Good morning. I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee’s 28th meeting in 2015. I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices, as they interfere with broadcasting even when they are switched to silent. Apologies have been received from Gil Paterson. Mike Russell will be substituting for him, but he is caught somewhere on a motorway. He should be here shortly.
This is our final evidence session on the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Paul Wheelhouse, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and his accompanying Scottish Government officials: Andy Bruce from the community justice division, Arlene Stuart from the community justice operational unit, Elaine Hamilton from the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill team, and Craig French and Carolyn O’Malley from the legal services directorate. As this is an evidence session, it is perfectly all right for the minister to invite an official to speak, if he so wants.
I believe that the minister has a very brief opening statement—I had a word with him about keeping it brief.
I will do my best to rattle through it, convener.
The Community Justice (Scotland) Bill provides the statutory basis for the new model for community justice in Scotland. The bill will replace the current model, which is based on eight regional community justice authorities, with the new model, which will deliver a community justice solution to achieving improved outcomes for community justice, reducing reoffending and supporting desistance.
The new model is based on the response to consultations in 2012-13 and 2014 and on much partner and stakeholder engagement, which I would be happy to talk about. The new model seeks to deliver better outcomes for communities by promoting a collaborative approach to the planning and delivery of improved outcomes and putting decision making in the hands of local communities and agencies that are best placed to assess local needs. Arrangements at a national level will provide strategic leadership, enhanced opportunities for innovation, learning and development, and assurance on the delivery of improved outcomes.
I commend the committee for taking extensive evidence from such a wide range of stakeholders. I have followed the evidence sessions closely, and I welcome the broad support from stakeholders for the policy principles in the bill. On the creation of the new national body community justice Scotland, there is clear support for its role in leading the sector, driving improvement, and promoting learning and innovation. There is consensus on strong accountability arrangements to ensure that the model demonstrates that the improved outcomes for communities that we all want to see have indeed been achieved. A strategic approach to community justice that is driven by a national strategy and outcomes-focused planning has also been welcomed.
However, it is clear that there are matters of detail on which the views are more mixed and that there are practicalities around implementation that need to be clarified. I welcome the opportunity to do that today.
Funding for the new model—in both the transition and the implementation phases—has raised many questions, and the Scottish Government is making available significant funding to assist the transition over the next three years, subject to the comprehensive spending review. The transitional funding is intended to build capacity and develop further partnership arrangements across Scotland. The reports against funding will identify how the funding has been utilised in supporting the change process. That will provide an evidence base to identify what, if any, further funding would be required for future years.
I am aware of the impact that short-term funding has on planning in general and on the third sector in particular. The funding mechanism for community justice social work services is currently being reviewed, and a move from an annual system of funding to funding over a three-year period is one of the issues that is being considered by the funding group, which will report later this year. Of course, such considerations must be seen in the context of the broader financial settlement for Scotland. I reassure committee members and the third sector that I value the contribution that the third sector makes to community justice. Officials are working with the third sector now to strengthen its role in the bill.
On the arrangements for community justice planning, please be assured that I have no wish to duplicate effort. I expect community justice to be planned within the wider community planning structures. Strong partnerships and co-production will be vital to the success of the new model. I also appreciate that the definition of community justice requires further consideration, and I will explore how we might broaden the definition at stage 2.
A very important issue that was mentioned frequently during the committee’s evidence sessions is early intervention. The Government has a clear focus on advancing the whole-system approach and improving life chances, so the drive in community justice to reducing reoffending is part of our wider approach to promoting social justice and tackling inequality, which includes action to improve early years experiences.
This is an important period for community justice in Scotland. We have made clear the Scottish Government’s commitment to reduce reoffending and the harm that it causes to individuals, families and communities. That means making use of the evidence base, to increase the use of robust and effective community sentences, reduce the use of short-term prison sentences and improve the reintegration of people who have committed offences back into communities. I am confident that the changes that the bill has brought about will support that ambition.
I said that faster than I would normally have done.
It was faster, but quasi-brief.
I apologise for my mistake in mentioning Carolyn O’Malley. She is not invisible—she isnae here.
Ms O’Malley is here, but not as a witness.
I did not mean to say that she was absconding from her duties—unless she is.
She is not, as far as I am aware.
There we are. Now we will have questions from members, starting with John Finnie and Rod Campbell. [Interruption.] I do not know whether that is a signal or a pen waving. What is that? We will also have questions from Christian Allard and Margaret Mitchell. Off we go.
Good morning, minister. You may have pre-empted a number of questions with your brief—or quasi-brief—statement. However, I will ask you about your undertaking to explore the definition of community justice, which is very welcome. Previously there was a definition that included preventing offending. Although the exploration is welcome, is there a reason why that definition was not utilised initially?
That is an important issue and I welcome the fact that John Finnie raised it. The Government remains committed to the Christie commission’s principles, including the principle of making a decisive shift towards prevention.
Prevention of first-time offending is being taken forward on a number of fronts by central and local government, and prevention is already rooted in community planning. Our expectation is that community justice planning will be rooted in wider community planning.
Across the Scottish Government, early intervention and prevention are being taken forward through a range of policies and strategies, including early years and youth justice. A range of other policies are addressing the causes of offending, such as homelessness and drug misuse. The new national strategy for community justice will link across those strategies, which contribute to early prevention and primary prevention. Therefore, we believe that there is no need to include the prevention of first-time offending in either the definition of community justice or the scope of the bill. The Government is addressing first-time offending in other ways, which I have outlined. The bill focuses on reducing reoffending, rather than prevention.
I hope that that helps to show how we have reached our position. I will listen to the committee’s views on the matter, but that is the approach that we have taken through wider work to tackle prevention. The bill focuses on reducing reoffending. In that way it is preventative, as it tries to prevent reoffending.
That is a nice distinction. I think that that is what we meant by prevention.
I understand that it is not a play on words, but a lot of different streams have to come together. Prevention is a very clear thing that people understand. They might understand prevention better than early intervention.
I accept that. We are considering whether the definition should be expanded, as I said. It could include elements such as desistance, prevention and early intervention, and recognise community justice’s role in secondary and tertiary prevention.
The bill is focused primarily on reducing reoffending, but I take John Finnie’s point. When we look at expanding the definition, we can try to bear it in mind.
When Dame Elish Angiolini’s commission reported in 2012, it talked about community justice operating in a “cluttered landscape”. We heard evidence from Dame Elish and from Mark Roberts of Audit Scotland, who said that complexity could be “inevitable” in this area.
NHS Forth Valley also gave evidence. It said:
“the more bodies we introduce, the more difficult it becomes for our population to understand and the harder it becomes for us all to engage. Our call would be for Parliament to try to make arrangements as simple as possible.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 15 September 2015; c 47-48.]
What can be done to try to make arrangements as simple as possible, so that people can more readily understand how things should operate?
I certainly identify with the desire to make things as simple and transparent as possible. It is entirely right to try to do that.
However, we must reflect on the fact that some people whom we are trying to help—by reducing their reoffending and getting them back into a positive place—have extremely complex needs, which inevitably may need to be tackled by a multiagency approach. In some cases—although maybe not every case—it will be inevitable that the solution will involve a number of different partners trying to deliver a better outcome for the individual.
We believe that the bill brings coherence by providing a strong leadership function and a strategic collaborative approach to the planning, reporting and commissioning of services. The new national strategy and common outcomes for community justice should also lend coherence and strategic direction to what community justice Scotland is aiming to achieve. The bill disestablishes the eight community justice authorities, which are regionally based, removing one layer. That reduces some complexity, but I appreciate that a large number of statutory community justice partners are still involved.
If one accepts that point, the bill makes clear who the community justice partners are, what they are required to do and whom they must involve in taking forward the work. The bill defines the role of community justice Scotland and makes it clear how and when Scottish ministers are engaged. It also sets out a role for communities. We believe that the key relationships are articulated in the bill.
I return to my earlier point that the needs of some individuals are highly complex and may involve health, education, housing and employability issues. Therefore, we need to have the appropriate architecture. As Mr Campbell articulated, we need to find a way to make the relationships as clear as possible and help people to understand how that process should work effectively. We believe that the bill does that.
What is the Government’s view on some people’s suggestion that there should be a lead community justice partner in each local authority area?
Local authorities had discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as Mr Campbell may be aware. The bill makes it very clear what duties are placed on statutory community justice partners, including local authorities. They will be responsible for preparing and delivering on the community justice outcomes and the improvement plan for the local area. In preparing that plan, they must consult community justice Scotland and appropriate community bodies, including the third sector, service users and communities.
Local government partners will have a key role to play in that. The statutory community justice partners must also report on the plan annually, having first consulted community bodies and anyone else that they consider appropriate. There should be good engagement between the local authority and relevant local community partners as part of that process.
Section 30 of the bill places a duty on statutory community justice partners and community justice Scotland to co-operate with each other in carrying out their respective functions. That is a clear role.
Collective responsibility is vital to the success of the new model for community justice. That is why, in the process that we have identified, we do not set out a lead partner for each local area. Having a lead agency would open up the potential for the other partners to avoid their responsibilities and to defer to one partner to do everything. We want to promote collaborative working, hence we have not specified a lead partner. We believe that the model we have put forward vigorously promotes collaborative partnership and generation of evidence.
Ultimately, it is for the local community justice partners to decide how to organise themselves and assign roles. It is possible that they may choose to appoint the local authority to a lead role and they have discretion to do that, if that is what they wish.
To what extent do you believe, or recommend or otherwise, that smaller local authorities in particular might choose to co-operate with other local authorities?
That came up in the discussion with COSLA. In the engagement that I have had, it has been suggested that one of the aspects that local authorities find attractive in the current model is that they have been able to work together at local level. Examples were given in areas such as Ayrshire, for example, where three local authorities might want to work together on the basis that they do so on a number of issues already.
There is nothing to prevent that from happening through the model that we propose. There could be a degree of collaboration, and sharing and exchange of information and knowledge. It is for local partners to determine that, and we will give them discretion in the model that we propose on how they take forward such matters.
Community justice Scotland’s key role in ensuring quality, and in giving confidence to the communities and to Parliament about the oversight of activity, is also important.
Are there any supplementary questions on the issue of community partners that was raised?
09:45
I wanted to follow that up. The current model is attractive to the third sector, but—
I do not want us to go on to the third sector just now. One of the issues is that the list of community partners in section 12 is not comprehensive enough. Do you have a view on that, minister?
I take the point. I have heard from the third sector, in particular—I do not know whether you want me to focus on the third sector just now. I have had discussions with the sector.
I will let Alison McInnes back in, given that you have mentioned the third sector, but it is not just the third sector that is not on the list. Housing associations, for example, are not there.
We have the potential to look at that. I am keen to explore how the skills matrix for community justice Scotland is taken forward, so that we consider how to recruit appropriate expertise in housing and employability, which will be important areas of knowledge for the organisation and local partners if they are to work more effectively to deliver solutions for individuals.
We can review the list when the system is operating, and if additional statutory community justice partners are required, the Scottish ministers may, under section 12(3), modify the list by regulation, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Parliament will have the chance to express a view on whether partners should be added.
You are not minded to change the list at this stage.
We think that we have the right list, but if the committee has a strong view on the matter we will listen to it, of course. There is a mechanism whereby the list can be adjusted in future, through the affirmative procedure, should that be required.
I will bring Alison McInnes back in, given that she was launching into a question on the third sector.
The third sector is significant in the area that we are considering. A range of bodies—national and local—contributes. Third sector bodies find it reasonably easy to connect with the current community justice authorities, because there are only eight, but they have expressed concern about the need to link into 32 community justice partnerships. How do you respond to that concern? How will you support third sector bodies to be able to do what they will have to do?
I agree that the third sector is an extremely important partner. Roughly a third of the community justice activity that we deliver is done by the third sector—I think that that is broadly right, although I do not have a definitive figure. The sector plays a hugely positive role, and I know from my work on drugs policy and reducing reoffending that what it does is crucial to giving people opportunities to demonstrate employability and a pathway back to employment. On a number of fronts, the third sector is a vital player in the delivery of effective and efficient services for individuals; it makes a huge contribution.
Under section 18, statutory community justice partners will have to consult and enable the participation of the third sector in planning services and improving community justice outcomes. However, I acknowledge that the third sector has said that it is not as visible in the bill as it would have liked to have been. We are listening to the sector’s concerns and, with officials and third sector organisations, we are exploring how we might amend the provisions to provide for a stronger participatory role for the sector.
I know that there are also concerns about commissioning and security of funding from local government. I am happy to talk about that, too, if it is relevant to your point.
If the convener does not mind, it would be helpful if you talked about how the reforms could tackle some of the short-term funding issues that third sector organisations face. Such organisations spend a great deal of time chasing funding, and that time would be better invested in front-line services.
I recognise those concerns. Sacro and others have made the same point to me. I have heard that up to half of some third sector organisations’ management time is devoted to securing next year’s funding, which is not optimal in relation to the delivery of outcomes. The issue with financial planning is that people typically work on an annual cycle. Work is going on to review the funding mechanisms, in recognition of the fact that short-term funding is a significant constraint for many third sector organisations.
Funding for criminal justice social work under section 27 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 has been protected year on year in the face of significant cuts from the UK Government for section 27 funding. We have provided a total of £750 million of ring-fenced funding since 2008-09, but that does not deal with the year-to-year funding issues, so a funding technical advisory group has been established to oversee the work of developing a new formula for section 27 funding to replace the current model. A move from an annual system of funding to a funding model over a three-year period is one of the issues being considered by the group to help to reduce the need for year-to-year firefighting on the funding front. The advisory group is due to report to the main funding group this autumn. Recommendations will then be made to the joint Scottish Government and COSLA settlement and distribution group. If proposals are endorsed, we should see a new funding model being piloted in financial year 2016-17, and it would then go live in 2017-18.
I hope that that helps Alison McInnes to understand where we are with that issue. We certainly recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the nationally operating third sector organisations that she referred to and some very local ones, and that must be reflected in the commissioning arrangements, as it may not be appropriate to have national contracts where a local third sector organisation may be fulfilling its role well at a local level and where a local community justice operation desires to keep that relationship going, rather than having a nationally imposed model.
Who is on the funding technical advisory group?
I defer to Arlene Stuart to answer that.
The membership of the technical advisory group is drawn mainly from local government finance officers, criminal justice social workers, Social Work Scotland, COSLA and ourselves. It reports to a broader funding group that has representation from the third sector and others including community justice authorities.
Who are the voluntary sector representatives that they report to? I just want to tease it out in a bit more detail, so that the voluntary sector are not just hearing warm words, and so that we know that it is involved right in the middle of all of that.
Absolutely. The representatives are the criminal justice voluntary sector forum; the chair of that forum, who is also the chief executive of Sacro, sits on the main funding group.
Are there any other voluntary groups on that?
The forum is an umbrella group. When members appoint a representative, that representative commits to feeding back to the entire forum. We have also given the criminal justice voluntary sector forum £50,000 this year to help it to build capacity and capability for the new model. Subject to the comprehensive spending review, we hope also to do that next year and the year after. It has identified a post and appointed someone to that post who is actively working with partners to decide what the third sector’s role will be and how it will work in practical terms on the ground.
You said something about the technical advisory group reporting in the autumn. Is that next autumn?
It is this autumn.
Of course, we are in autumn, as far as I know, so when will it report?
We are in autumn, and it is due to report at the end of October or in early November.
Thank you.
On that point, I would like to add that we heard from the West Lothian community planning partnership, which said that it is not only about the third sector but also about the private sector and others. If we receive a lot of calls about ensuring that the third sector is more prominent in the bill, we should not lose sight of the fact that there are other providers in the private sector. How do you see that changing in the bill?
We cannot yet anticipate who would be on community justice Scotland, but it is possible that those individuals could be employed to provide people with knowledge and that those opportunities for the private sector might present themselves. I know from my work on reducing reoffending how important the private sector is in providing employment opportunities. There are some progressive companies out there, thankfully, that are trying to do their best to support former offenders who have a conviction that they have to declare to get an opportunity for employment. Examples include Virgin in the transport sector and a number of hotel and hospitality groups that are good at employing individuals in roles that are appropriate, given the nature of their past offences.
The private sector can play a really positive role, and we are encouraging private sector companies, organisations and representative groups such as Scottish Business in the Community, which is an umbrella group for the business community, to work with us on providing pathways for former offenders and perhaps those with substance misuse issues to find opportunities for employment, which, after all, can play a huge part in re-establishing a more positive role in the community.
You said that you might extend the bill’s remit to prevention. Pete White of Positive Prison? Positive Futures said that he
“would like the term ‘offenders’ to be removed from the bill.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 September; c 24.]
Is that something that you might consider?
I am certainly aware of the sensitivities around such words. I am trying to be careful in what I say, because I am conscious that I, too, am using those terms. The issue is clearly a sensitive one. We want to try to get to a point at which people who have served their sentence and paid their debt to society are seen as positive contributors to society. It is not the most constructive approach if people have to wear a big sign around their necks for the rest of their lives. We will look in due course at how such issues are handled in the bill and the guidance around it, but I know that the bill is—as bills are—drafted in typical legal terminology that might sometimes seem a bit harsh to those who are involved in helping people with a conviction or history of convictions.
I am trying to remember the term that Pete White suggested, but we will come up with it in a minute after we have looked at the Official Report.
I think that it might have been “persons with convictions” or something along those lines.
It was
“persons who have at any time been convicted of an offence”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 22 September 2015; c 24.]
If there are any sensible terms that can be used, convener, we can look at them.
The financial memorandum clearly states that £2 million will be available for the national body, but as one of our witnesses very succinctly and effectively put it, there will be
“absolutely hee-haw ... available for local authorities.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 15 September 2015; c 25]
I thought that we had got rid of “hee-haw”. That will be the last “hee-haw” of the evidence session, I think.
There is transitional funding of £1.6 million for the 32 local authorities, but that seems to be it. Are you satisfied that the proposed funding for community justice Scotland represents value for money?
I recognise that this is a key point that was raised in evidence, but irrespective of the terminology that was used, the transitional funding, which commences in the current financial year, is being split equally, with an assessed £50,000 going to each local authority for use across the community planning partnership in each area. I understand that that estimate has been based on the cost estimate provided by Perth and Kinross Council.
Our intention is for the funding to be available for three years, commencing this year and ending in 2017-18, but the position will be reviewed at the end of 2015-16 in light of the outcome of the next United Kingdom comprehensive spending review and any evidence that might come forward from the sector between now and then. The third sector also has an important role to play in planning, delivery and evaluation, hence Arlene Stuart’s point about the intended funding of £50,000 per annum for the criminal justice voluntary sector forum over the next three years. Again, that will be subject to the outcome of the CSR later this autumn.
We realise that local authorities are concerned about the longer-term position, but I point out that the total cost of the current model is £2.7 million per annum, of which £1.8 million is the operating costs for community justice authorities. The total cost of the new model is estimated at £2.2 million, and we cannot deny that there is an assumption of savings being made in the longer term. However, that will fall on both central spending and spending at the local level, and we believe that the new model will be an effective means of delivering community justice at a local level. We also think that it is not easy to make a direct comparison between the two models.
Funding is really important, given the real sensitivity between the national body and local bodies with regard to ensuring that the latter have the flexibility to deliver local solutions for local problems. Can you provide any more information about the work that is being undertaken just now to identify problems with the transitional funding? For example, is there an issue with people who are employed in criminal justice agencies? Will they all be re-employed within either community justice Scotland or the new local authorities?
10:00
I will defer to Arlene Stuart on the detail of the discussions that are taking place between the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, because that is happening at official level. Certainly, however, we are in on-going dialogue with COSLA about the financial package that is available and we have corresponded with it about the evidence base. We have highlighted that the basis for our £50,000 assumption is the cost estimate from Perth and Kinross Council, and we have invited it to come back with its thoughts on that, in case any contradictory evidence is available.
There are two relevant points. The first concerns the on-going funding and what we are doing in terms of understanding how the transitional funding is being used. On that point, we are working closely with all the local areas. We have funded a post in COSLA, so someone can be employed to lead on the transitional work. She is working closely with areas to see how people are managing the change. We know that some areas have used the funding to appoint some co-ordinators to pull partners together to start their action planning and understand how well things are working on the ground, what gaps there might be and what actions might be taken. Yesterday, I was at an event in the Borders where I saw that in practice and I know that West Lothian Council, Midlothian Council and Fife Council have done the same.
We will work closely with COSLA on identifying whether there are any particular issues. We have suggested to people that they might wish to report to us next May on how they have used the funding for this year, but we have also asked them to produce transition plans for 2016-17 and to send them in by January. Those will identify what the local arrangements are and what the local priorities are for the year of transition, and whether any obstacles and challenges have been identified. We will work with them during that period.
There are sensitivities involved for the 20-something people who are currently employed by the community justice authorities. We are working closely with the conveners and the treasurers with regard to what the transition means for people on the ground.
Potential opportunities are afforded through the transitional funding, but the recruitment to community justice Scotland would be done through open and fair competition. Given that people in the community justice authorities have been working in this area, you would hope that many of them would be well placed to take some of those positions. However, recruitment to community justice Scotland would be a matter for the chief executive and the senior personnel officer, when they are appointed.
If someone does not get recruited, or if they do not wish to go for a place, what happens to them?
They might not wish to go for a place. When we established the community justice authorities, about 10 years ago, we said that, if there were to be any sort of severance, for any reason, they would have to develop severance schemes and submit them to the Scottish ministers for approval. We asked the CJAs to do that over the summer and we are still getting them in. What it will mean for individuals on the ground is that, once the schemes have been approved, the community justice authorities will be able to let individuals know what the situation will be for them. It is the responsibility of the community justice authority, as the employer, to do that, but we are giving them all the support that we can. The area is quite technical as it involves human resources, finance, pensions and so on.
If someone did not wish to accept the severance and did not get recruited elsewhere, what would happen?
I would have to check the employment law around that. However, my understanding is that, if they do not seek employment elsewhere—some have done so, and have got co-ordinator posts or have gone to inspection agencies—or if they do not wish to go to community justice Scotland, they would have to take the severance option. That would be the case unless the local authority that hosts them—but who is not their employer—wishes to take them on using some form of redeployment package. However, that would depend on local circumstances.
So they would really have to take the severance package.
Potentially.
Not necessarily. I think that Alison McInnes wants to come in.
The Government has a no compulsory redundancy policy and I hope that that will apply in this instance. However, I am concerned to hear that eight different severance packages are being developed: I hope that everyone across Scotland will be treated equally.
We have put out strong guidance about that. What we have said is very clear and it is all available online. A severance scheme must follow the terms of the Scottish public finance manual, which refers down to the civil service compensation scheme. We have asked people to make sure that their schemes are in line with that in order for them to go through the approval route, so we would expect them all to be broadly similar. Obviously individual circumstances will differ—people will have been in their posts for different lengths of time and so on.
That was the point that I was getting at.
Have you exhausted your questions for now?
Yes.
Elaine Murray has a supplementary question.
I would like clarification on one of the minister’s answers to Margaret Mitchell. If I heard correctly, the minister said that £50,000 had been allocated to each local authority, whereas the indication was that there was £1.6 million to be split between the 32 local authorities. Is every local authority getting £50,000, irrespective of the size of the authority?
That is my understanding. It seemed a fair way of doing it.
Okay.
Dumfries and Galloway will be happy—or perhaps not happy, but satisfied.
I will continue on the funding side of things. Peter McNamara made his views on funding for community justice authorities quite clear at the session that he attended. If there is to be more prevention and if fewer people are to be incarcerated or locked up, should less funding go to prison services, because more work will be done in the community? What are the minister’s views on that?
I could make myself very unpopular with my colleague Michael Matheson, who is responsible for prisons. I will bring in Andy Bruce in a moment; he has a direct line on the Scottish Prison Service.
Where we can reduce reoffending, that will have benefits for wider society and not just for the prison estate and the Scottish Prison Service. It will have benefits for communities and for families, whose loved ones will not be incarcerated. The impact on children will have benefits for education provision and could generate savings there. I certainly agree that tackling the issue and reducing reoffending can produce significant long-term economic and public spending benefits to Scotland.
Both activities are in the justice portfolio and we have to take decisions year to year on what we fund through the Scottish Government budget. We try to ensure—as the Scottish Prison Service is already doing—that the SPS is a key player in working to reduce reoffending. It does a considerable amount through its preventative work in the prison estate to educate offenders and help them to reintegrate into society.
It is possible that the changes will not result in a reduction in Scottish Prison Service spending, as the SPS might put more money into further enhancing the preventative agenda to reduce reoffending. I would not want to see reducing reoffending in a little silo on its own. It can be done by the SPS and by other justice partners, but it is important that the activity takes place. I will bring in Andy Bruce on the detail.
I absolutely recognise the logic that, if we are trying to elicit the shift in the balance from custody to the community, it stands to reason that there should be a resource flow to accompany that. The difficulty is that, until we reduce the number of people in custody, it is difficult to realise a saving that can be put into the community.
As the minister suggested, we will seek to do that in a couple of ways. One is to make sure that we get the most out of all the funding that is in the community already. Approximately £95 million per year of section 27 funding goes to criminal justice social work, and there is also all the funding that is in the health system—in alcohol and drug partnerships, for example—and in education that can be brought to bear to help with the prevention agenda.
We are taking steps along the way. Committee members will be familiar with the work on women offenders. The Government put in funding of £1.5 million per year to establish an initial set of projects. That was extended this year by a transfer from the Scottish Prison Service to the community. Although we recognise that that is a small amount, we are starting to shift the balance, and that is a clear example of doing it for women’s community-based justice services. The money is coming from the SPS budget into the community to allow those services to be sustained and improved.
I have one point to raise before Margaret McDougall moves on. Mr Bruce, have you just made the case for early intervention and prevention to be done prior to somebody being sent to prison, as part of community justice, so that savings could be made right away? I do not recall how much it costs to keep someone in prison for a year. Can you give me an annual figure?
There is one for modelling purposes, but I do not have it to hand.
I think that it is £36,000-odd. It must have gone up; it used to be £32,000.
It strikes me from what you have said that, to make the savings, you have to stop people going into prison. You seem to be putting the cart and the horse the wrong way round. That is exactly why we were looking at early intervention and prevention in the first place, as well as looking at preventing reoffending. If you intervened first, you would perhaps make savings right away that you could plough back into community justice.
I recognise the point that you make, convener. However, prevention goes much wider than the role that community justice partners will play as a result of the bill. Every bit of work that is done in early years intervention potentially reduces the risk of someone offending in the first place. I suppose that it is a question of where we set the boundaries for the role of community justice Scotland.
I do not quite see why you would separate the aspects. You have spoken about silos, but there is a silo in that respect. People who have been in prison are dealt with through community justice and people who have not yet been in prison are dealt with somewhere else. They are the same people; it is part of a progression. That is the point that I am making about savings to the public purse.
Absolutely. There is a significant number of relevant strands of Scottish Government policy, including our policies on youth justice and organised crime, through which we work to prevent people from offending in the first instance.
I recognise that the roles are important, which goes back to my comment in response to John Finnie that we will look at the form that prevention takes and at the definition of community justice. However, the primary function of community justice social work as it stands is to reduce reoffending, and the new body will be part of delivering that.
It is important that we look for synergies in that work. The same partners—statutory partners in areas such as education, health and housing—are involved in the model that we are proposing, as we know that they have a significant role to play in preventing people from offending in the first place.
Some local agencies can identify people who are on the brink of having to be put in prison, but they will not be part of the system. The idea of separating the categories seems to be artificial and compounds the problem of people going to prison.
There you are—those are just my thoughts on the matter. I do not know whether the committee agrees with me.
I recognise your point, convener—I am not ignoring it. As I said to Mr Finnie earlier, we will look at how we can reflect that in the definition.
I will let Margaret McDougall back in. I am sorry, Margaret; I have got that off my chest now.
I am glad that you did.
Minister, in your response to my question, you mentioned victims and families. However, victims and their families, and witnesses, are not mentioned anywhere in the bill. We have taken evidence from Families Outside, which rightly said that victims and their families, witnesses and families of the accused are all part of the justice system. Why are they not included in the bill?
I recognise that victims and their families have a great interest in what is happening. We have a number of strands of work as part of the legislation that is in force, not least through the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, which has put in place measures to help victims and their families to understand the process. There are trigger points for communication with victims and their families that relate to the nature of a sentence, whether someone is coming to the end of their sentence and when they will be released, so that we can let victims know what is happening. Procedures are improving on that front.
We certainly recognise that there is a role for community justice Scotland in that respect. There is also a potential role in looking at community sentences such as community payback orders. That would involve making those sentences robust enough to give the judiciary and communities confidence that they are viable alternatives to custodial sentences.
There will be work with communities that are affected by crime to work out what the most sensible community payback orders in those areas are—there might be a local need that those who have been sentenced can help to address, which provides a useful service to the community. That can help to create faith in the process of community sentencing, so that people trust that a community sentence is not a weak option but is of value to the community. There are a number of ways in which we can reflect the impact on and work with victims, families and communities that have been affected by crime.
10:15We have not defined Victim Support Scotland in the way that we have defined other community justice partners in the bill. Victim Support Scotland is a key organisation that the Scottish Government works with and we have reflected its role in the support that we give it across Scotland.
We have made it clear that, in preparing a plan for an area, local partners must consult community justice Scotland and appropriate community bodies—including third sector services and communities, which could well include the likes of local victims groups—and work with them to identify appropriate community sentences and packages to help maintain faith in the system.
Does that mean that victims and families will not be mentioned in the bill? Are you saying that consultation will happen, but it will not be reflected in the bill?
Local victims groups will not be specified in the same way as the community justice partners are. We will require local partners to consult key local groups, which could include victims groups. We can reflect that and our expectations of engagement with local groups in the guidance on the bill. As I said, there are opportunities to work with victim support groups on sentences.
Elaine Hamilton can clarify the detail of the bill to help to answer Margaret McDougall’s question.
Section 18 of the bill sets out the requirements for community justice partners to engage and, under section 18(1)(b), community justice partners are required to consult
“such community bodies in relation to the area as they consider appropriate ... and ... such other persons as they consider appropriate.”
We have drafted that provision quite widely so that third sector bodies, communities and individuals can all participate in the planning of community justice priorities in their local areas.
So victims and their families are not mentioned and you have no intention of including them in the bill.
That is not a fair representation of what we are doing; we are giving local partners discretion to determine who it is appropriate to consult. We can encourage the local partners at local authority level to work with victims groups, which could be an attractive thing for them to do. However, people have questioned whether there might be too much centralisation, so we are allowing flexibility. I hope that local partners will work with local victims groups to help to increase their confidence in the system.
You mentioned guidance for the community justice partners. I think that Margaret McDougall is getting at the point that to get the community to buy into whatever is being done, rather than something being done to people, you should be doing it with them. Victims are an important part of that process.
I accept that what Margaret McDougall is saying is important. In the discussion that we had with 120 stakeholders at Murrayfield last week, the role of communities was raised in the context of sentencing and giving confidence in community sentences. We recognise that that confidence has to be in place for people to see community sentences as a viable alternative. We want to reduce the number of people who are incarcerated, but we need to give communities the confidence that that is the right way to go.
Working with local groups would help to ensure confidence in the community sentences that are passed. We can look at how we can reflect that in guidance on the bill to address the point that Margaret McDougall raises and give confidence that those groups will be consulted. We have not specified such groups as statutory partners for the reasons that I just gave.
You have also not specified housing or employment bodies.
Housing and employment are important factors. As I have said already, we can appoint people to community justice Scotland who have expertise in those areas. I hope that doing so will help to integrate those issues into our thinking.
Housing and employability are key areas of value. Let us not forget that local authorities have a statutory function in providing housing. I appreciate that registered social landlords are also involved, but local authorities have a statutory role in housing through the planning system and local housing strategies. A body that has a statutory role in local housing provision is formally represented in the bill as a statutory partner.
To reflect a point that was made earlier, we need to look at how we can involve public and private sector employers. We have indicated that we are looking at how we can reflect the third sector as a key employment route and the wider role that that sector has in delivering community justice.
I have a wee question to ask about the guidance. When do you intend to publish it? Will that be before stage 3?
I defer to Elaine Hamilton.
Guidance is being prepared, and we expect it to be issued after royal assent. It is being taken forward in conjunction with stakeholders and is very much a collaborative effort to ensure that all the relevant issues are covered and are covered in ways that people will understand. That guidance is in preparation, in conjunction with our stakeholders.
It would help the committee to see even draft guidance before stage 3, which might allay some of the concerns that committee members are raising. At least that would take us a step further. Is that possible?
I will take that request back to my colleagues who are preparing the guidance, particularly with regard to transition. We will ascertain whether we can share something with the committee before stage 3.
I am talking about the involvement of housing services and of witnesses and victims—that kind of stuff. Once the bill has gone through Parliament, we will never know about that. It would be helpful if we knew in advance.
I recognise that that would help the committee and colleagues in the wider Parliament, and we will look at what we can do in time for stage 3.
The community justice authority boards are made up of local elected members. Is there any intention to include local elected members on the board of community justice Scotland?
As Arlene Stuart explained, once the organisation is up and running and looking to recruit board members, individuals will have the opportunity to put themselves forward. I am not aware of a post in community justice Scotland that we have specified should be filled by a representative of local government, although I will check with Arlene Stuart. The skills matrix, if you like, that will be developed for the board’s composition might require at least one individual to understand local government, since local government has a key role to play in delivering community justice locally, so there are opportunities.
As I explained in a previous answer, each of the 32 local authorities has a key role in the community planning partnerships; councils already have a central role there. We see community planning partnerships as critical to the future model.
Through the various roles that local government has—we have touched on its key role at the local level in delivering housing and as a potential employer—it will affect a number of facets of community justice. We will see in due course whether people emerge who are recruited to the board of community justice Scotland.
I am glad that you mentioned community planning partnerships, because they are key to delivery. However, there is quite a divergence in the performance of community planning partnerships across Scotland. How will you ensure that they are able to fulfil their role?
That comes down to the role of community justice Scotland. It will support the work of the local community planning partnerships in taking forward community justice by providing support and advice, rolling out best practice, sharing information and making sure that everything that can be made available on good practice around Scotland is provided to each area so that it can take forward its own work. There is scope, where necessary, for community justice Scotland to fulfil a more direct role in eliminating any problems that arise at the local level.
With community justice being delivered by community planning partners, we will have a pathway to local accountability through local government. That is an important issue for residents in each local authority area; the usual democratic accountability will apply, with local government being accountable for its performance at a local level.
We have not appointed a lead partner, such as a local authority, because we believe that all partners—including all the statutory partners—should support the work at the local level and pull their weight. They should not leave it up to local government or any other partner to deliver the whole thing on its own. We expect that all bodies will pull together and be equally accountable for their performance to Scottish ministers or others.
Elaine Murray will ask the last lot of questions.
My questions lead on from Margaret McDougall’s questioning. We have heard slightly divergent views from witnesses about the balance between the national community justice Scotland body and the roles of community justice partners. What balance is the bill trying to achieve, particularly in procurement, which was one of the areas that concerned witnesses?
We recognise that that is a key area that has arisen in the evidence. We believe that the bill sets out the appropriate balance of responsibilities.
The Scottish Government is clear that local leadership and ownership of community justice is vital to the success of the new arrangements. We believe strongly that the new model will deliver a community solution to improving outcomes for community justice, reducing reoffending and supporting desistance. As we discussed earlier, we hope that communities will look at the role in terms of prevention as well, if that is possible.
Therefore, the model is first and foremost a local one. It will allow flexibility, for example, to use local third sector organisations that have particular strengths. We should not impose a national arrangement on local partnerships. We recognise that local areas are best placed to determine the priority outcomes in those areas and the activities that are required to achieve those outcomes.
The local arrangements will be complemented by community justice Scotland, which will work with local partners to provide national leadership, promote innovation and learning and provide quality assurance that outcomes are being delivered locally. We have struck a balance, and we are allowing flexibility.
Commissioning is an important issue. There are existing platforms for local authorities to commission and procure services from the third sector and from other organisations. We do not want to duplicate unnecessarily; if there are good platforms that are already used to procure activities, they can continue to be used.
Opportunities may arise to do something at a national level, which would be impossible either for the eight current CJAs or the 32 local community planning partnerships to do. We can work with local partners and community justice Scotland to ask whether it is sensible to do something at a national level and, if so, to do it.
Where possible, we want each local authority area and each community planning partnership to work in its own right or to collaborate with others, as we discussed earlier. The Ayrshire authorities, for example, might work together to jointly procure services from the third sector or others.
The model is flexible, but it provides the opportunity, should that be appropriate, for a central procurement exercise.
When something has been nationally procured, will community justice Scotland manage contracts on behalf of all?
Yes. Other procurement vehicles are available at a national level, but we are working through with COSLA what the balance should be. We think that we are reassuring COSLA; the local authorities were sensitive to the issue, but we have explained that we do not want to undo the good work that has been done on local platforms for procurement. Local authorities can work together to jointly procure, if that is appropriate. That is an issue for them.
There might well be an opportunity that we can take advantage of to do something Scotland-wide on commissioning that is more efficient and perhaps reduces the need for third sector organisations to contract individually with every local authority. Groupings might come together, and opportunities might arise from that.
Arlene Stuart might want to add to that. She is closer to the detail.
First and foremost, because the model is local, any commissioning and the procurement and contracting that follow should be carried out locally. Of course, there might also be in-house services. When there are opportunities to achieve economies of scale—regionally, between any two local authorities or across Scotland—we would expect people to take them.
If a service or contract was being put in place across Scotland, local partners might look to community justice Scotland to provide support. We expect community justice Scotland to have people with the right set of skills to provide such support.
However, it does not necessarily follow that all national contracts would have to be through community justice Scotland. As the minister said, there are existing arrangements, such as using Scotland Excel, having a lead local authority or health board and using NHS National Services Scotland.
Some of the national contracts that community justice Scotland might take on early doors are many of the ones that I manage at the moment. We would pass the responsibility from the Scottish Government and Scottish ministers to community justice Scotland.
The important point about commissioning for community justice is that, for the first time, there will be a strategic approach. Community justice Scotland will develop that with partners and stakeholders, including purchasers and providers in the third sector, in-house or in the private sector.
That concludes the questions. I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance.
10:31 Meeting suspended.Previous
Attendance