Agenda item 3 is stage 2 proceedings on the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill. Members should have their copies of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments for today’s consideration. I intend to conclude this item at around 12 noon so that we can move on to other items of business. We will conclude our stage 2 consideration next week.
I welcome to the meeting Paul Wheelhouse, Minster for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and his officials.
Section 1—Meaning of “community justice”
Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 6, 94, 95, 66, 7, 8, 67, 9, 10, 96, 11 to 15, 68, 69, 16 to 20 and 22 to 27.
At stage 1, the committee and stakeholders called for a stronger element of prevention and early intervention to be reflected in the definition of community justice. That was to enable effective intervention to take place earlier, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of future offending.
I have reflected on those views and now propose a series of amendments that aim to broaden the definition of community justice in the bill so that it applies to people at the point of arrest, rather than once a conviction has taken place, as had been set out previously. I recognise that, if we wait until someone has been convicted, that might be too late and we might have lost an opportunity to prevent offending behaviour from escalating.
Evidence shows that diverting individuals from the criminal justice system is an effective way of preventing further offending; that is especially true when the diversion is complemented by an intervention that is designed to address the underlying issues that contributed to the offending behaviour. That is why I propose amendments to broaden the definition of community justice, so that community justice services must be planned for people from the point of arrest onwards.
Amendment 11 is the key amendment in broadening the definition in section 1 beyond the current provision, which is limited to persons who have been convicted. It inserts three new subsections after section 1(2) that set out the persons who will be included in the broader definition. They are persons who have been convicted of an offence; persons who are subject to a relevant finding; persons who have been given an alternative to prosecution for an offence; and persons who have been arrested
“on suspicion of having committed an offence”.
The broader definition of community justice will also include people who are subject to
“a recognised EU supervision measure”
and persons aged 16 or 17 who are subject to a specified compulsory supervision order. In addition, the amendment provides that the offence, or alleged offence, can have occurred anywhere in the world.
Amendment 11 therefore broadens the definition to enable earlier intervention, with a view to preventing offending behaviour from escalating. As I said earlier, if we wait until someone is convicted, that is too late and means that we have lost an opportunity to prevent future offending behaviour. I urge the committee to support the amendment.
Amendments 2, 5, 16, 22 and 24 are a consequence of the changes to the definition that amendment 11 introduces. As members will have noticed, in amendment 11 I have avoided using the word “offender” to describe those who have been convicted of offences. Evidence that was given at stage 1 suggested that the use of the word was associated with negative perceptions and in the context of what the bill is about might encourage stigmatisation of those who had committed offences. However, the committee noted in its stage 1 report the challenges of finding a succinct and accurate alternative.
I have reflected carefully on the evidence and reached the view that it is possible for the word “offender” to be avoided in the bill without damaging legislative clarity or precision. Amendments 6, 23 and 27 deal with that point in places where it cannot be picked up in other amendments. I therefore urge the committee to support those amendments.
Amendments 4, 8, 10 and 26 remove the word “reoffending” from sections 1 and 3 and replace it with “future offending”. Given that I propose to broaden the definition of community justice to include people who have, at the time of engagement with services, not been convicted of an offence, use of the word “reoffending” is no longer appropriate, as it suggests that an offence has been committed.
At the stage 1 evidence sessions, committee members and witnesses expressed a strong desire for prevention of further offending to be more strongly referenced in the bill and especially in the definition of community justice. I reflected on what I heard at stage 1 and I lodged amendments 3, 7, 9 and 25, which are intended to be a positive response to the concerns that were expressed.
Prevention is vital to our aim of reducing further offending. Every form of intervention, support or management is an opportunity to work with an individual to aid prevention. The bill does not cover primary prevention—stopping people offending in the first place—which we believe is dealt with effectively by other Scottish Government policies, such as those on early years, raising educational attainment, action to tackle youth unemployment, health and housing. However, the bill covers secondary and tertiary prevention—stopping further offending and the escalation of people’s offending. The amendments allow us to more strongly reference secondary and tertiary prevention in the bill.
Amendments 3 and 25 insert wording in section 1 to clarify that the ultimate aim is to support people so that they do not offend again or, if that is not possible, at least to reduce any further offending. Amendments 7 and 9 insert into section 1 a reference to prevention of offending by adding the words “eliminate or” to section 1(2)(b) and section 1(2)(c)(i). They make it clear that the ultimate goal is to eliminate future offending by the person who is referred to in section 1 or, if that is not possible, at least to reduce their future offending.
Taken together, the amendments provide the stronger reference to the prevention of offending that the committee and stakeholders requested. They highlight the link between prevention and reducing or eliminating offending and put those aims up front, in section 1.
I turn to a series of amendments that give effect in sections 1 and 3 to the broadening of the definition. Amendment 19 inserts new subsections after section 1(3) that explain what is meant by particular terms that are used in new section 1(2B), which is inserted by amendment 11. Amendments 14 and 15 are consequential. Amendment 16 deletes from section 1 the term “in the community” and its definition, as that term will be superseded by the wording inserted by amendment 11.
Amendment 1 inserts “bail conditions” into the definition of community justice, so that community justice includes giving effect to bail orders as well as community disposals and post-release control requirements. That is an important aspect of the broadening of the definition, which gives effect to our policy intention to enable earlier intervention, upstream from the point of conviction. Amendment 12 defines what is meant by “bail conditions”, and amendment 18 defines what is meant by “recognised EU supervision order” where that term appears in the definition of “bail conditions”.
Amendment 13 inserts a reference to section 227M of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in the definition of community disposals in respect of community payback orders, to reflect the fact that such orders can be granted under that section as well as under section 227A of the 1995 act.
Amendment 17 inserts the words
“in consequence of conviction of offences”
in the definition of post-release control requirements in section 1(3), to make it clear that section 1 refers to people who have been in prison or detained in a penal institution because they have been convicted of an offence.
Amendment 20 divides section 1 into two sections, to assist users of the bill, given the amount of new material that will be added by the amendments that I have just discussed.
Amendments 66 to 69 were lodged by Alison McInnes and seek to define the support and services that are to be available to people who are covered by the definition of community justice. Throughout the process, and in the bill, we have been clear about the need to take a person-centred approach to improving outcomes for community justice. That means having the widest possible scope for the support that is offered to people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The existing definition of supporting provides for just that.
I recognise the important role that emotional and practical support and access to a range of other services, including those for housing, employment and support for recovery from alcohol and drug dependency, play in reducing and preventing further offending. The references to services in section 1, together with the addition of the Scottish Government amendments, are intentionally not defined, so that the services that are covered are not limited. The references include the services that are mentioned in Alison McInnes’s amendments as well as others that are not listed in the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary and potentially restricting, although I am sure that they are well intentioned. To specify a particular service, as amendment 69 does, or to include the list that is set out in amendment 68, could lead some to focus solely on those services to the exclusion of others. We want the support to be more open in scope, which will support the individual approach that is required.
I remind the committee that local authorities, health boards and integration joint boards will be community justice partners and that they will therefore ensure appropriate coverage of important support services in the community justice outcomes plan for their areas. For that reason, I cannot support amendments 66 to 69, so I invite Alison McInnes not to move them.
11:00Alison McInnes’s amendment 94 seeks to broaden the definition of community justice to include people who are at risk of first-time offending. I recognise that preventing people from offending in the first place is hugely important. That is why the Scottish Government is tackling primary prevention through a range of policies such as those on early years provision, raising educational attainment, tackling youth unemployment, health and housing. As I said, the bill does not cover primary prevention; its focus is secondary and tertiary prevention, which is about taking action to stop people reoffending and to prevent the escalation of offending once people first present to the justice system.
Amendments 95 and 96 highlight two important issues: the interests of victims of offences and the preparation of people for release from prison. Margaret McDougall’s amendment 95 seeks to broaden the definition of community justice to include victims of offending behaviour.
I very much recognise victims’ concerns and their interest in justice-related issues and I recognise the motivation behind the amendment. I note that the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 is the relevant legislation to cover victims’ concerns. From a community justice perspective, a number of key aspects of the new model are being developed in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders and partners. I make it clear that organisations that support victims are included in that collaborative development work.
I will soon speak to amendment 31 in group 4, which gives the third sector, including victims organisations, a stronger participative role in the planning of community justice and the preparation of key strategic documents such as the national strategy for community justice, which will give the relevant third sector organisations stronger representation in the new model for community justice.
Amendment 96 seeks to insert a definition of preparing people for leaving prison that includes
“assisting such persons by facilitating continuity of health care, including mental health care.”
Although continuity of healthcare is undoubtedly important when people are leaving prison, so too are other support services, such as support to access housing and apply for state benefits. All such services are relevant to preparing a person for release from prison, so we believe that it would be inappropriate to single out one service over others in that context. As I said, local authorities, health boards and integration joint boards are all community justice partners that will contribute to community justice outcome plans for their areas. In so doing, they will ensure appropriate coverage of healthcare, including mental health care.
Although I accept that the bill does not define what is meant by “preparing” and the associated support services, that will be covered in guidance, which has the advantage of being more flexible than legislation in order to include other support services should they be identified in the future. I therefore fully expect that preparing persons for release from imprisonment will include facilitating continuity of healthcare.
Although I recognise the importance of all the issues that are reflected in amendments 94 to 96 and the motivation behind them, I cannot support them.
I move amendment 1.
The group of amendments relates to changes to the definition of community justice as currently set out in the bill. A great deal of the evidence that we gathered in the committee focused on the need to widen that definition.
It is important to remember the bill’s genesis. The report from the commission on women offenders described the lack of opportunity for strategic leadership and accountability in the delivery of offender services in the community, the short-term funding, the difficulties in measuring impact and the inconsistent service provision across Scotland; it told us that interventions delivered in prison often ceased at the gate; and it argued for radical reform. I supported the recommendations that it made then and I support them now.
The bill could be stronger, and setting out clearly the scope of community justice would be a start. I have been dismayed by some of the wrangling that has gone on between the different players in the development of the proposals.
I generally support the Government’s amendments in the group and I will vote for them. I am disappointed that the minister does not support my amendments, because I think that we can go further.
Amendment 94 seeks to add the responsibility to consider persons who are identified as being at serious risk of first-time offending when activities that relate to community justice are considered and designed. The bill as it stands focuses heavily on people who are already in the criminal justice system. However, we should strive to reduce first-time offending.
Amendment 94 recognises that merely adding “reducing offending” to the meaning of community justice would be too far-reaching. I have instead chosen to focus on people who are at significant risk of offending. The risks of offending are clear and well documented, and putting that wording in the bill would ensure that services were not deflected from working in the area. The criminal justice voluntary sector forum strongly supports amendment 94.
Amendments 66 and 67 identify the type of support that should be provided to persons who are serving their sentences in the community—it is emotional support, such as counselling, and practical support, such as housing advice or education advice. The amendments recognise that receipt of such support can in itself make the difference for someone between turning their life around and ending up back in court.
Similarly, amendment 96 would set in statute the requirement to facilitate the continuation of healthcare, including mental health care. As with amendments 66 and 67, amendment 96 recognises the importance of such support in preventing further offending. We only need to look at how inadequate mental health care provision is in the wider community to know that it is even poorer—almost woefully inadequate—in our criminal justice services.
Amendments 68 and 69 seek to add to the definition of general services that are provided to persons who are serving their sentences in the community. Amendment 69 recognises the crucial role that appropriate, safe and secure housing has in preventing further offending. I have worked closely with Shelter Scotland in developing the amendments that seek to put access to appropriate housing in the bill. Shelter Scotland’s recent report “Preventing Homelessness and Reducing Reoffending” was a powerful call to action.
We know that a person who is without a stable home has an increased risk of reoffending, and yet 50 per cent of people who go to prison lose their homes. The committee has heard over and over again about the importance of providing appropriate housing. The Scottish Government commissioned a report on the issue entitled “Housing and Reoffending: Supporting people who serve short-term sentences to secure and sustain stable accommodation on liberation”.
I hear the minister’s argument about having the widest possible definition, but one of the problems that were identified in the past was the lack of appropriate leadership. He is worried that the focus would be solely on the services that are listed, but I believe that listing the key issues that need to be focused on would encourage greater development of services.
Amendment 68 relates to the wider definition of community justice. It sets out further areas of support that there would be a benefit in naming. In addition to housing, it includes employment, education and support for groups that we know to be particularly vulnerable, such as looked-after children, those with alcohol and drug dependency and those who have been affected by physical or emotional childhood or adolescent trauma. I recognise that other members might wish to add areas to the list, but I believe that support in relation to all those issues, or the lack of it, can make a difference to whether someone offends again.
If members feel unable to support the wider list in amendment 68, they should at least lend their support to amendment 69, which would be superfluous if amendment 68 was passed. Shelter Scotland strongly supports both amendments.
Amendment 95 seeks to include the meaning of “community justice” by identifying the risk management and public protection elements of community justice that are lacking in the current definition. My amendment seeks to ensure that managing and supporting offenders in relation to the safety of other persons in the community, including victims of offences and their families, is taken into account.
Amendment 95 is a small measure to ensure that victims, their families and communities are given more prominence in the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill. It has been lodged because concerns were raised by Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid. I therefore urge all members of the committee to support amendment 95.
Amendment 31A seeks to amend amendment 31 to add a reference to
“victims of offences and their families”
in order to ensure that they are given a higher profile in the bill by being explicitly specified.
Amendment 31A is in another group. You can persist with it if you want to—I am quite flexible today.
I am sorry.
Rather than “flexible”, perhaps I should have said “weakened”.
I can stop and start again later.
Just leave it then. We will keep to the amendments in group 1. Do you want to speak to other amendments in the group—did I stop you in full flow?
No.
I want to comment on amendment 11. I welcome the Government’s broadening of the definition. I particularly welcome the categories that have been picked up beyond those who have a conviction for an offence to those who have been given an alternative to prosecution, for example. Proposed new section 11(2E) talks about younger people aged 16 or 17 and people who are subject to compulsory supervision orders. That is a positive step forward.
I will support Alison McInnes’s and Margaret McDougall’s amendments. I hope that other members will do likewise.
As John Finnie is, I am supportive of amendment 11, which will broaden the definition of community justice. It is right that we look beyond
“persons who have been convicted of an offence”,
and that we have a much wider definition. It is also important to stress that the bill is not about stopping offending in the first place: that is dealt with by other policies.
I have a fair bit of sympathy with the flavour of Alison McInnes’s amendments. On amendment 96, which talks about
“facilitating continuity of health care, including mental health care”,
I am reassured by the minister’s comments about guidance on that—guidance will be an important part of community justice. I also hope that, even if the committee does not support her other amendments, the Government fully takes on board the flavour of her comments.
On victims, we have the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014. However, I hope that victims organisations will be fully involved and will effectively participate in any future national strategy on community justice.
First of all, I welcome the Government’s work to address the concerns that the committee expressed at stage 1. I support the Government’s amendments.
I want to talk particularly about Alison McInnes’s amendment 94 and Margaret McDougall’s amendments 95 and 96. We have discussed the need for the judiciary and the community to have confidence in the community justice system. Although I accept that both the issues that are dealt with in amendments 94 to 96 are dealt with in other legislation and strategies, there is merit in their being in the bill not only to encourage community and judicial confidence that community justice is not a soft option, but to show that it has an important role in dealing with and preventing offending. We must win that battle in public perception if we are to have a successful community justice system.
Good morning, minister. Like others, I very much welcome the amendments that have been lodged that take cognisance of concerns that were expressed at stage 1, and that prevention is included, as well as early intervention, which is a crucial part of community justice.
I also very much welcome Alison McInnes’s amendments. They start to put meat on the bones and home in on people who are at serious risk of first-time offending. They also mention the support that is needed to stop reoffending, for example, support in healthcare, mental health services and, particularly, the services that we know are all too often not available, including housing, employment and education. Housing is absolutely number 1 on the list. There are vexing examples of people being released with absolutely nowhere to go and having to rely on the third sector.
I also support Margaret McDougall’s amendments. She has raised an important point about the safety of victims.
11:15
Good morning, minister. First of all, I would like to compliment the minister and thank him for all the changes with regard to the word “offenders”, which I think was in response to Pete White of Positive Prison? Positive Futures. I congratulate all the minister’s officials who worked hard to make the changes, and I encourage other officials, when they think about drafting legislation, to ensure that we do not call people names. The term “persons who are convicted of offences” is a lot more relevant than labelling somebody as “offender” for the rest of their life. I am delighted that all that work has been done. It is more a matter of tone than a matter of legislation; when we draft legislation, we sometimes forget about what the tone should be.
Regarding Alison McInnes’s amendments—particularly amendments 68 and 69—like my colleague Roderick Campbell, I am very supportive of their intention, but Ms McInnes might remember that, during our deliberations and in evidence, it has been seen as important that the bill be an enabling bill and that we are not too prescriptive. Therefore, I see the matters in those amendments as sitting a lot better in guidance.
I thank members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate on the first group of amendments. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made by committee members, and by my party colleagues in giving their views on the amendments that have been lodged by Opposition members.
For the reasons that I gave earlier, I have a particular concern about amendment 94 because it would broaden the bill out to include primary prevention. That said, I have, with regard to the other amendments that Alison McInnes has lodged, some sympathy with the desire that she expressed eloquently in her comments—and which Margaret Mitchell commented on—to reflect the breadth of activities that are covered. Elaine Murray also made the important point that we need to give confidence in respect of the kinds of activities that are covered.
At this point, I want to express my desire to work with Alison McInnes to come up with a more comprehensive list of activities, so that we do not single out some, but are instead comprehensive in our coverage of what might be included—if it is possible to come up with the right wording. I offer an olive branch to Alison McInnes: if she is prepared not to move her amendments, I will be happy to work with her in advance of stage 3 to see whether we can produce a form of words that will meet the desire that she and other members have expressed to cover the range of activities.
I very much sympathise with Margaret McDougall’s point about victim support services. We believe that they will be covered in the national strategy and in engagement with the third sector. A later group of amendments that I will deal with will formalise the relationship with the third sector, which will include services for victims. As Christian Allard said, that will also be dealt with in guidelines on how we engage with such groups as victims.
I will listen to the views of the committee, but I wanted to make the particular point to Alison McInnes that I would be happy to work with her to see whether we can come up with an agreed wording, in her name, for stage 3.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 to 6 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 94, in the name of Alison McInnes, has been debated with amendment 1.
I will move amendment 94. I have heard what the minister said, but I have also heard the strength of other committee members’ points of view. However, if we need to amend the bill at stage 3, I absolutely understand that we need to work together to do that.
I move amendment 94.
The question is, that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 94 agreed to.
Amendment 95 moved—[Margaret McDougall].
The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 95 agreed to.
Amendment 66 moved—[Alison McInnes].
The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 66 agreed to.
Amendments 7 and 8 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 67 moved—[Alison McInnes].
The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 67 agreed to.
Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 96 moved—[Alison McInnes].
The question is, that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 96 agreed to.
Amendments 11 to 15 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 68 moved—[Alison McInnes].
The question is, that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Against
Allard, Christian (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Abstentions
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Amendment 69 not moved.
Amendments 16 to 20 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Section 3—Functions
Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 74, 76 to 80, 38, 39, 43, 81, 44, 82, 45, 46, 83, 84, 48, 85, 86, 49, 50, and 52 to 54.
If amendment 74 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 75, in the group entitled “National strategy and performance framework: things to be addressed”, because of pre-emption—I know that members have written that down. If amendment 82 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 45 and 46 in this group, because of pre-emption.
This group of amendments focuses on reporting on outcomes and providing feedback on achievements. The ability to demonstrate to communities that better community justice outcomes are being delivered is a key part of the new model for community justice, and we all want better outcomes.
Amendment 45 concerns the requirement in section 20 for community justice partners to produce annual reports on their progress towards achieving community justice outcomes. As the bill stands, the requirement is for community justice partners to report on whether they have achieved the nationally and locally determined outcomes for community justice and on progress that has been made towards achieving those outcomes. Amendment 45 will add an element to the reporting requirement, so that the report must cover the activity that has been undertaken to achieve or maintain the outcomes.
We will set out in guidance the sort of information that should be included in annual reports, such as a description of the activities that the community justice partners took forward, who delivered those activities and who else was involved. Our having such a reporting requirement in legislation will provide for greater transparency in reporting on community justice, which will enable best practice to be identified and shared. The reporting will draw out the sort of analysis that would routinely be contained in an annual report and identify the level of engagement with, for example, the third sector, which is important.
Amendments 44 and 46, which are linked to amendment 45, will make minor changes to section 20 to complement the changes that will be effected by amendment 45.
Amendments 38, 39 and 43 are technical amendments that will update references in sections 18 and 19 to sections of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.
At stage 1, the committee requested clarification of community justice Scotland’s oversight function. Amendments 21, 48, 49, 50 and 52 to 54 will reframe and expand on existing provisions in the bill to clarify the oversight powers that community justice Scotland will have and to set out more clearly that it can make local improvement recommendations to community justice partners and national improvement recommendations to ministers.
Amendment 21 will amend community justice Scotland’s functions, which are set out in section 3, to make it clear that they include monitoring, promoting and supporting improvement in performance in the provision of community justice.
Section 23 puts a duty on community justice Scotland to report to community justice partners from time to time its findings in relation to progress against the outcomes within that local authority area. To ensure that community justice Scotland can properly perform its oversight functions as originally intended and agreed with stakeholders, amendment 52 will insert a new section that makes provision about performance improvement activity. The new section will provide that the general powers that community justice Scotland has under section 4 include the power to carry out the performance improvement activities that are set out in that new section. That power supports the function at section 3(1)(b), which is amended by amendment 21.
The list of activities in amendment 52 is not exhaustive. It is intended to be flexible so that it does not limit the activities that community justice Scotland can undertake to support improvement in the achievement of outcomes—after all, local areas and partners may come to community justice Scotland with differing support needs. The activities that are set out in amendment 52 include making local and national improvement recommendations.
Amendment 53 provides that local improvement recommendations are recommendations to community justice partners setting out the actions that community justice Scotland considers necessary to enable the achievement of, or to improve performance in achieving, nationally and locally determined outcomes. Amendment 53 also sets out the associated obligation on community justice partners to respond to that recommendation, which mirrors the existing provision in section 23(4).
The power in section 24 for community justice Scotland to make recommendations to ministers will be reframed as a power to make national improvement recommendations; the detail relating to those recommendations is set out in the new section that will be inserted by amendment 54. Amendment 54 will not change the substance of section 24, but it is necessary in light of the other amendments in the group. As a consequence, section 24 will be deleted by amendment 49.
Amendments 48 to 50 are consequential and will remove existing provisions on oversight arrangements to allow those to be reframed by amendments 52 to 54.
I realise that there are a significant number of amendments in the group, but I reassure the committee that the intention remains that the responsibility for resolving any local issues with planning or the quality of delivery and for achieving progress against improving outcomes rests with the statutory community justice partners in the local area. Existing accountability lines for individual statutory community justice partners remain through their respective organisations.
If partners request assistance on issues that they have not been able to resolve locally, community justice Scotland will be able to offer support and advice. Where there are persistent issues in achieving improved outcomes, community justice Scotland will be able to make recommendations to the Scottish ministers. Recommendations could be made around the requirement for improvement plans, the potential for specific multi-agency inspections and, in exceptional circumstances, the establishment of a rescue task group to work with the local partners and relevant organisations to effect sustainable and long-lasting improvement. Recommendations could also be made at a national level. The amendments are intended to clarify that position without placing any further duties on community justice partners or materially changing community justice Scotland’s functions.
I turn to amendments 74, 76 to 81, 84 and 86, which are all in the name of Elaine Murray. I am disappointed that those amendments have been lodged, because they undermine a key part of the new model for community justice—namely, the means of measuring the progress that is being made in achieving nationally and locally determined outcomes and key elements of the planning process. The Scottish Government and partners are working together to reduce reoffending and secure better outcomes for communities. Having a consistent set of nationally determined outcomes and indicators is key to the ability to demonstrate that better outcomes are being achieved. That way, there is a common understanding of what the community justice partners are aiming to achieve and the means by which they can measure the progress that they have made.
The Scottish Government has been working extensively with stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the third sector and the statutory community justice partners to develop a suite of national outcomes and indicators that community justice partners will use in preparing their plans and in reporting on and demonstrating progress in achieving such plans. In addition, there will be flexibility for community justice partners to include locally determined outcomes and relevant indicators in their plans, if they so choose. However, the local outcomes should be consistent with the national outcomes to align with the overall strategic approach.
11:30We feel that Dr Murray’s amendments 74 and 76 to 81 would undermine that consistent and strategic approach to planning and reporting and the use of outcomes and indicators. I will, of course, be interested to hear the points that Dr Murray makes. We believe that the amendments would remove the need for plans to set out the progress towards achieving outcomes that have not been met and the actions that will be taken. They would remove requirements on community justice partners to make local outcomes consistent with national outcomes and they would remove the requirement for the plan to set out any indicators. They would effectively remove the planning elements of a plan.
I further note that Dr Murray proposes that community justice Scotland should be required to assist community justice partners in measuring progress towards achieving the national outcomes. We would be interested to know how that is possible in the absence of any reference to indicators in the community justice outcomes improvement plans. I appreciate that Dr Murray has not yet had an opportunity to set out her arguments.
She is raring to go.
I am sure that she is champing at the bit, convener.
Amendment 84 would amend section 23 in consequence of amendment 83, to replace the word “relevant” with the word “national” as regards indicators. Amendment 86 is consequential to amendments 83 and 84 and would remove references to the “relevant indicators” in section 23(5).
I strongly believe that, taken together, amendments 74, 76 to 81, 84 and 86 would reduce transparency and consistency in measuring progress in achieving outcomes. I am sure that that is not the intention, but we believe that it would be the effect. That would undermine the ability of the new arrangements to demonstrate progress in a consistent and credible way to our communities and the judiciary—I know that Dr Murray is keen to help with that—and to key partners and stakeholders. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 74, 76 to 81, 84 and 86 and I urge the committee not to agree to them.
Amendments 82 and 83, which were also lodged by Dr Murray, would substantially undermine performance improvement under the new model by removing key requirements under the performance reporting arrangements. If those amendments were agreed to, partners would no longer have to report on any locally determined outcomes that they may have set for their area. They would have to report only against the nationally determined outcomes, and when they did so, they would be under no obligation to use the relevant indicators. As a consequence, it is likely that partners would report only on the national outcomes that are provided for in statute; they might not plan for any additional important local matters that are specifically pertinent to their area. In a model that focuses on local planning and reporting, that is a key factor that surely must remain and must be expected locally.
Furthermore, that would mean that, across Scotland, all partners would use entirely different measures of progress, so they could not compare their performance with that of others. We believe that that would result in it being much more difficult to drive improvement. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 82 and 83, and I invite the committee not to agree to them.
Amendment 85 was also lodged by Dr Murray. At its core, community justice Scotland is being established to provide leadership to the community justice sector as well as to support partners and stakeholders to deliver better outcomes for community justice in Scotland. As part of those overarching aims, it has a function to provide assurance on community justice partners’ progress towards national outcomes. Community justice Scotland must be able to make recommendations to community justice partners, including in relation to promoting good practice or recommending specific action where progress towards an outcome is not being made. That is part of the assurance process.
Amendment 85 would remove the requirement for community justice partners to inform community justice Scotland how they will respond to any recommendations that it has made, including whether they have already taken action. Without that information, community justice Scotland cannot properly perform its assurance function, adequately share good practice or achieve its overarching aim of supporting partners to deliver better outcomes for community justice in Scotland. Regrettably, for those reasons I cannot support amendment 85, and I invite the committee not to agree to it.
In its stage 1 report, the committee stated that, if community justice Scotland
“does not have adequate powers of oversight to measure and drive forward improvements in performance, there is a danger that weaknesses in relation to accountability, strategic leadership and the ability to properly measure outcomes in the existing arrangements will persist.”
My amendments respond positively to that recommendation by providing clarity on the arrangements for oversight and performance management.
I firmly believe that Dr Murray’s amendments would undermine those oversight and measurement arrangements by preventing the consistent and transparent measurement of progress in achieving outcomes and by curbing community justice Scotland’s ability to assist community justice partners in planning their activities, using their resources and improving how they achieve community justice outcomes. Therefore, I regret to say that I cannot support any of Dr Murray’s amendments and I urge the committee not to support them either.
I move amendment 21.
Elaine Murray has been accused of undermining. I ask her to speak to amendment 74 and other amendments in the group.
The amendments in my name in the group are a result of suggestions from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am grateful to COSLA and the legislation team for working together to produce amendments to try to address COSLA’s concerns. The minister has said why he does not like certain amendments but, when he sums up, I ask him to consider how to address the concerns that lie behind them. Obviously, local authorities are important to the delivery of community justice and so they have to be confident about their role and about the way in which they are undertaking it.
The amendments were proposed by COSLA, which is still concerned about the reporting burden on local partnerships. It fears that the burden would be absorbed by local government and it wishes to rebalance the relationship between the national body and the local partners. COSLA feels that the system of reporting and planning local outcomes is overly burdensome and contradicts the wider public service reform agenda. COSLA stresses that the point is not simply about reducing work that the local partners are required to do; it is about maintaining a healthy balance between local accountability and national assurance. COSLA feels that it is difficult for local partners to fully sign up to the reporting requirements that are outlined in the bill when there is still significant uncertainty about what the performance framework will look like. The minister might be able to give some reassurance on that point.
COSLA feels that the burden of reporting requirements could seriously threaten the work of the community justice partnerships. It stresses that no resource has as yet been allocated to those partnerships, whereas community justice Scotland will receive £2 million per year and is therefore better placed to gather data on national indicators. Again, the minister might be able to give some assurances on that point.
It is important that the outcomes and performance management framework should be flexible enough to allow for local prioritisation. COSLA believes that the bill can be amended to ensure that that is the case. It believes that there is real local work to be done that will result in real local costs over the medium to longer term. COSLA emphasises the budget pressures on local authorities and argues that planning and reporting duties could take away from the meaningful activity on the ground that will be necessary to ensure that the intentions of the bill are realised. COSLA and other stakeholders have made it clear that the local partnerships must be adequately resourced to perform their functions. National and local resources need to be provided if the message that the redesign of community justice represents a shift to a local model is to have credibility.
COSLA stresses that local government is signed up to an outcomes-focused approach to community justice, as in other areas such as community planning, and it supports in principle the notion of an outcomes framework. However, it is concerned about performance reporting being set out in detail in the bill. The minister has gone through the effects of the various amendments in that regard.
The Government amendments in the group are the only ones on which we have had representations asking us not to support them. I would appreciate it if the minister would address COSLA’s concerns over amendments 21, 42, 44 to 46 and 52 to 54, which appear to provide community justice Scotland with further powers of oversight over local partnerships, directly contradicting the assurances about the scope of the national body. To date, the Scottish Government has been clear about the non-hierarchical relationships between CJS and local partnerships. COSLA feels that the inclusion of terms such as “monitor” is not in keeping with that. It is concerned that, as a result of the amendments, local partners must comply with any direction that is issued. COSLA feels that that directly contradicts assurances about the scope of the national body and its relationship with statutory partners. COSLA therefore recommends that the committee should reject those amendments. I would appreciate the minister’s comments and assurances on COSLA’s concerns.
I listened carefully to what the minister said, and I would not want to support anything that would reduce transparency or undermine the proposals. A clear case has been made for a national body. I have been repeatedly concerned about the variation in services around Scotland, and I touched earlier on the wrangling behind the scenes about that. I am disappointed that, at this stage, COSLA is still uncomfortable with reporting. We need to challenge that and provide greater clarity in the bill. The provisions set a clear direction so, although I agree with Elaine Murray that we need to probe these issues, I would find it difficult to support the removal of the provisions. However, I agree with her that resources must follow—that is essential.
It is vital that we improve outcomes in community justice, and measuring that improvement is also vital. However, I strongly support the idea of nationally determined outcomes and indicators. The question is whether local outcomes should be consistent with national outcomes—I believe that they should be.
I, too, am disappointed that there is a lack of agreement with COSLA. The minister has talked about having worked extensively with COSLA. We are at stage 2 and we have a way to go before stage 3. Even if we do not support the amendments suggested by COSLA, it would be helpful if that dialogue were to continue.
Clearly, there should be transparency and a framework—all of that is good. However, I have some sympathy with the amendments, as they raise significant issues. When we first had a briefing on the bill, it was very much about a partnership between community justice Scotland and local justice partners. Now, there is a slight concern that, as COSLA says, we are moving to a limitless and overly directional function for community justice Scotland.
Although I take on board that it is not necessarily a good thing to have too much variation in services—a postcode lottery—nonetheless each local partnership should have the flexibility to address local concerns. I very much hope that the minister will work with Elaine Murray to find some common ground, because there are real concerns, especially over funding. We know how much funding there will be for the national body but not for the 32 local authorities, which we all know are severely strapped for cash.
I was reassured when Elaine Murray said that COSLA was not averse to an outcomes-focused approach, and I agree with Roddy Campbell that it would be good if dialogue continues. It would be very disappointing if there were a turf war about this; as Alison McInnes alluded to earlier, we must remember why we are here in the first place. I support the Government’s position on this and I hope that dialogue will continue, but I will not support Elaine Murray’s amendments.
I thank members for their comments. In response to Dr Murray, I appreciate the motivation behind the amendments and it is helpful to hear from Dr Murray about the rationale behind them, as well as COSLA’s thinking on the issue. We want to provide as much reassurance as we can. I reassure Dr Murray, Rod Campbell, John Finnie and others that we will continue the dialogue with COSLA as we approach stage 3 to try to reassure it in areas where it has concerns.
I put it on record that we do not anticipate that community justice Scotland will become a new regulator. That is important, because there has been concern that, in creating a new national body, we are creating a new regulator. That is not what we intend. The provisions in the bill and the amendments to the bill are to provide the greater clarity that the committee and other stakeholders were looking for about how community justice Scotland will engage not only with ministers but with the local partners. I hope that it has been helpful that we have set out the steps, which are mainly about providing advice and support to local partners rather than stepping in with tackety boots.
There are provisions in the bill for recommendations to be made to ministers, and we have tried to set out the circumstances in which that would happen. As a last resort, the approach taken would be as a sort of rescue task force. However, we would want to avoid that and to work with local partners where we can. I am sure that that is the approach that community justice Scotland will take, too, and that it will try to help and support, to provide advice and guidance, and to spread best practice.
Helpfully, the performance framework, and indeed the indicators, will help to inform the process and to provide understanding of where things are going well. Local partners may, of their own volition, decide to look at what is happening in other areas because they see that there is strong performance in those areas. Building up the local and national indicators will help to fuel that.
11:45We will certainly be keen to see what we can do between now and stage 3 to give as much transparency as we can to what is emerging around the performance framework. It is obviously early days and I do not want to prejudge anything that will be coming, but I will try to be open and share any emerging thinking, which I hope will give some reassurance to COSLA and other stakeholders that the framework is something that they can live with and see as helpful to their performance.
I take on board the points that Margaret Mitchell, John Finnie and others have made in relation to supporting the principle behind what Dr Murray is looking for. I hope that the committee will reject Dr Murray’s amendments today, but I will try to work to give as much reassurance as possible to COSLA and other stakeholders that community justice Scotland is not a new regulator; I hope that it is an organisation that can help them. Ultimately, ministers will have a role if things do not go well, but we hope that we would never have to use those powers.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendments 22 to 27 moved—[Paul Wheelhouse]—and agreed to.
Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Section 3(4) empowers the Scottish ministers to make regulations altering the functions of community justice Scotland.
Amendment 28 proposes that if Scottish ministers in the future wish to make regulations to alter the functions of community justice Scotland, they are required to consult the other community justice partners as well as the existing statutory consultees that are set out in subsection (6) before doing so.
At present, only community justice Scotland and such persons as ministers consider appropriate are required to be consulted. Of course, the other community justice partners could have been consulted under the current provision, but amendment 28 puts it beyond doubt that they must be consulted before ministers make regulations under this section. Amendment 28 therefore acknowledges the key role of community justice partners in community justice and will ensure that they are involved in any proposal to change the functions of community justice Scotland should that arise.
I move amendment 28.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 agreed to.
I intend to stop there. I know that I am stopping a bit early, but it seems a decent place to make a break. We will continue consideration of stage 2 next week. I thank the minister very much for his attendance. We now move into private session, as previously agreed.
11:47 Meeting continued in private until 13:59.