of those critical questions, which will assist the committee in our deliberations as we address the petitioners' concerns.

It is not for me to go into the ins and outs—the legitimacy or otherwise, the economics or the principles and philosophy—of the Government's decision. However, I will attempt to find a way in which we can address the petitioners' concerns—although, given what we have heard today, those concerns may be unable to be addressed. The minister was right to identify the principle and the economics as the two strategic issues, and those will always be determining factors for anyone who is in his position.

With regard to the principle, we as a committee are desperately keen to ensure that whatever modelling takes place or configuration is developed during the forthcoming period—not only in Grampian, as it should be part of a national strategy—the petitioners have a sense that we are addressing their concerns. The minister needs to consider holding deliberations or discussions with the Scottish Prison Service and the petitioners to ensure that those concerns are addressed. Those discussions need not concern only the proposals for Grampian—if a new and innovative policy initiative emerges on community-facing prisons, we would like to find out how that can be developed in the most effective way.

My deputy convener did not expand on the final point that he made in his speech, but I can tell members that we want to ensure that there is better community involvement. Those of us who have served on prison visiting committees are aware of the importance of that; I acknowledge Maureen Watt's contribution on that issue. One persistent issue is the quality of experience for families when they visit, and we need to consider opportunities to minimise any disruption. We need to ask whether, when a long-term decision is made that makes a difference in terms of geography and distance, we are working together effectively to address that issue by providing support in terms of transport and so on.

I am conscious that we do not have a lot of time, although we have heard 10 contributions on the issue, which have helped to enlighten us even amid some of the brouhaha that the debate generated in places. The second issue that I want to discuss is the need to address the ways in which Families Outside or other organisations that are working with families can get the support that they require.

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice appeared before our committee and said that he wants to find ways in which community-facing prisons can, as the Government believes they can, provide the right direction of travel—I do not think that anyone disagrees with that. In essence, we are speaking on behalf of the little guys and the little girls who want their voice to be heard when big difficult decisions are made. We want to know whether there is any way in which some shift in perspective can be made to address their concerns. That might not necessarily involve changing the formal decision that the Government has presented to us in Parliament today, but the petitioners want to ensure that the engagement process does not leave future petitioners feeling equally uncertain. That is the Public Petitions Committee's concern.

Today's debate is quite unusual, as we have never before had a chance to debate a petition in quite this way—it demonstrates the work that has been done by the parliamentary authorities to address that issue.

Photo of Frank McAveety Frank McAveety Labour

I see that there is keen encouragement from the Presiding Officer for me to take an intervention; I am happy to do so.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

I thank Frank McAveety for taking my intervention.

Has the Public Petitions Committee seen any evidence on the additional costs of transportation to the community-facing prison that is now proposed, which is very distant? Those additional costs include transportation not only for the families—although they are very important—but for the social workers and for drug workers, because there are a great deal of drug problems in prisons.

The member rightly referred to connectivity with the local community. Has the committee seen any evidence on the long-term income and revenue implications for social work, the SPS and the Government of the additional costs, given the long distance that will be involved for all prisoners instead of just a proportion of them?

Photo of Frank McAveety Frank McAveety Labour

In the evidence that we took and the submissions that we received, representations were made to us about the cost implications. One of the earlier speakers in the debate identified a figure from Aberdeen City Council social work services, and Families Outside raised the economics of the situation. We all know that, if we look at the social profile of those who find themselves in prison, there are often economic circumstances in families that result in the behaviour that is then reflected in prison sentences.

We need to try to address the central concerns. I hope that the minister will take that on board as part of the deliberations. As I said earlier, the matter is not just about the petition and the impact in the north-east of Scotland. If the minister is understood—I think that he is—and he wishes to have the matter as a central policy direction, we need to try to ensure that much of the discussion takes place at a much earlier stage so that we do not end up with the uncertainty that seems to have been a feature of some of the discussions that we have had.

I am conscious that we have only a limited amount of time left. In a sense, I have addressed the points that I wanted to raise. I hope that the minister will address the points that were raised by John Farquhar Munro and the concerns that I have raised in my speech this afternoon.