Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): I do not want to keep members in suspense so I start by saying that the Scottish Liberal Democrats remain opposed to the bill. We do not agree with the principle of a single police force or a single fire service. We still have serious concerns about the loss of accountability, local control and political independence. We have not been convinced by the arguments about how the new services will function in practice and we have serious doubts about the outline business case and the estimated savings.

Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the day's debate on women offenders

16:25


Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. Like many other members, I have consistently pressed the cabinet secretary for action on the disgraceful conditions in Cornton Vale.

In 2009, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons declared the prison to be in a state of crisis, citing overcrowding, two-hour waits for the toilet, cold meals, lack of activities and a deep problem of lack of prisoner purpose and activity, which was impeding rehabilitation.

A follow-up inspection report by the chief inspector in 2011 said that little progress had been made and that there was an immediate need to address overcrowding. It also highlighted several other areas of concern, such as limited access to activities or offending behaviour programmes and high levels of mental health problems, as we heard earlier. In addition, it highlighted something else that has become glaringly obvious to all of us who are concerned about the conditions at Cornton Vale: the lack of strategic prioritisation of the prison by the Scottish Prison Service.

Only yesterday, Brigadier Munro published a further follow-up report. Although it notes some progress, four of the original recommendations and 10 of the original action points have still not been satisfactorily implemented more than two and a half years after the first report. Many prisoners still lack access to clean bedding, access to clean laundry or even basic privacy. Whatever crimes they have committed, it is deplorable that they continue to be denied those basic human dignities.

The latest inspection report also highlighted the unacceptable use of silent cells. The fact that, despite previous warnings, extremely vulnerable prisoners continue to be placed in cells with a single mattress on a concrete plinth, no ventilation and no natural light, shows that the management culture in the Prison Service has still not changed. I have been concerned by the culture of complacency in the SPS and the lack of direction from the cabinet secretary, who has routinely maintained that those failings are operational matters for the SPS. Therefore, I hope that the Angiolini report will mark a change of attitude in the SPS.

I am delighted that the commission recommends that Cornton Vale be replaced with a new, smaller specialist prison for the most serious offenders, and that most of those who are on remand or serving short-term sentences should be held in local prisons. I agree wholeheartedly with that.

However, if we are to reduce reoffending, we must look beyond the management culture and fabric of Cornton Vale. That is why I welcome the comprehensive nature of Dame Elish's report and commend all the members of the commission for their insight.

We have 37 recommendations, which are radical in their scope, and there is much with which everyone can agree. The report considers what happens to women at every stage through the criminal justice system, from when they are only at risk of offending and when they are at the point of arrest, through to sentencing options and resettlement on release from prison.

The report also urges us to address the factors that contribute to women's offending behaviour, and stresses the value of offering women new life choices and valuable learning experiences so that we help them to develop confidence and self-esteem that will reduce the risk of their reoffending. In that respect, the report echoes what Baroness Corston called for some years ago, which was

"a seamless continuation of care"

inside and outside prison and a focus on women's accommodation needs. She suggested that the problems that lead to women's offending respond far more to casework, support and treatment in the community than to imprisonment.

It is clear that the criminal justice system utterly fails women who find themselves subject to it. The failures that the report exposes impact not only on women offenders, but on the communities in which they live and into which they resettle, the victims of their crimes and-this is perhaps the saddest thing-their children, who themselves become vulnerable. We know that approximately 30 per cent of children with imprisoned parents will develop physical and mental health problems and that there is a higher risk of those children also ending up in prison.

The report sets out clearly why we should take a gender-specific approach to dealing with reducing offending. It has been demonstrated that services for women need to resonate with their needs and experiences and that simply adapting programmes, interventions and services that have been developed for male offenders is unlikely to meet appropriately the complex needs of female offenders.

We have already heard that women offenders are themselves often victims of severe and repeated physical and sexual abuse. There are shocking levels of mental ill-health and self-harm in prison. We know that 80 per cent of those who are in Cornton Vale have mental health problems.

I support the approach that is outlined in the report's parts 3, 4 and 5 on service redesign, alternatives to prosecution and alternatives to remand. Short-term prison sentences have little or no impact on reoffending, with 70 per cent of women offenders who receive a prison sentence of three months or less reconvicted for an offence within two years.

I have no doubt that, for minor offences, prison is rarely the right answer. It is far better that community-based schemes, whereby offenders contribute locally to making reparations, be the option of choice. Work in the community that challenges and changes people for the better is a positive and constructive way forward.

The commission rightly points to the vital role of throughcare. Roderick Campbell mentioned the work that we carried out on that on the Justice Committee.

The one recommendation that gives me pause for thought is the setting up of a national community justice service. Such centralisation seems contrary to the rest of the report, which emphasises a tailored community-based response. Criminal justice social work is rightly part of the local government family and the development of close links between criminal justice services, social work services, housing, education, and drugs and alcohol services has meant that progress has been made on tackling the root causes of crime. I am concerned that setting up a national service would be expensive, disruptive and would lead to the loss of such integration of local services. However, the fragmentation and confusion that is illustrated in the report means that the issue must be addressed in some way, so we must further consider the matter.

The report has some frank words to say about the lack of leadership that has existed until now. It will certainly take strong and sustained leadership to make many of the recommendations work, but investment that reduces reoffending will benefit all of our communities and produce lasting results that will make Scotland a fairer and more compassionate country. The Liberal Democrats will work with the Government to realise that goal.

16:31

Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the day's ministerial question time

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to ensure that all pre-school children have access to a qualified nursery teacher. (S4O-00926)

The Minister for Children and Young People (Aileen Campbell): We are making good progress on the commitment to ensure that all pre-school children have access to a teacher. Annual statistics from the Scottish Government pre-school census show that the percentage of children with access to a teacher has increased from 66 per cent in 2008 to 75 per cent in 2011.

Alison McInnes: Given the Scottish National Party's 2007 manifesto commitment to deliver access to a fully qualified nursery teacher for every nursery-aged child, does the minister share my concern about the fact that the number of nursery teachers who are employed by local authorities has fallen in the past seven years? In my region, in Aberdeen, one in four pre-school children still does not have access to a registered teacher, and in Angus the figure is one in three. In the Western Isles, which is outwith my region, the number of pre-school children with no access to a registered teacher is as high as four out of every five. What discussions has the Government had with local authorities about how it can support the training and recruitment of more qualified teachers to guide children through the vital early years?

Aileen Campbell: I agree, as does the Scottish Government, that teachers play a vital role in delivering high-quality early learning experiences to children in pre-school settings. I stress the reply that I gave to the member's first question, which is that we have made good and significant progress. We remain committed to ensuring that all children have access to a pre-school teacher and we will continue to work with local partners on the delivery of that commitment.

The issue should be seen in the context of the stream of work that the Government is doing to upskill all people who work with children in the early years to ensure that children's experiences allow them to go on to fulfil their potential.

Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the day's debate on the Criminal Cases Bill

16:22

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): Like other committee members, I am grateful to everyone who submitted evidence on the bill, because they certainly helped us to get to grips with an extremely technical piece of legislation. First of all, I should say to Humza Yousaf that my husband does not have a legal background - he is, in fact, a documentary filmmaker - but what he offers me is endless patience. He certainly needed that patience when I tried over and over to explain to him what the bill was about; on this occasion, I might even have stretched it a bit.

During the evidence sessions, there was a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing, particularly with regard to part 2, as arguments about the interaction of data protection legislation and the proposals in front of us played out. Much of that could have been avoided had the Government carried out the usual formal consultation prior to the bill's introduction.

Like other Justice Committee members, I support the bill's general principles. As we have heard, it contains two very disparate pieces of legislation. Although not unprecedented, it is not a particularly sensible way to legislate as it ties Parliament's hands. Although part 2 is couched in general terms, we all know that its overriding purpose was to facilitate the publication of the statement of reasons in the al-Megrahi case. Indeed, some might say that it is no longer required, given that a national newspaper published that very document a few weeks ago. Such a development simply highlights how events can overtake us and exposes the dangers that are inherent in linking together two totally separate items in a bill. The fact that part 2 is tied to part 1 means that it cannot be dropped unless we are prepared to allow the whole bill to fall. Of course, that would not be sensible, so we must press on with part 2, however unnecessary it might be. Although it is highly unlikely, I accept that another abandoned appeal in the future might raise significant public interest. However, as the committee convener said, we had little time to take evidence on the general applicability of the provisions as, understandably, most of our evidence related to the Megrahi case.

I support the view that a full and detailed account of the events surrounding Lockerbie should be available to us all. For too long, there has been speculation about the case. As Humza Yousaf rightly pointed out, publication of the statement of reasons would never have resolved all the outstanding issues, but it is an important, if limited, step. Without a doubt, it is in the public interest to know why Mr Megrahi was allowed to appeal. It is vital for Scotland that our justice system is open and transparent and, if mistakes have been made, we must learn the lessons so that justice can be served.

I will focus the rest of my comments on part 1, which relates to the punishment part of non-mandatory life sentences, as we have heard. As the cabinet secretary outlined-the committee convener developed the point in her detailed seminar-it sets out to correct a situation that arose following the appeal court judgment in March 2011 in the case of Petch and Foye v Her Majesty's Advocate, which meant that prisoners who are given a discretionary life sentence or an order for lifelong restriction can apply to become eligible for parole earlier than those who are serving sentences of a fixed length. The bill is intended to restore to the courts the discretion to set a punishment part of sentences when it considers that appropriate in the circumstances.

Yet again, the Scottish Government finds itself having to play catch-up in relation to ECHR compliance. It has had to get out the sticking plasters again. The fact that this is the latest in a string of such cases highlights the need to ECHR proof all our legislation rather than only responding after the fact. Indeed, the committee's report draws attention to the interim nature of what is proposed. It is surely time that we looked closely at our body of law and reviewed exactly how it sits in relation to our ECHR responsibilities.

I support what the Government is trying to achieve with part 1, but I question whether it is going about it in the right way. Our committee report highlights concerns about the unnecessary complexity of the proposals. Public confidence in the law and ease of understanding ought to be central to our justice system. Sentencing is a crucial part of that, and it should be readily understood by all those who are involved as well as the wider public. The bill is intended to simplify the situation, yet the Law Society maintains that

"the Bill will not give rise to a clear legislative solution",

because what is proposed by way of calculation and comparison exercises is similar to what has gone before and may itself bring further confusion and uncertainty, which would give rise to its own complexities.

We heard in evidence from the Faculty of Advocates that this is complicating the issue significantly and interfering with judicial independence, and that there are questions about the extent to which it is appropriate to seek to restrict, control and direct the exercise of judgments. There is a danger that sentencing is becoming too formulaic and we are tying the hands of judges and interfering with their discretion.

I draw members' attention to the paragraphs on pages 16 to 18 of our report on public confidence and clarity in sentencing. As Jenny Marra pointed out, James Wolffe QC characterised the approach of the bill as being

"to take an already complex piece of legislation and make it even more complex."-[Official Report, Justice Committee, 31 January 2012; c 864.]

James Chalmers of the University of Edinburgh considered that the bill

"seeks to create a tortuous system which is barely intelligible to lawyers, let alone the general public".

He went on to state that he had not spoken to anyone who had felt comfortable in reading it and working out what judges are required to do under it.

The committee is of the view that the Government should consider whether a less prescriptive approach would be clearer and more appropriate. I have considered the cabinet secretary's response that the matter is necessarily complex, but I remain of the view that we ought to be doing everything possible to simplify it, and I ask the cabinet secretary to give further thought to that during stage 2.

I have some sympathy with the view that the sentencing legislative framework has become unduly complex and should be reviewed in its entirety to provide greater clarity. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to that in the longer term.

16:28

Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the day's government statement on Lothian Health Board

14.16

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): There is little point in waiting time guarantees if patients can be cheated in this way. NHS Lothian's comprehensive manipulation of the system is pretty disgraceful. If patients had a right to access information about their individual pathways all along the way, perhaps this would not have happened-they would have been able to challenge it if they had been marked down as unavailable. What steps could the cabinet secretary take to improve communication and openness with patients about their individual pathways?

Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the day's debate on the use of social impact bonds on reoffending

Offenders (Rehabilitation)

back to top

The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott): The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-02337, in the name of Alison McInnes, on prisons.

10:26

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): It is a pleasure to be able to move my motion. It is not often that we talk about reducing crime in the context of the services that are available for those who have committed a crime. I think that that is unfortunate. Scotland's prisons are overcrowded. Our prison population has increased by 25 per cent over the past 10 years. That is a worrying statistic in itself, but if we delve a little deeper we get to truly startling figures: 62 per cent of Scottish prisoners reoffend within two years of being released and more than one in 10 offenders who went to prison in 2010 had served 10 or more previous prison sentences.

Audit Scotland's recent report on the criminal justice system identified that the cost per prisoner place is £34,279 per year, which does not include the cost of processing the case through the courts. It is clear that it is time for us to take a new look at the rehabilitation services and programmes that we provide in prisons. That is what our motion is about: the opportunities that we provide for those who find themselves behind bars.

I use the word "opportunities" quite deliberately; of course we do not seek to reward people for committing a crime, but it is only right that we give them the chance to better themselves. It is our responsibility to give offenders the chance to address the issues that led them to prison in the first place and the chance to move past their crime and contribute positively to society. Frankly, if we are not giving offenders that chance, we are failing them and-just as bad-we are failing the society that they are being released back into. Indeed, it is only in giving offenders the chance to better themselves that prison can be said to be working.

At present, our prisons simply do not have the capacity or the facilities that are needed to support properly the rehabilitation of offenders, so what we get instead is a vicious cycle. Existing rehabilitation programmes cannot succeed, at least partly because prisoners have limited access to them in overcrowded prisons. That means that fewer offenders can successfully participate in the programmes, more offenders reoffend, the prison population grows still further and the rehabilitation programmes become still less able to cope.

I am happy to recognise that good progress is being made on the prison estate itself. HMP Low Moss opened its doors just this week, plans for the new HMP Grampian at Peterhead are moving forward and the Government's recent budget included £20 million to be spent on much-needed improvements to the women's prison estate. Those are all positive steps. However, when all is said and done, there is only so much that can be achieved by modernising the prison estate. We must also address the rehabilitation programmes themselves. Audit Scotland concluded:

"Funding arrangements are complex and do not always provide a financial incentive to reduce reoffending."

As I said, the reconviction rate in Scotland is too high but, more worryingly, it is consistent. The reconviction rate today is more or less the same as it was 13 years ago when the Parliament first opened. In that time, the rate has never varied by more than a few percentage points either way, despite the Government having a national indicator to reduce offending.

How can we revolutionise prisoner rehabilitation and finally start to bring down the reconviction rate? We believe that we need help from specialists. The simple fact is that, when ex-offenders get a job after leaving prison, the likelihood of their reoffending is cut dramatically-by as much as 50 per cent. However, figures show that offenders are 13 times more likely to be unemployed than those in the rest of society. The Scottish Prison Service's latest survey reveals stark numbers on the problems that many offenders face. Forty per cent of prisoners reported that drug use was a problem for them on the outside; a quarter of prisoners reported that alcohol use had affected their ability to hold down a job; and one in five prisoners reported problems with literacy and numeracy.

Social enterprise is well placed to tackle holistically the range of needs of repeat offenders. In Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom, we are blessed with a wealth of voluntary organisations, social enterprises and charities that specialise in providing precisely the sort of support that those offenders need to push them back towards playing a positive role in society. Therefore, why not look to those bodies to do just that?

There are plenty of examples of innovative approaches to tackling reoffending, such as the Foundation Training Company, which is a not-for-profit organisation that provides a through-the-gate mentoring and resettlement service for prisoners. The organisation leads programmes and workshops in prisons that are aimed at equipping offenders with computer skills and which provide literacy and job application training. To date, the Foundation Training Company has helped more than 11,000 prisoners, 95 per cent of whom have achieved at least one nationally recognised award. Research from the Home Office has shown that the likelihood of reoffending is reduced by 7 per cent among those who have completed one of the Foundation Training Company's courses.

Those are the sort of positive and innovative interventions that we should do everything possible to encourage. The Liberal Democrats believe that using the social impact bond model is the perfect way to do just that.

Chic Brodie (South Scotland) (SNP): The member refers to social impact bonds. The RAND Europe report on planning and implementation of the social impact bond at Peterborough prison highlighted the need to understand better the risks of financial transfer, the need for new money, the scalability and the monetised benefit. Although I accept that SIBs might have a place in successful rehabilitation programmes, does the member accept that it might be better to await the further report on the Peterborough project before we proceed to a pilot of our own?

Alison McInnes: No, I do not accept that. There is good reason to proceed with further pilots to assess the model. The Finance Committee has considered the issue and Audit Scotland has recommended that we have a look at the model. Therefore, we should push forward with it.

I will outline how social impact bonds work and explain why I think that they are a good idea. They are contracts with Government or local authorities, with a commitment to pay for agreed social outcomes. In the case of offenders, that would be lower rates of reoffending. On that basis, investment is raised and used to fund interventions, such as rehabilitation or work programmes. If the interventions succeed, the investors' initial outlay is repaid by the Government, along with a financial return that is scaled in relation to the degree of success, which in the case of offenders would be exactly how much reoffending has reduced. That contrasts with Audit Scotland's conclusion that

"The way criminal justice social work services are currently funded does not provide a financial incentive to change offenders' behaviour".

That is a reason why social impact bonds are a good way forward.

The payment-by-results approach has a couple of other benefits. First, there is no cost to the public purse unless reoffending is reduced. The Government pays only for the finished painting, rather than simply buying a canvas and a brush and hoping for the best. By bringing new money into the criminal justice system on the basis of repayment that is based on results, the Government can introduce a solid preventative spending initiative even at a time when the budget is stretched.

That leads directly to the second and more important reason why we believe that social impact bonds should be piloted in Scotland. Because the investment risk is kept squarely on private sector investors, there is a motivation for operators of the schemes to ensure that they succeed. That means that high standards are maintained and innovation is encouraged. In turn, that provides us with a further opportunity. As innovative new ideas are developed, spurred on by the payment-by-results model, the Government can monitor progress and, ultimately, adopt the most successful initiatives as examples of future best practice.

The use of social impact bonds can also help to shift the focus for the expert organisations. Rather than jump through bureaucratic red tape to secure grant funding, they can work co-operatively and move the focus of their efforts much more on to the social impact of their work.

Members might be aware of the pilot that is under way at Peterborough prison in which a number of organisations, including the YMCA and Supporting Others through Volunteer Action-SOVA-are using their expertise to provide support to short-term prisoners. The scheme still has a while left to run, as Chic Brodie said, before we see quantifiable evidence on its success, but the initial reports are largely positive. The report "Social Impact Bonds. The One Service. One year on", which reflects on the first 12 months of the scheme, is a fascinating read and it highlights another benefit of the social impact bond model-the ability for service providers to identify and target individual needs in a far greater way than the existing programmes. The initial figures in the report suggest that 88 per cent of prisoners who were part of the programme in the first year underwent a successful assignment.

Given the current financial climate, which means that we must carefully evaluate our spending commitments, and the continuing high levels of reoffending in Scotland, this is surely an ideal time to move ahead with our own pilot schemes. Truth be told, I hoped that our motion would receive support from the Government benches, but Kenny MacAskill's amendment suggests that that will not be the case. That is disappointing, not least because, as recently as last May, we seemed to be in agreement on the issue. Indeed, the following line was in the Scottish National Party's manifesto:

"We will identify and commence three projects through which we can pilot Social Impact Bonds."

That commitment is echoed in our motion, yet by lodging his amendment, the cabinet secretary seems to be pulling back from that position. When will he introduce a pilot scheme, and why will he not commit to the use of social impact bonds in prisons?

The use of social impact bonds would encourage greater innovation in our offender rehabilitation programmes. We should not miss this important opportunity finally to make some real progress on reducing reoffending. I hope that the Parliament will support our motion.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that successful rehabilitation is vital in order to reduce reoffending rates and support ex-offenders to turn their lives around; further recognises the role that voluntary organisations and social enterprises can play in delivering innovative and high quality programmes to address offending behaviour; believes that Social Impact Bonds have the potential to deliver a new approach to investment in rehabilitation, which incentivises innovation and rewards positive outcomes, and calls on the Scottish Government to pilot the Social Impact Bond model as a new approach to prison rehabilitation and reducing reoffending.

10:36

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill): I thank Alison McInnes and my other Liberal Democrat colleagues for highlighting reoffending. I welcome their shared commitment to tackling this difficult issue. As Alison McInnes eloquently narrated, reoffending creates victims, damages communities and wastes the potential of offenders themselves. It comes at a significant cost, it is a waste of talent and it damages our communities. It is something that we must tackle if we are to have the safer and stronger communities that we all want to have.

I will try to say more on this if I have time, but the purpose of our amendment is not to detract in any way from the ethos of what Alison McInnes is proposing. Indeed, we are happy to look at matters, and I give her that undertaking.

Prison will always be the right place for some offenders. Those who have committed the most serious crimes and who present the greatest threat to the public must always go to jail. However, it is the wrong place for many of those who are in our jails today-the low-level, repeat offenders. They are a nuisance in our communities and they are frequently destructive, but they are not necessarily a danger. They need alcohol and drug services and, as Alison McInnes pointed out, they need mentors to show them a better way of life and services that actively address their offending behaviour. Such services need to be available both within prisons, for those who are serving a custodial sentence, and in the community, for those who have been released and those who have been given a community sentence as a direct alternative.

Since we came into government in 2007, we have been working to tackle reoffending, which is probably the single biggest challenge that we face. We introduced the presumption against prison sentences of less than three months and we were grateful for the support that the Liberal Democrats gave at that time. We introduced the presumption for the reason that Alison McInnes articulated in her speech-because such sentences simply do not work. Three quarters of those who are given a custodial sentence of six months or less reoffend within two years, whereas two thirds of those who are given a tough community sentence do not. Given the cost of such custodial sentences, they are simply not economic, and moreover they do not work. They simply produce the churn and cycle of reoffending that harms so many communities.

On that basis, we created the community payback order, which is an effective alternative to short-term prison sentences. We are rolling out nationwide the award-winning whole system approach for young people who offend, and we have improved the information that those who sentence offenders require in order to impose the most appropriate sentence for the individual and the community in which they reside.

Alongside those measures, we have invested in the prison service and, of course, in work to reduce reoffending. Since 2007, we have invested £368 million in the prison infrastructure. As Alison McInnes pointed out, this week sees the first prisoners move into the new, state-of-the-art Low Moss prison, which has been delivered on time and on budget. It is run by the Scottish Prison Service and its staff.

Offenders in the prison will be expected to work or to be involved in other purposeful activity for 35 hours a week. When offenders are expected to be working or to be engaged in another useful activity, power in their cells will be switched off. Prison staff will work with those who are in custody for the first time and those who are persistent offenders to help them to stop offending.

In the spending review, we announced a reducing reoffending change fund of £7.5 million. We intend to use the fund to bring about changes so that services that are effective in reducing reoffending are supported sustainably, are expanded and are embedded in mainstream provision. I do not know the precise detail of the matter that Alison McInnes referred to, but I am happy to look at it. We recognise that much of the work in this area is provided by the third sector, whether by Routes Out of Prostitution, the agency that she referred to, Sacro or others. They provide an outstanding service.

As I said, I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have a shared commitment to tackling reoffending. I agree that we need to be open to looking at all fresh approaches to funding in this area, whether social impact bonds, public-social partnerships or other options. We are working actively with partners, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, voluntary organisations and others with relevant expertise, to develop options for a new system of community justice funding. As the First Minister has said, we do not claim to be the fount of all wisdom. We recognise that not everything can be delivered by community justice authorities, local authorities, social work departments or even the SPS. The involvement of other agencies is required. I put on record our gratitude to faith groups, which contribute greatly on a voluntary basis.

The result of all that work is that reoffending has been falling-one-year reconviction rates are at their lowest in 11 years. That is a tribute to the hard work of the people who work with offenders every day and the measures that we have taken. We are looking to build on those achievements, which is why we have set up the commission on women offenders, which is chaired by Dame Elish Angiolini. The commission is due to report in the next few weeks. I look forward to receiving its recommendations and am hopeful that we can achieve cross-party support in implementing them.

In addition, we are entering a new phase of our programme to reduce reoffending. It will build on the work in phase 1, to ensure that good practice is embedded everywhere and that services that work to reduce reoffending are available across Scotland.

At the start of this Government's first term in office, Henry McLeish's Scottish Prisons Commission starkly set out the choice that the Government had to make. With the support of the Liberal Democrats, we chose to build a system of effective community justice. Reoffending has fallen, but we believe that it can fall further.

Let me be clear that the Government is as committed in our second term as we were in our first to reducing reoffending. I welcome the Liberal Democrats' motion. I am happy to give an undertaking to look at the matters that Alison McInnes raised and to get back to her. I believe that, together, we can continue to make progress, and I look forward to continuing to receive cross-party support when we receive the Angiolini report.

I move amendment S4M-02337.1, to leave out from "; believes" to end and insert:

", and welcomes that the Scottish Government will explore the potential of innovative approaches to funding, including the piloting of Social Impact Bonds and public social partnerships, to support preventative spend measures."

10:44

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects construction work to commence on the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. (S4O-00765)

The Minister for Housing and Transport (Keith Brown): It is hoped that the small number of objectors who are opposed to the AWPR will be willing to accept the recent Court of Session judgment so that we can get on and build the road. Subject to no further appeal being lodged against the judgment, we will continue to work with our project partners to ensure that that vital project can move forward to construction as soon as possible.

Alison McInnes: I seek an assurance that the Scottish Government is doing everything necessary to ensure that construction can start as soon as the legal shackles are lifted. The partners in the project-that is, the two councils-need a clear answer on the proposed funding arrangement, and they need up-to-date costings. Will the minister undertake to provide that clarity at the proposed meeting between Transport Scotland and the councils on 11 April?

Keith Brown: We have had a number of conversations with the councils concerned, and they have been kept fully up to date on the progress that has been made. We have to take legal advice on what we can do during the current period, in which the legal process has not been exhausted, but we also have to go through the various design, procurement and construction processes. We will do that as fast as we can, as we want to be the Government that delivers the project, unlike previous Governments.

Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the day's debate

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): The Union Terrace gardens debate started badly and has, at times, been bitter. It is a pity that what should have been a positive and lively debate on alternative futures for Aberdeen city centre has become so polarised. One of the reasons why that has happened is that the Labour Party chose-for narrow, party-political aims-to fuel the negativity, and it continues to do so.

There is no doubt that the city centre has lost its vibrancy. Its decline is due, at least in part, to the absence of a master plan for the area. That, of course, has now been corrected, thanks to a change in the city council governance. If a region is to remain competitive, its city centre must compare well with other major European cities. Aberdeen would certainly benefit from a more vibrant city centre, which research has demonstrated is a key component of competitive regions.

Some poor planning decisions over the years have changed the way in which the city centre is used: the shopping areas are now disconnected; the main thoroughfare of Union Street is in decline; and, unlike most cities, Aberdeen has very little pedestrianisation. Although the gardens provide green space in the city centre, they are woefully underused and inaccessible to many.

For all those reasons, I supported the initial consultation and encouraged everyone to take part. A public debate on what might be done to improve the heart of our city was long overdue. Like many, I was disappointed that Peacock's well-developed proposals were scuppered by the sudden intervention of the offer of funding by Sir Ian Wood. I argued strongly that, however generous, that must not become the main consideration. It was wholly wrong that it was portrayed as a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

I accept that Aberdeen City Council took the decision to progress to the design stage. In fact, the design competition advanced the debate and opened people's eyes to the possibilities. The exhibition of the shortlisted designs was attended by many people and there was a real buzz around the city.

The decision to hold a referendum reassured people that everyone's views would be properly taken into account.

This has been the most thoroughly debated urban regeneration project that I am aware of. Sarah Boyack said that there were concerns about how the proposals were communicated, but the council, Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future, local groups and the chamber of commerce set out clearly the issues to be considered. The Press and Journal is also to be commended for its coverage of both sides of the argument-the newspaper gave over many pages to explore the ideas over a number of weeks.

Last week, as we have heard, 86,000 people voted in the referendum. The number of those in favour was 45,301 and 41,175 were against. The turnout was 52 per cent, which was better than that for our elections last year. The Labour Party says that that is not decisive enough and suggests that the referendum was not conducted properly, but it has not provided any evidence for that. It is a bit rich of the Labour Party to talk about the result not being clear. Lewis Macdonald's majority in the 2007 election for Aberdeen Central was 382 on a 51 per cent turnout, but I do not recall him worrying about that not being decisive enough.

Now that the vote has been taken, the onus is on the elected members of Aberdeen City Council to respect the outcome. I remain concerned that a project of this scale will struggle to find sufficient funding and that it could end up being trimmed back and thereby not providing the city with the world-class design for which the citizens voted. That would be a betrayal of the hope that the people have shown. There is a duty on the council to work to determine whether the scheme's funding package truly stacks up. It must be forensic in its analysis and include the kinds of costs that were mentioned by Sarah Boyack. I imagine that that will take many months and involve both the current council and the new council, which will be elected in May.

The wonderful refurbishment of Marischal College has shown what can be done when our councillors are determined. I hope that that is just the start of our city's renaissance. The Labour Party can either play its part in that or continue to be negative. If it chooses the latter, it will become utterly irrelevant in the city.

Transcript from parliament's Official Report of the day's debate

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): I declare an interest as a member of the cross-party group on human rights.

I, too, welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate. It should be a matter of great shame that this modern manifestation of a truly vile crime exists at all here in Scotland. There is a widespread lack of public understanding of the problem and of its manifestations. Most Scots are unaware of the extent of the problem and they would, of course, be appalled to learn what is going on, but that lack of knowledge allows the crimes to go undetected.

Trafficking is multifaceted, and by its very nature is a hidden crime. Those who ought to help and protect its victims, including police officers, border officials and social workers, must rely on a degree of public awareness to alert them to potential trafficking victims. We need to develop far better public and professional awareness of trafficking. The debate will, I hope shed some light on the issue and be a catalyst for change.

We can draw on a series of studies and reports published over the past two years that scope out the scale of the problem of human trafficking in Scotland and identify shortcomings in our approach to stamping it out. I refer to the Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee report on migration and trafficking, the report by Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People, entitled "Scotland: A safe place for traffickers", and the January 2012 EHRC Scotland inquiry report, which many of us have focused on this afternoon. Disappointingly, there has been little response to the reports so far. If the recommendations were acted on, the situation for victims could be improved and Scotland made a more hostile and less profitable place for traffickers.

The EHRC inquiry report, which is the most recent of the reports, is unambiguous in its recommendations. The Scottish Government must accept the 10 key recommendations and take action. The inquiry's findings are shocking. They state that human trafficking exists throughout Scotland, with its victims-women, girls, boys and men-found not only in private sex flats but in hotels, restaurants, farms, sweatshop factories and domestic servitude.

We know that Scotland is lagging behind in tackling this most appalling crime. We have heard already that it was last September when Scotland eventually saw the conviction of two individuals for sex trafficking-the first successful prosecution under section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. That compares with more than 150 successful prosecutions in England and Wales.

We have already heard that the scoping study by Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People found that at least 80 children, and possibly many more, were trafficked into Scotland over a period of 18 months without a single person being convicted of that crime. Those children have been sold, stolen, taken off the streets and transported thousands of miles-sometimes, they were just given up by their families in the belief that they would have a better life elsewhere. While trafficked children might face sexual exploitation, other forms of abuse, which might be just as common, include forced labour, benefit fraud and domestic servitude.

It is clear that the number of referrals of suspected child trafficking cases is likely to represent only the tip of the iceberg. Many more children are likely to remain unidentified.

It is important to stress that trafficked people are victims and not an immigration problem. Policing and victim care and support must be improved, and the restoration of the victim's human rights must be put at the heart of a new approach.

The EHRC reports that Scotland does not yet have a comprehensive, end-to-end service for victims of human trafficking. To my mind, that is a comprehensive failure. The Human Trafficking Foundation has identified that the level and quality of accommodation, medical assistance, health services, interpreting services and legal assistance that are made available to trafficked people varies widely depending on the type of exploitation to which the person has been subjected, their location and the capacity of the local support providers.

The foundation also points out that, although safe and appropriate accommodation is vital, the convention includes lots of other support that people are entitled to, such as access to psychological support, interpretative material, medical assistance, legal advice, compensation, legal redress, assistance with repatriation and return, and education for children. We are a long way from reaching that standard. That chimes with the recommendation on finding 10 in the EHRC report, which states:

"The Scottish Government should develop a Trafficking Care Standard and introduce an end-to-end service for trafficking victims."

My predecessor in my portfolio, Robert Brown, raised concerns in the previous session that the Commonwealth games in Glasgow would bring an increase in trafficking. I think that his concerns were taken lightly, despite the evidence from other events. For example, in the run-up to the Olympics in London, the vice unit of the Metropolitan Police was given an extra £600,000 to pay for a specialist unit to work over three years to tackle trafficking in the five Olympic boroughs.

Jenny Marra: Does the member agree that awareness training is necessary for front-line emergency staff, such as the police, ambulance staff and firefighters, before the Commonwealth games in Glasgow?

Alison McInnes: Jenny Marra makes a good point. We hope that the Government will pick up on that. Such training would be sensible.

As Mary Fee said, Baroness Kennedy, the investigating commissioner for the EHRC inquiry, said that Scotland should be taking steps to make it clear that it has established an environment that is totally hostile to trafficking, and that the police, border agencies and all other parts of the state apparatus are geared up to stamp it out. She emphasised that it is important that that is done well before the Commonwealth games. Such international sporting events can be magnets for traffickers because of the huge number of male attendees. I hope that the Government will now pay heed to the issue.

The convention also includes a non-punishment provision to protect from prosecution trafficked people who are forced or coerced into committing criminal acts.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I would be grateful if you would close, please.

Alison McInnes: Okay.

I welcome the cabinet secretary's offer to have a multi-agency summit to refresh the strategic policy, but that must be only the beginning. We will support Labour's amendment, which emphasises that point. Scotland must stamp out this crime. A modern Scotland should not harbour human traffickers.

16:53

10:49

Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD): Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the order. Councils throughout Scotland will meet later today to set their budgets. Democratically-elected councils deliver valued services to local communities, week in and week out.

As we heard, all councils continue to face significant pressures this year. Difficult decisions will have to be made locally to balance the books. Like the budget that we debated yesterday, the local government settlement is tight. A significant cut faces local authorities, and we cannot ignore the impact of capital allocations that have been borrowed or deferred, which creates a greater cost to councils.

As in other years, councils have had to agree to a series of Government demands, on maintaining police and teacher numbers, contributing to change funds and reprofiling capital funding. If a council agrees to the demands, the council tax freeze will be funded for another year-it will not be fully funded, though; local councils stress that the funding gap is growing.

When the SNP removed ring-fenced budgets, it said that doing so would free up councils to make local decisions-many of us said that it was actually to mask cuts to budgets. Now the SNP has replaced the constraints of ring fencing with a different straitjacket. When will Mr Swinney address that? Government ministers make much of their focus on outcomes, yet they are demanding that councils protect teacher numbers and police numbers. Those are inputs; surely we should focus on results.

It is clear that councils' autonomy is being rapidly eroded, which is quite ironic given that the SNP Government never stops demanding to be set free from UK Government restraint. The moratorium on planned school closures and the proposals for national police and fire services are further examples of creeping centralisation. Locally-elected representatives have lost the right to determine local priorities and generate additional income to fund local services if they want to do so. Present for this debate are plenty of MSPs who have council experience, who know that that is an insult to local democracy.

For years I have argued for fair and transparent funding for all local authorities. The grant-aided expenditure process must be simplified. Currently, more than 100 indicators are used, several of which are extremely flawed. About 66 per cent of expenditure is determined by only 12 indicators. The reality is that the existing grants system, which has been in place with a few modifications since the late 1970s, was designed to meet the needs of the larger regional councils. At that time, ups and downs in relation to individual criteria could be ironed out over the piece.

Kevin Stewart: Ms McInnes knows as well as I do that a reason why the formula has not been changed is intransigence in COSLA. Maybe a change in COSLA will change that. Does she agree that the 85 per cent floor, which will benefit Aberdeen City Council, is a welcome move by the cabinet secretary and the Government?

Alison McInnes: I will come on to that. Mr Stewart knows that I think that it is a step in the right direction-of course it is. The review that was handed to COSLA was a missed opportunity, as I said at the time. We needed leadership from Mr Swinney on the issue. Of course the status quo prevailed: he had asked people who benefit from the current system to carry out the review. We can always go back to it and I hope that we will do so.

The indicators are not fit for purpose and must be reviewed. New criteria should target the main areas of spending need in councils. We could use indicators that are intuitively as well as statistically and logically valid.

The cabinet secretary knows that for years I have campaigned for the introduction of a floor. I have backed Aberdeen city and shire's fair funding campaign, which called for no council to receive less than 90 per cent of the Scottish average. We heard this morning that an 85 per cent floor has been put in place. If that has happened, it is a step in the right direction. Aberdeen City Council and City of Edinburgh Council, in particular, will benefit.

However, by my calculations, which used the most recent population figures, the cabinet secretary has not quite secured an 85 per cent floor. I ask the minister to explain in his closing speech how those figures were reached. It seems to me that the cabinet secretary worked out an average after removing some of the councils that get the most. The Scottish Government, in its documentation on the settlement, said:

"For similar reasons to the introduction of the 85% minimum floor, the Scottish Government has applied a notional ceiling to the formula of 115% to exclude the outlying per capita allocations which would otherwise distort the calculation".

That seems to be a bit of smoke and mirrors.

Derek Mackay: I advise the member that the calculation excluded the island authorities, for clear reasons to do with comparing like with like. Is she aware that her colleague the MSP for Orkney Islands requested a specific mechanism to benefit Orkney? We looked at that, and there was a zero-sum outcome. It appears that there are two different positions from the five-member Liberal Democrat group.

Alison McInnes: No. That is not the case. I accept that the island authorities are in a different position. We can examine the figures in greater detail but, as I understand it, it is not only the island authorities that have been excluded-some of the mainland authorities have also been excluded.

The truth is that 85 per cent does not go far enough. If Aberdeen City received 90 per cent of the national average, it would receive an extra £26 million; Aberdeenshire would get an extra £13 million. Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, and Perth and Kinross continue to receive less than 90 per cent of the national average. The gap between the best-funded council and the poorest is still too great, given that they all have statutory services to deliver. I repeat my calls for a safety net for those poorest funded councils and ask the Government to continue to consider a 90 per cent average per head of population funding floor. The situation needs to be fairer. I urge the cabinet secretary to look at that.

The council tax freeze is not sustainable in the long term, and yet the longer it goes on, the harder it will be to return to local decision making on setting council tax. Will the cabinet secretary outline his long-term vision for returning decision making to locally elected representatives?

As Liberal Democrats, we know that responsive and effective services are best delivered when they are under local control. Central Government, with a central agenda, simply cannot do it. We have to do things differently. The evidence from around the world supports our view that if local people are given the power and control, they can bring innovation and new ideas into action and do more for less.

10:56