Item 3 is an evidence session on the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill. Last week we requested a written response from the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Paul Wheelhouse, on how two related policy developments might interact with measures in the bill. One of those developments is the Scottish Government’s current consultation on whether the presumption against short periods of imprisonment should be extended or whether a more radical review of the use of short-term imprisonment is required. The other is the final decision to be taken on the future configuration of women’s prisons, which arises from the commission on women offenders 2012 report.
I thank the minister for providing a response at short notice. I note that he is here to answer questions on the response. I welcome the Scottish Government officials. Andy Bruce is the deputy director of the community justice division; Arlene Stuart is head of the community justice operational unit; and Carolyn O’Malley is from the directorate for legal services.
Do members have any questions? They may have been battered into submission in the last session. Alison, stir your stumps; let us have you going.
As the convener said, we are particularly interested in the interplay between the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill provisions and two major pieces of possible reform—one related to the women’s prison estate and the other on the possibility of extending a presumption against short-term sentences, which I welcome.
I think that the committee is seeking some assurance that the bill is not running ahead of itself, given that those other reforms are happening. Is the bill fit for the purpose of bringing about the kind of radical change that is proposed in those other measures?
I believe that it is. If it would be helpful, convener, I will set out some reasons why I believe that that is the case. I hope that that will reassure Alison McInnes and others.
Yes, so long as it does not reiterate your entire response, as we have that.
No. We have set out before, so I will not go over again, the vision for fairer justice in Scotland. That vision reflects the values of a modern, progressive nation; I think that all of us around the table want to achieve that vision.
The bill places a stronger emphasis on robust community sentences, which is focused on actively addressing the underlying causes of offending behaviour. The bill provides the legislative basis for the new community justice model for Scotland. It establishes a new body, community justice Scotland; it places specific duties on statutory partners; and it introduces a national strategy and performance framework for community justice in Scotland. The new national framework for outcomes performance improvement will, we believe, enable the consistent evaluation of progress in delivering community justice outcomes.
Specifically, the new model has been designed to be sufficiently flexible to respond to new policy developments and opportunities at both local and national levels. I am confident that, for example, should the use of community sentences increase in the future, perhaps as a result of the consultation on the presumption against short sentences or other measures, our new model could support that.
As I have said, we have a consistently high imprisonment rate. The Government is determined to change that by reducing the use of custody. We have a clear desire to reduce the use of short-term prison sentences in particular, as they are largely ineffective and do not achieve a reduction in reoffending. We are of the view that the presumption against shorter sentences of three months or less has had limited impact so far, and that is why the consultation has been taken forward on proposals to extend the presumption.
The central message is that we believe that the model that has been developed is sufficiently flexible that it can be adjusted to take account of any policy direction that we take. If there are resource implications, we will reflect on them. The key issue, however, is that the structure is sufficiently robust to cope.
Do you want me to talk about the women’s prison estate at this point, convener, in response to Alison McInnes?
When the figures in your response are added together—29 per cent for zero to three months and 37 per cent for three to six months—we get 66 per cent for sentences of six months or less, which is a lot. If you go down that route, which many of us would welcome, our question is whether the money will follow the people. If you save money in the prison service, will the money move into community justice?
On page 3 of your letter, you say:
“That shift is already being seen with resources transferred from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to invest in community-based services.”
How much is that? That is really the question—will the money follow the change?
I will bring in Andy Bruce on that point, but we would look closely at the resource implications of any decision that we take on extending the presumption against short sentences. The key point is that the bill will deliver the structures that will apply in both scenarios. Whether or not we extend the presumption against short sentences, the structures can be the same.
I understand, but—
I appreciate that there are resource implications, and perhaps—
But you have precedent here, and that is what we want to know about: have resources already moved as a result of the earlier shift?
I appreciate the point and, if I may, convener, I will bring in Andy Bruce on that.
The paragraph that the convener referred to relates to the money that is transferred from the Scottish Prison Service to the community for the women’s base services. That was the £1.5 million that the Scottish Government originally invested and which we have now made sustainable as a result of a permanent transfer from the SPS to the community. That is a statement of intent. As the minister said, implicit in these developments is the view that we want to see a shift from custody to community.
We are about to enter a spending review period and that makes it difficult to be explicit at this stage. We recognise the principles that the committee has referred to around a shift in resource to support the wider vision.
The wider provision of consistent and effective community justice services that we need will require significant development. Can you elaborate a bit more on how community justice Scotland will ensure that there is proper provision?
The diagram that was attached as an annex to my letter to the committee set out the range of bodies that are involved with the delivery of community justice. It also highlighted the relationship between community justice Scotland and the justice board and, indeed, between the justice board and ministers.
We want to give non-custodial solutions parity of esteem with custodial solutions. Having community justice Scotland represented on the justice board, where such matters as the balance of resourcing and the implications of policy as it develops for other functions of the justice system are routinely discussed, is a good way to ensure that any resource implications are addressed. It also ensures that ministers are thoroughly informed of the steps that need to be taken to ensure that adequate resources are provided to deliver the policy intention.
I hope that the general diagram clarifies the structures and the relationships between the different bodies that will be involved in the delivery of community justice under the model that is envisaged. It states quite transparently that community justice Scotland will have a role in the justice board, where such matters are already discussed. Discussions are being taken forward about the women’s custodial estate in that context already.
The justice board provides a balanced way of looking at the issues and implications for community sentencing options and their resourcing. It is the appropriate forum and allows good engagement on the issues that arise.
That clarification was helpful.
One of the drivers for change was that Audit Scotland said that the landscape was very cluttered. There is a real risk of it being further cluttered. We have had some supplementary written evidence from the conveners of community justice authorities. They say:
“However we remain very concerned that issues around authority, responsibility, accountability and leadership remain unresolved.”
They raise concerns about the minister talking about
“‘the potential’ for improvement ... ‘an opportunity’ for change ... ‘in the hope’ that better outcomes will follow”.
Do you not think that we need to be more direct than that and that we need to have more clear assurances?
11:45
I can accept those points. I know that Alison McInnes has a genuine interest in trying to ensure that the quality of services that are delivered is enhanced, if possible, rather than just maintained, so I take her comments in the spirit in which they are meant.
In annex B to the letter, diagram 2 tries to set out clearly how an improvement process would be put in place. I am not a huge fan of management diagrams, but in this case it helps. The triangle on the right of the diagram makes clear the process whereby targeted support and improvement activities would be provided by community justice Scotland to the local agencies that are involved in delivering community justice in each of the 32 areas. Recommendations might arise for ministers and for local government leaders, but as we go up through the pyramid there is the potential for multi-agency inspection, which is not a small measure, and that would look in greater detail at any perceived failings in the local delivery of community justice, which ultimately could lead to a rescue task group being deployed to ensure—
Is that what “potential escalation action” means?
Indeed. There would be some teeth to community justice Scotland; I suppose that that is the way to put it. I genuinely believe that there are opportunities and we hope that there will be improvements, but the proposed model also has the opportunity for multi-agency inspection and for a rescue task group to be deployed to ensure that services at local level are brought up to the appropriate standard.
Alison McInnes raises an important point, and I hope that that clarifies that it is not a woolly process but one that has teeth. We all want to work in partnership with local partners where we can, and that is why it is important not to jump in with the tackety boots at the start, but rather to work with local partners to deliver targeted support and improvement to help them to deliver good services at a local level if they can do so. However, if they are ultimately not able to do so, we can intervene in an appropriate way.
That is helpful. Can you remind me where the business of the rescue task force and beefing up fits in? I understand about having tackety boots ready at the side if you need them, but that is not part of the primary legislation, so where does it come in?
Through a process of secondary legislation we could propose to deploy those measures, and Parliament will obviously have the opportunity to consider the detail of that in due course. I guess we were trying to address members’ concerns that we were dealing with enabling powers at this stage but were not providing sufficient detail about our intent. I hope that that clarifies where we intend to go.
That is correct.
To what extent will the national strategy and performance framework be a living document that will reflect changes in penal policy? Will it be a bit less flexible than that?
The strategy will clearly be a hugely important document that will, in line with other measures, provide parity of esteem for non-custodial sentences and community-based solutions. A strategy with some buy-in and power from stakeholders needs to be developed.
At previous meetings we discussed the national strategy and performance framework and the draft outcomes that are being considered to see how they could be deployed and piloted at local level. That work is under development at the moment to inform the performance framework that will be published. Those documents will be published as soon as practicable after the bill has been passed, so I cannot subvert that process now by coming up with suggestions on exactly what will be in the strategy. However, the strategy will be an important document that will provide clarity on what the Government and stakeholders are trying to do together to deliver robust and effective community sentences to reduce reoffending. That might not be quite the answer that Mr Campbell was looking for.
Will it be flexible to cope with changes that may come in relation to short sentences?
I hope that it will not be a static document that will sit on a shelf forever and not reflect changes in policy as we go forward. It can be reviewed, brought up to date and kept up with best practice as we develop our knowledge of that. It may help Mr Campbell if I bring in Arlene Stuart at this point; she has been looking at that.
We have formed a steering group for the national strategy that has representatives from different partners and stakeholders who have an interest in the matter—Social Work Scotland, the third sector, the Scottish Prison Service, Police Scotland and others. That group is steering the development of the national strategy at present.
The bill allows for the national strategy to be developed and it has to be published within a year of the bill being enacted. However, the bill also allows for the strategy to be refreshed to allow for exactly that kind of thing—changes in policy, context and so on. Community justice Scotland will have a role in monitoring the efficacy of the strategy and asking whether it is still fit for purpose. It will be able to make recommendations to ministers as and when it is required to do so.
On the development of the strategy, we have come up with a broad range of themes. Lots of different working groups are looking at it, as you can imagine with the development of any national strategy. Some of those groups focus around communities, because the model is community based; it is about empowering communities. It is also about ensuring effective interventions; that goes back to the discussion that we have already had.
We have had the first of four regional events to engage with people on the ground about what they will need to see in the national strategy in order to make a difference. The first event was held in Aberdeen last week; the next is coming up this week in Glasgow and then we go on to Dumfries. The final event will be held in Edinburgh. It is really important that the people who will have to make reference to the national strategy when they produce their plans have the most input to its development.
There will be an implementation plan that will come forward with the strategy and that will be worked through as well.
Thank you.
I thank the minister for the diagram that was included with his response to the committee. It is helpful even if it does raise more questions. When the bill was first mooted at an informal briefing, it was stated that community justice Scotland and the local authority community justice partnerships would be a partnership. However, from the diagram of the new model for community justice it appears that community justice Scotland would take the lead. We wanted someone to take the lead but also to ensure compliance.
We are talking about a national strategy the detail of which we do not know at present. In many ways what we are being asked to do is just to look and see how it works, which is perhaps not ideal. Can you comment on the concerns that there does not seem to be any emphasis on preventative measures, early intervention and, particularly, on third sector involvement? Rather than just being consulted, the third sector should perhaps be more of a partner in delivering some of the services and objectives.
I will reiterate points that I have made before to put them on the record, in case I have not done that formally in Parliament. We recognise the very important role of the third sector, not just through its engagement in consultation but as a key partner in delivering community justice. I have put on record before the fact that about a third of activity is delivered through the third sector, so it has a hugely important role to play. I take Margaret Mitchell’s point that different views can be taken on the balance between the centre and local partners, depending on which version of the evidence we look at.
As I touched on in my response to Alison McInnes, we see the necessity of having the ability to step in and sort out problems if they present and cannot be resolved by local partners. However, we would want to work with local partners to support them in the fullness of time to deliver change, if that is required, to deliver against outcomes. If performance is not to an acceptable standard, we must take steps to ensure that that is addressed, starting to do that, initially, in partnership with local partners—we would provide the support and resources that they need to bring it up to the appropriate standard. If that is not possible, there might be more of an interventionist role for community justice Scotland, and that role would be informed by dialogue with the local partners.
I emphasise that we are trying to empower local partners as much as we can, within the framework that we have set out, so that there is flexibility. We have not been directive as to who should be the lead body, partly because we believe that all parties at local level should have responsibility for delivering the outcomes. The bill allows flexibility for local partners to determine themselves how they work together and across local authority boundaries. There is also flexibility in respect of commissioning, depending on which approach needs to be taken.
We have a mixture of structures that provide some solidity, but also flexibility in the system. It is important to maintain a degree of local accountability, as well as flexibility to suit different circumstances.
I appreciate that the diagrams are not perfect; it is never easy to come up with a diagram that summarises the position neatly. I would not want to suggest that the relationship is in any way directed from above, but we do need to have the ability to step in and support where necessary and, if there are failings against delivery outcomes, to put in place either a multi-agency inspection, or a rescue task group, if that is necessary.
We are striking the right balance between local and national influence and providing some degree of certainty—to speak to the point that Alison McInnes made. We are providing some teeth if that is what is needed, but only deploying that when it is absolutely necessary, rather than at the very beginning.
If penal reform goes ahead and the presumption of not just three months, but six months, comes into force, clearly the community justice partners will have a substantial increase in their workload. Are you confident that they will still have the flexibility and resources to prioritise locally and to look at the prevention and early intervention that we all agreed was germane to the whole proposal?
We have not finalised our stage 1 report on that, but there is a sentiment that the focus should be on early intervention.
On the preventative agenda, Mr Finnie raised the definition of community justice when I first gave stage 1 evidence on the bill and we will say more about that in due course.
The Government has in place a range of preventative strategies, which complement what we are doing in community justice. As I said at the previous committee meeting, there are frameworks in place for early years: the draft national improvement framework for Scottish education, getting it right for every child, and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 all deal with prevention at the earliest stage, to try to prevent people from committing crimes in the first place, and giving them the support that they need to have an equal chance in life.
We also have a grouping of strategies that we might say come under secondary prevention, with which community sentences and the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill fit. There is a whole range of other strategies that I will not go through just now. The point is that the bill deals with reducing reoffending. There are already strategies that support targeting to reduce offending in the first place, in particular support for young people to get the best start in life and to reduce their chances of committing an offence.
As we go forward, we are considering the definition of community justice and trying to reflect the committee’s and wider stakeholders’ sentiments on prevention.
The bill is not to be seen in isolation; the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill sits alongside a number of very well prepared and highly regarded strategies, which deliver preventative measures at an earlier stage in someone’s life. The bill aims to reduce the risk that someone will reoffend, once they have already offended.
We take on board the point about prevention and we will try to do what we can to reflect that in due course.
Early intervention is very broad—it could start in the pram. We were thinking more of diversions from prosecution and ensuring that people do not go into the system in the first place. We would narrow it down to that.
I accept that diversion from prosecution can be very helpful. Indeed, we are taking that forward in the context of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, to try to reduce the need to criminalise someone in the first place.
12:00
Thank you, minister, for your response to our letter. There will be tensions regarding national and local strategy agencies and the third sector, but if they are dealt with positively they should not create a difficulty for us.
In your response, you talk about proposals on
“strengthening the presumption against ineffective short-term sentences and for female offenders”
and you allude to the transfer of resources to the Scottish Prison Service
“to invest in community-based services and work by the SPS to transform its role”
with reference to throughcare and the integration of people back into the community. Surely that is an example of how we can learn, on an on-going basis, about the transfer of resources from the institution to the community.
Can you explain about your work and SPS’s work to transform its role? Maybe its role does not extend to the community. I am supportive of it, but should not the SPS be a facilitator, rather than a deliverer? What would the relationship be with the third sector, which might see the community as its traditional ground? Where among all that would community justice Scotland sit?
I accept Mr Finnie’s point that we should not be prescriptive of the SPS. On a number of fronts we are seeing—I have seen evidence of this myself—that the SPS is trying to get more engaged in ensuring appropriate employment for people who have convictions when they leave the prison system, to try to reduce reoffending. It is being much more proactive in education and it is working with partners outside the prison service to ensure that there is appropriate housing for people when they come out. Those are all important measures.
I would maybe flip the question around. We would not want to be in a situation in which we cut the SPS loose from the very important work that increasingly it is getting involved in.
No.
That work is very positive and helps to provide as much certainty as possible to those who unfortunately have to spend time in the Scottish prison estate, so that they have a viable future ahead of them and are supported to resume a normal way of life, which will reduce their risk of reoffending.
If there are opportunities that do not involve the SPS, they are okay, too. The third sector might be a more appropriate partner to work with in such situations. We should not be prescriptive and I take Mr Finnie’s point. We are trying to reflect the fact that the SPS is trying to become much more proactive in supporting those who come through the prison system to re-engage in society and in ensuring that they have the support that they need to reduce their risk of reoffending.
Andy Bruce might want to give Mr Finnie some examples.
I will expand on the throughcare support officer role. We absolutely see the transition from custody to community as really important. People who make that transition really benefit from having someone alongside them to provide advocacy and support as they make their return to the community. The TSO’s role sits alongside the role of the mentors, who we supported through the public support partnerships, which are primarily third sector.
We want to ensure that we provide the best support for people. If someone has developed a really good relationship with their prison officer, there is no reason for the end of the prison sentence to be the end of that relationship, if that suits them. However, continuing that relationship might be the last thing that they want, because of their experience. In that situation it is probably appropriate that someone looks to a mentor from the third sector. A mixed economy should be available.
The approach that we are trying to support is one that looks at the particular needs of the person who is leaving prison and what the best support package to put alongside them would be. It should be third sector support if that is best for them, but if it makes sense for there to be continued support from a prison officer, the system should be able to support that.
How does that actually work on the balance sheet? Someone must hold the resource. I am greatly reassured by your saying that there will be individual, tailored support, but where does the funding come from? Jimmy, or Mary, might want support from their prison officer, or not; but I presume that the resource would be there so that the prison officer could give that. Would community justice Scotland deal with that? Would it express a view?
We are looking at how we can formally reflect the role of the third sector in the bill—I reiterate that point. There is an important delivery relationship between all the statutory partners and the third sector. As regards the funding, we will have a transitional period in which there will be on-going examination of the resourcing that is required. We are working on some assumptions at the moment and we have undertaken to reflect on any pressures that arise during that process.
I accept that in the longer term we need to think about how we work with the third sector. The commissioning arrangements that we have outlined try to give more clarity and stability to the third sector partners. I appreciate that that is a separate issue from the one that Mr Finnie raised, but within that we can look at how funding mechanisms work. If there is a person-centred approach, we will have to reflect that in how we resource that activity.
We can come back to the committee with further information and thinking about that if that would be helpful.
It would be. I am not batting for any particular side—whatever is appropriate. It will not be as simple as reduced admissions to prison meaning other reductions; there will still need to be a certain cohort of prison staff regardless of the number of prisoners.
Yes, indeed, for health and safety reasons and a raft of other operational reasons.
Can you just remind us of the cost per annum of somebody being in prison?
It is significant but it varies. I have a figure in my head that is probably incorrect; I should refer to Andy Bruce for that.
It is just out of interest. I appreciate what you say about the staffing levels.
Convener, if the point that you are raising is that by not having someone in custody you release resource, that is absolutely correct.
Do we have an idea of the amount—a ballpark figure for it?
The figure is somewhere around £32,000 to £34,000—something like that.
It cannae still be that. That is what it was 10 years ago when I was getting it quoted, surely.
I do not have an up-to-date figure for you.
From the public’s point of view, it is helpful to have that, but I know that that was being quoted a way back, and I do not think that it will be static.
I had a slightly higher figure in my head but I am glad that I did not use it.
What was the slightly higher figure in your head, minister?
I thought that it might be nearer £40,000 but that might be incorrect.
I tend to agree with that, Mr Bruce.
I will try to come back to the committee with a more accurate figure.
Either that or you have been very economical in the Scottish Prison Service, given that everything else in life is costing more, including salaries.
On one of the variables, we should acknowledge, as Mr Finnie did, that there is a fixed number of prison staff—a fixed prison estate. As the number of offenders in custody drops—we have had great success in delivering our youth justice approach, so that we have fewer offenders in Polmont, for example—the cost per prisoner actually increases. To be fair to Mr Bruce, it is a bit of a moveable feast, but we will try to find a more accurate figure for the committee.
There are savings to be made, obviously.
That is acknowledged.
On the point about a mixed economy that Andy Bruce talked about, we have talked a lot about the third sector but I did not see anything in your reply about the private sector and how much it is doing to help. Can you give us some idea about that and make it clearer? There is a mixed economy involving not only the SPS and the third sector but another part as well.
I apologise if that is a failing in the response, given that that is a very important issue that Mr Allard has raised before.
We did not ask about it in our letter, Monsieur Allard.
It was just in the conversation.
I am happy to address it if I can, briefly, to give some reassurance to Mr Allard.
We are doing some work looking at how we change the environment for private sector employment of people who have convictions. The committee will be aware of the proposed changes to the system of disclosure of spent convictions, which aims to make it easier for individuals whose conviction is not relevant to the job that they are going for not necessarily to declare an old conviction. We have some good, proactive employers both across the UK and in Scotland who are working with local authorities and the SPS to try to provide employment opportunities for individuals who leave the prison estate, ensuring that they have viable employment options.
Reducing reoffending is not just about housing or the other issues that I have discussed; employment is one of the most important ways in which we can prevent people from reoffending. If they have a stable job and a home to live in there is a very good chance that they will not reoffend. I take on board Mr Allard’s point, which we can address in the subsequent debate.
Thank you, minister.
The devil finds work for idle hands—we are reminded of that. Not that Margaret McDougall has idle hands, so we will hear her question.
You might not be saying that once I have asked my question because I want to ask about victims, although I know that that was not part of the letter that we sent to the minister.
Community justice is essentially about communities and, obviously, justice for all; that includes victims. If there were no offenders, there would be no victims but there is very little mention of victims in the bill. I thank the minister for the flowchart that was attached to his response. It is very useful, but where are the victims represented? They do not seem to be represented at all.
I respect the point that Margaret McDougall has made. I know of her strong interest and experience in the area.
It is not personal—I am trying to be objective.
No, but I appreciate the point and it is important. It is not one that I have addressed in the parliamentary debate so far, regrettably, but externally these questions have been raised.
At local level, in the 32 areas, we are looking at an opportunity for engagement with representatives of victims and wider communities on the kinds of community sentences that might be most appropriate. Community sentences might help not only by reducing reoffending but by delivering some collateral benefit to the local community in the process—they might be targeted at a particular need and do something that is seen as being helpful to the community. There are opportunities for that in the proposed structures, but rather than being prescriptive about the form that it should take, we see that kind of engagement as happening at a local level. There may then be examples of best practice that can be taken forward, publicised and rolled out through the efforts of community justice Scotland as well.
Work with local groups—such as that done with Scottish Women’s Aid and other third sector organisations in relation to those who have survived an abusive relationship—can look at the kind of things that would help at local level, and engagement with community councils and other community groups can identify meaningful community sentences that might provide reassurance to the community. If the sentences are not only providing a robust alternative to custody but delivering something that is perceived to be of benefit to the community, that is good.
We can reflect further on how we represent the interests of victims as we take forward the bill. I take that point in full.
That concludes the evidence session. I thank the minister for making himself available today, pretty well single handed. We now move into private session.
12:12 Meeting continued in private until 13:08.