Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, May 2, 2013

Official Report 842KB pdf

---

Community Justice System

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06433, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on redesigning the community justice system.

I know that the mood in the chamber is more sombre than usual, given events and the debate that has just taken place, but I am grateful that members have agreed to participate in this debate; their comments and thoughts will be important.

I am pleased to open the debate on redesigning the community justice system in Scotland. Reoffending is an important issue that affects everyone: it creates victims, damages communities and wastes potential. Audit Scotland has estimated the total social and economic cost of reoffending at approximately £3 billion per annum. That is why it is imperative that the arrangements that are in place to plan, manage and deliver offender services in the community maximise the potential for delivery of positive outcomes for victims, communities and offenders.

I commend the hard work of our partners in the statutory and third sectors—including in community justice, health, housing and education—in tackling reoffending over the past five years. I have seen at first hand the excellent work that is being done throughout the country.

The new community payback order has been successfully implemented, with 10,228 orders commenced between April 2011 and March 2012. As a result, 934,502 hours of unpaid work or other activity have been undertaken in communities throughout Scotland.

The whole-system approach for young people continues to be rolled out throughout Scotland, resulting in a decrease of 32 per cent in recorded crimes and offences committed by young people between 2008-09 and 2011-12. Most recently, we have invested £7.7 million in a national network of mentoring schemes, which are to be provided by partnerships between the third sector and the public sector and will target women offenders and prolific offenders who are at risk of committing more crimes. Reoffending rates are now at their lowest in more than a decade, and recorded crime is at a 37-year low.

Although all that is progress in the right direction, a series of recent reports have highlighted shortcomings in community justice and have called—understandably—for urgent action. Those included Audit Scotland’s report, “An overview of Scotland’s criminal justice system”, which was published in September 2011, and the report by the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee, which took evidence on the findings of the Audit Scotland report. Both highlighted concerns about the lack of information on the range, capacity and effectiveness of offender services, as well as about the accountability arrangements for community justice authorities.

Although there are many different bodies involved in reducing reoffending, CJAs, which were created by the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, are the main bodies responsible for setting the direction and priorities on reducing reoffending in their geographical areas. CJAs are not directly accountable to Scottish ministers or to local authorities, although we monitor how they discharge their statutory functions. Criminal justice social work in local authorities continues to provide offender services including community payback orders and services for offenders leaving prison, as well as commissioning services from the third sector.

That set-up has created a confusing picture. Indeed, the effectiveness of those arrangements was questioned in the report of the commission on women offenders—which was chaired by Dame Elish Angiolini—that was published in April 2012. It found that

“there still exist inherent barriers in the structural and funding systems for criminal justice social work, and working practices which inhibit greatly the potential to reduce reoffending.”

The report stated that CJAs

“brought an extra layer of complexity, disproportionate in a jurisdiction of five million people”.

It called for “radical reform” and the establishment of a national community justice service to plan, manage and deliver offender services in the community.

Most recently, Audit Scotland’s report “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”, which was published in November last year, said on community justice authorities:

“The way they were set up has significantly limited their effectiveness”.

Audit Scotland called for

“stronger leadership at national, regional and local level if reoffending is to be tackled effectively”.

In summary, it is evident that the status quo is no longer tenable, which is why on 20 December last year we, as a Government, published a consultation paper that set out options for redesigning the community justice system. Before I get into the detail of the issues involved, I will set out our vision of a successful community justice system.

We want a more efficient and effective system with strong and visible leadership at national and local levels, collaborative working across the public and third sectors, and robust accountability. Offender services should be built around people’s needs, based on evidence of what works and what offers best value for money. Local partnership, with the engagement and commitment of non-justice partners including housing, education and health is critical to success. Service users, their families and the wider community should be routinely involved in the planning, delivery and review of services in order to help to improve performance and outcomes. In addition, there should be a strong focus on prevention and early intervention.

We are under no illusions that structural change alone will result in transformation of the community justice system; we also need a shift in culture. At the heart of any reforms should be the development and empowerment of practitioners, managers and leaders who work with offenders in the public and third sectors. Unlike the United Kingdom coalition Government, we have no plans to outsource to the private sector the management of offenders in the community. We value highly the professional contribution of our public sector criminal justice social workers and others who work in community justice. We want to use this opportunity to reform the existing arrangements to help to make best use of their skills, knowledge and expertise.

Our vision of a reformed community justice system acknowledges the findings of the Christie commission and is consistent with our wider public service reform programme, including the integration of adult health and social care and the review of community planning partnerships. The consultation paper sets out three possible options for reform, which were developed with input from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Work and CJAs. I thank them for their assistance.

Option A is an enhanced community justice authority model, in which changes would be made to CJA membership and functions, including widening of their membership to include an appointed member of the health board, and expansion of their statutory functions to include strategic commissioning of services.

Option B is a local authority model, in which CJAs would be abolished and local authorities would assume responsibility for the strategic planning, design and delivery of offender services in the community.

Can the cabinet secretary clarify whether, if option B was chosen, consideration would be given to the fact that some local authorities that have areas of very high deprivation would have to spend much more money on CJAs or whatever will replace them? Would option B take account of that expenditure? Would the expenditure be devolved down to local authorities so that they would have to pay for it themselves?

Those matters will have to be discussed in detail. The funding formula that we use takes account of the additional pressure that many areas face as a result of social and economic conditions. The detail will have to be sorted out, but it is self-evident that areas that are under the greatest pressure have the greatest needs and will have to be given the most appropriate level of resource to deal with those needs.

Option C is a single-service model. CJAs would be abolished and a new national, social work-led service for community justice would be established. The Angiolini commission recommended that approach. The new service would be separate from but would sit alongside the Scottish Prison Service. It would subsume the Risk Management Authority, which is a non-departmental public body. Therefore, option C would not create an additional public body.

Any new arrangements will need to be achieved largely through reconfiguration of existing resources—currently £111 million per year. We will undertake detailed financial work on the cost of the different options through liaising with local authorities and CJAs. That work will inform a final decision on the way forward.

We recognise that a wide range of professionals, organisations and individuals have an interest in how we take this forward. That is why, as well as publishing the consultation paper, we held 13 consultation events across Scotland to seek views on future arrangements. More than 550 people attended the events, including criminal justice social workers, people from the third sector, CJA officers and conveners, police, prison staff, health workers, addiction workers, local authority staff, housing officials, members of the public and ex-offenders.

I have been working constructively with COSLA, ADSW and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers. I have met third sector representatives to hear their views on weaknesses in the current system and possible solutions. All contributions have been immensely valuable and it is clear that the issue matters greatly to many people.

I expect to make in late 2013 an announcement on the way forward. Subject to a suitable legislative vehicle and parliamentary approval, provisional implementation will take place from 2016.

This debate provides an opportunity for members to contribute to the discussion. Although progress has been made on tackling reoffending, it is clear that significant areas for improvement remain. We need stronger leadership, clearer accountability arrangements and services that are based on evidence of what works. It is time to be ambitious and to put the needs of victims, communities and offenders and their families at the forefront of our minds, so that we reduce reoffending further and make a positive difference to the lives of the people of Scotland.

I do not accept the Labour amendment, but I say to Labour members that it covers many matters that I think we accept, and we will be happy to hear their views and enter into discussions outwith the chamber. At the end of the day, this matter is not ideological or party driven; it is about making our communities safer. I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges that solid progress has been made in tackling reoffending and commends the work of local community justice practitioners in achieving this; notes the recent reports from Audit Scotland and the Commission on Women Offenders that highlight shortcomings in the community justice system; further notes the publication of the Scottish Government’s consultation document, Redesigning the Community Justice System, and looks forward to an analysis of the responses; agrees that the status quo is untenable, and recognises the importance of continuing to work constructively with COSLA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of Directors of Social Work to put in place arrangements that support strong leadership and robust accountability and bring together the public and voluntary sectors to deliver better outcomes for victims, communities and offenders and their families.

15:13

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s closing comments. We will take up his offer of further discussion outwith the forum of parliamentary debate.

There is general agreement about the importance of redesigning the community justice system. The Government’s decision last year to consult on how that should be done was uncontroversial. The Government’s decision to call a debate only two days after the consultation closed is perhaps more surprising. I listened closely to what Kenny MacAskill had to say, but even he cannot have had much opportunity to read and consider the views of everyone who contributed their thoughts to the consultation—far less to make those views public or to reach a considered response on the part of Government.

Last week we debated the cabinet secretary’s wide-ranging proposals for cuts in the functions of and the closure of many of Scotland’s local courts, which he had taken only a couple of days to consider after the details of the consultation on that were made public. The cabinet secretary could not have had prior knowledge of all the informed and detailed contributions on community justice that no doubt landed on his desk earlier this week, so I am not at all sure—and the cabinet secretary’s closing comments suggest that he is not at all sure—why this should be the day for this debate. That is why our amendment calls on the Government to schedule a further debate before it introduces any draft legislation later this year—a debate that can be informed by the consultation process and the Government’s response.

In common—I hope—with the other parties, we approach the substance of the issues with an open mind. We acknowledge the need for change in how community justice is delivered, but we are not dogmatic about the direction of travel. We are, as ever, open to the arguments to be made in favour of the options on which the Government has consulted. I am keen to see the evidence of what works. In the final analysis, structures are only a means to an end. The objective behind reforming the structures must be effective action to reduce the scale of reoffending.

The efforts of the people who work in the field should be applauded. However, last November’s Audit Scotland report on reducing reoffending, which the cabinet secretary mentioned, showed that there is no room for complacency. It found what it described as a “relatively static” rate of offenders reconvicted within one year, with 30 per cent in 2009-10 compared to 32 per cent in 1997-98, and more than 42 per cent reconvicted within two years. It also found that 22 per cent of those convicted in 2010-11 had 10 or more previous convictions, that the prison population had risen by 27 per cent in a decade and that less than a third of the public money that is spent on dealing with convicted offenders is spent on services specifically to reduce reoffending.

Elish Angiolini’s commission on women offenders last year had, as we have heard, important things to say that are relevant to offenders in general. The proposals included one-stop-shops based on the 218 service model to allow offenders to access services in one place, with multidisciplinary teams in those centres to meet the needs of offenders for support on health, addictions or social work services, and naming key workers for those who are at risk of reoffending in order to provide a single contact point for navigating through the criminal justice system.

Those are all significant changes—quite apart from the specific issues of community justice structures in which the services might be delivered, to which the cabinet secretary referred. The question is therefore whether those services require a single national service in order to be effective or whether they require more responsive and flexible local services.

The Angiolini report also identified

“inherent barriers in the structural and funding systems for criminal justice social work and working practices which inhibit greatly the potential to reduce reoffending.”

That is why, as Mr MacAskill said, the report called for a new national community justice service, in place of the existing community justice authorities, to commission, provide and manage adult offender services in the community. It also called for a national community justice and prison delivery board to promote integration between the proposed new community justice service and the prison service, in order to achieve a joined-up approach to reducing reoffending

“across the community and within custodial settings.”

That brings us back to the essence of the Audit Scotland report: that tackling reoffending will succeed only if what is done in prison is also included in the bigger picture. We need greater focus on meaningful activity in prison to go alongside more effective delivery of community justice services.

Earlier this year I asked the Government how many hours a week prisoners spent in purposeful activity, whether in work, education, training or rehabilitation. The answer was an average of 21 hours a week across the estate, with HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont being one of the lowest, at 16 hours a week. No wonder the chief inspector of prisons concluded in his latest annual report that the

“current poor access to purposeful activities is not acceptable and contributes to a negative picture when considering whether prison is working.”

I think that Lewis Macdonald will be aware that, with the new governor at Polmont prison, there is a new culture and determination that the expression “purposeful activity”, which includes a range of things from education to rehab and everything else, will be drawn together much more tightly.

I am grateful for that intervention. I do not doubt for a moment the commitment of many leaders in the Scottish Prison Service to achieving precisely that change, but they require resources to make that happen. Of course, I welcome the conclusions of the Justice Committee that more could and should be done on purposeful activity in prison.

In developing a strategy to tackle reoffending, ministers need their starting point to be the scale of the challenge not only in reducing reoffending through the community justice service, but in joining up those with what is being done in prison to address reoffending.

If there is no room for complacency about reoffending in general or about the joining up of services, the same is also true of community disposals, for which the community justice system is responsible. Community payback orders have, indeed, increased the number of hours of unpaid work that the courts are handing down—in some cases, several times over—but the approach is worth while only if the orders are obeyed. Kenny MacAskill mentioned the number of orders and hours, but 1,391 of the more than 11,000 community payback orders that were handed down in 2011-12 were breached—a failure rate of 12 per cent—and many of those breaches were not pursued. In those cases, the community disposal did not work. Of course, there was no automatic adjustment in the funding of services to meet the increased demands on community justice social work budgets, which is one of the reasons why the review is so important.

Although we do not agree with the claim in the Conservative amendment that CJAs were doomed to fail, we recognise that their current structure has to change. The Government’s options offer ways forward; option A, which is to enhance the CJAs, is clearly one such way and might well be supported by a number of people who are involved in the existing authorities.

Others, however, will favour option B, which is to return responsibility to local authorities. Councils are already the ultimate providers, albeit that it happens under the CJA umbrella, and there are obvious democratic benefits to placing both responsibility and authority at the most local level of government possible.

The proposal for a national service also has clear advantages as the most direct route for ensuring common standards and shared approaches to community justice across the country. It is clearly what the Angiolini commission believed would deliver the best outcomes in reducing reoffending; however, such an approach also raises concerns about centralisation and ensuring that that goes no further than it needs to.

Whatever new system is designed on the basis of the consultation, we must not forget the role that CJAs play in monitoring high-risk offenders who have served their time in prison and are returning to live in the community. It is essential that whatever changes are made to the community justice system, the funds that are provided for multi-agency public protection arrangements to monitor those individuals are protected. I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s assurance that, whatever option is chosen, MAPPA funding will continue to follow need.

We call on ministers to assess the evidence carefully and to come back to Parliament with a considered review, so I am pleased that they have promised today to do so. It is important that we strike the right balance between the successes of community justice over the past eight years and the need to move the system on; between the imperative to build on those successes and the general recognition that they must now change; and between the coherence of a national system and the local accountability of services delivered by local councils.

Whatever conclusions ministers reach, they should be informed by the central objectives that have been highlighted both by Audit Scotland and the Angiolini commission of reducing reoffending and joining up community justice and Scotland’s prisons to do so.

On that basis, I move amendment S4M-06433.2, to leave out from “acknowledges” to end and insert:

“commends the work of local community justice practitioners in making progress to tackle reoffending; notes the recent reports from Audit Scotland and the Commission on Women Offenders that highlight shortcomings in the community justice system; further notes the publication of the Scottish Government’s consultation document, Redesigning the Community Justice System, and looks forward to an informed future debate, based on an analysis of the submissions to the consultation and publication of the Scottish Government’s response, prior to the introduction of any primary legislation; agrees that the status quo is untenable, and recognises the importance of continuing to work constructively with all relevant stakeholders including the Scottish Prison Service, COSLA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of Directors of Social Work to put in place arrangements that support strong leadership and robust accountability and bring together the public and voluntary sectors to deliver better outcomes for victims, communities and offenders and their families; believes that further improvements are required to address reoffending, and considers that substantially greater engagement by offenders in meaningful activity while in prison would assist in making changes to the community justice system more effective.”

15:22

I welcome the debate because it gives Parliament the opportunity to examine why the current arrangement for strategic and operational responsibility with regard to community sentences and reducing reoffending is not as effective as it could be. Given that, at present, the eight community justice authorities work with 32 local authorities, 32 alcohol and drug partnerships, 16 prisons, 14 health boards, six sheriffdoms and now one police force, it is perhaps not surprising that co-ordination between the various agencies and avoiding duplication are proving to be a challenge.

The Conservative amendment highlights not only that, but shortcomings resulting from the way in which CJAs were set up. First of all, there is inconsistency in service provision in local authorities, particularly over supervised bail schemes and throughcare. Secondly, the distribution of core funding by CJAs does not encourage reduction of reoffending because the funding is based on workload with regard to the number of community sentences that are imposed in a local authority area.

Next, the make-up of CJA boards is complex and there is concern that councillors find it difficult to separate their responsibilities as CJA members from their responsibilities as local authority elected members, which has limited the ability of CJAs to move funds between constituent councils. Finally, there is a general lack of assessment of the performance of CJAs.

All those aspects are worthy of in-depth discussion, but I want to explore more thoroughly funding and the allocation of resources.

Audit Scotland questioned the effectiveness of CJAs’ short-term funding after each of the eight CJAs received an additional £100,000 from the Scottish Government in 2010-11 and 2011-12 for services to support women offenders. That money was allocated following the Cabinet’s consideration of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s 2009 report on its inquiry into female offenders in the criminal justice system, which identified the work that one CJA had done in reducing reoffending by women from more than 30 per cent to about 14 per cent.

Although the Government is most certainly to be commended for providing that funding, it could be argued that if it had gone a little further and given some direction to the CJAs in the form of information on what had worked well for the south-west Scotland community justice authority—which, by working with the charity Circle and supporting the families of women prisoners and the prisoners themselves on release, had dramatically reduced reoffending—I believe that a much better outcome could have been achieved, which would have addressed Audit Scotland’s criticism.

It is certainly not in doubt that sufficient long-term resources must be made available, not only for the third sector but for community-led projects that have proven track records in delivering and tackling reoffending. The argument for that is compelling; one such four-year project that was run by Circle that involved community-based support being given to marginalised children and families led to the return-to-custody rate among supported offenders falling to as low a level as 19 per cent.

However, although reconviction rates might be at their lowest level for a decade, in reality reoffending has barely dropped in that time and remains far too high. That is particularly true of those who are in prison, with a staggering 22 per cent of all offenders who were handed a custodial sentence last year having 10 or more previous convictions.

Furthermore, the introduction and delivery of community payback orders as alternatives to custody has contributed to the problem. The first person who was granted a CPO breached the order. In January, it was revealed that offenders were being credited with two hours’ work just for turning up if a work project could not be found for them, and the latest figures show that less than a third of the CPOs that were handed out last year were completed within a year. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the evaluation of CPOs will be completed in time to feed into the Government’s analysis of the consultation on the community justice system?

Community disposals and alternatives to custody other than CPOs are undermining community justice and the case for community sentences as an alternative to custodial sentencing. For example, according to the latest fines survey, £3.6 million is owed in unpaid court fines that were imposed in the first six months of the 2012-13 financial year. That includes £1 million that is owed in sheriff court fines, £700,000 that is owed in justice of the peace court fines, £1.1 million that is owed in fiscal direct penalties and £800,000 that is owed in police antisocial behaviour penalties.

Arrears have built up in 17 per cent of the fines that were imposed in the first six months of 2012-13. Collection rates for some fines are better than they are for others. For example, more than 50 per cent of police penalties that were imposed during that time are being ignored.

That figure is in addition to the £14.9 million that is already outstanding in unpaid fines that have been imposed since 2009-10, which means that a staggering £18.5 million of fines remain unpaid by criminals who have avoided tougher sentences. Crucially, that money could be spent on projects to reduce reoffending. It is clear that fiscal fines and fixed penalties urgently require to be overhauled—that is an absolute priority.

The Government’s consultation and this afternoon’s debate are the first step in the process to come up with the more strategic approach that Audit Scotland recommends.

It is crucial that, as well as containing an element of accountability, either through elected officials or through a publicly appointed figure, the option that is chosen should deliver flexibility in service provision. That will ensure that the new model is better placed to direct resources to projects that are known to be effective.

I move amendment S4M-06433.1, to leave out from “solid progress” to “achieving this” and insert:

“while some progress has been made in tackling reoffending, rates remain far too high; recognises that the work of local community justice practitioners has been hindered by failings in the way in which community justice authorities were established”.

We move to the open debate, with speeches of six minutes. We have a little bit of time in hand for interventions.

15:30

This week, I had the good fortune to be briefed by Rob Strachan, the chief officer of Lothian and Borders community justice authority. It is important to state some facts about the general offender cohort in Edinburgh and Midlothian. There are 4,362 offenders. Some 27.9 per cent of offenders are reconvicted within one year. In the Scottish Borders, there are 802 offenders, with a one-year reconviction rate of 26.2 per cent. That is better than the Scottish average, but it gives members an idea of the task in hand.

Males are more likely than females to be reconvicted within two years. The peak age for reconviction for men is under 21. It is estimated that 90 to 95 offenders a month are released from prison and return to communities in Lothian and Borders with substance misuse problems. Breaking that life habit is complex and difficult.

On prolific and persistent offenders, research points to an average of 10 per cent of offenders being responsible for 50 per cent of all crime. It is the same people who commit all those offences. Past behaviour is the most reliable predictor of future behaviour, as demonstrated by the number of previous convictions and reconviction rates. It is estimated that 200 offenders cost the system in Lothian and Borders at least £12.2 million per year. When we consider that we are paying out £97 million a year to CJAs, we can see that a lot of money is going into the system, and it needs to be looked at again.

A different pattern emerges in relation to women offenders. Some 37 per cent of women offenders have attempted suicide. Two thirds of women in prison have a history of abuse. The rate of drug problems among women prisoners in Scotland has been found to be as high as 98 per cent. That group of people has a very different set of complex problems, all of which must be addressed to try to break the habit of reoffending.

Not being terribly au fait with CJAs, I was struck by the fact that the membership is made up of councillors. That seems to be a narrow membership, when CJAs need many skills. I therefore welcome what the cabinet secretary said about people from health services, drug addiction teams and housing services—I see that Jenny Marra is nodding.

The Justice Committee found when we examined purposeful activity in prisons and throughcare that one of the biggest issues for people coming out of prison is having a home to go to. If they do not have a home to go to and an address, they cannot get a general practitioner. As Alison McInnes and I found out when we were in Polmont, that means that, after all the work that is done in prison on breaking the drug and alcohol habits and on rehabilitation, most of these young men come out and have no GP, which means that their medical records stay where they are and the young men go back into the same cycle. I therefore welcome the refresh of the CJAs.

Rob Strachan was clear about the fact that provision is patchy. He knows that there are faults in the system and he is working to address them. For example, he said that he does not have the latest breakdown of the violent offenders profile. I have already raised with the cabinet secretary my view that the MAPPA approach, which has a role to play in the release of sex offenders, should have a role to play in the release of serious violent offenders.

Rob Strachan also said that he does not have the latest breakdown of the women offenders profile. One of the problems with women offenders and young offenders is that they are not in a local prison. People who are in Polmont and Cornton Vale have come from all over Scotland, and people who are released from prisons that are not in their locality face even bigger problems than other prisoners do.

One of the options that I favour—I do not think that it is in the consultation paper, but that is just me being difficult—is a marriage of options A and C. We need national oversight, national guidance and accountability, whether to a board or whatever, as to how the money is being spent. Good practice must also be shared—when something works in one area, we should let it go somewhere else, while never taking away local delivery.

I would like the CJAs to have a much broader membership with responsibility for delivery and to be accountable for what they do to a centralised board or whatever we want to call it. If we address all the other issues that we are raising—such as throughcare, the Scottish Prison Service following what happens to prisoners beyond the prison walls and the fact that, because the NHS now delivers healthcare in prisons, there should be continuity of care when a prisoner leaves—and if we have refreshed CJAs with a broader membership and with real accountability for the money that they spend and how effective they are, we might improve reoffending rates, which are very difficult to bring down, for the reasons that I have touched on.

That is not simple; everyone is individual and different categories face different problems. If we had a central organisation to look at strategies and make CJAs accountable, while CJAs said, “I know what works in this area and I know how we could do this,” we would have the best of both worlds.

I say to the cabinet secretary that I want something between options A and C—A plus C or A and C jammed together in some way, or maybe we could make it option D.

15:36

The debate’s timing is rather unfortunate. The consultation principle has always been central to the Parliament, and it would have been better to wait until all the written responses were available to members. It is particularly unfortunate for someone such as me, as I have no background or experience in the area and I would have much preferred to read the views of those who do.

I was a minister when the community justice authorities were set up, but it is the nature of being a minister to plough one’s own field. I remember that there were debates at that time—similar to those that we are having now—about the tension and the choice between a central system and more local variation. In a way, we are repeating some of the debates that we had then.

I recognise the importance of the policy area. Dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders and stopping reoffending are critical to justice policy. Although I am in no way an expert, I have been inspired by some of the people who work in the area. Margaret Mitchell mentioned Circle, which is an organisation that is based in my constituency. It has remarkable success rates in stopping reoffending, and I will want to listen to what it has to say about that. I have also spoken a couple of times in recent months to the violence reduction unit, which is prioritising such work with offenders, particularly on employability, as a way of cutting down reoffending. There are leaders in the field to whom we will want to listen.

Although there is no agreement about the solutions, there is unanimity about the nature of the problems, and most people agree with what Margaret Mitchell said about the cluttered and fragmented landscape, which was a key theme of the Christie report. Everybody also seems to agree that structures are not the be-all and end-all—that is absolutely right. Equally, some changes to the structures are required, which is why three options are before us.

What are the problems? They have been well described in the Audit Scotland report and the Angiolini report, which both refer to a lack of leadership and accountability and to problems with funding. Some of those problems relate to the short-term nature of the funding, which Margaret Mitchell referred to, but both reports also say that funding is based on activity rather than outcomes. A lot of the funding is based on the historical allocation of funding, and there is the issue that councillors sometimes—understandably—favour their own local authority.

Perhaps the strongest problem is the inconsistency of service. I was particularly struck by the observation in the Audit Scotland report that, because some services in prisons are funded by local authorities, some prisoners get a service while others do not. That is a stark example of localism going too far. Audit Scotland also emphasises the importance of employability and the great variations in the availability of employability services. Another issue is poor access to purposeful activities in prison, which our amendment highlights.

On where we go from here, I agree with the principles that are set out on pages 15 and 16 of the Government’s consultation document. They include the need for strategic direction and leadership; the emphasis on prevention and early intervention; the desirability of having effective local partnerships; the need for strategic commissioning; and, of course, an approach that involves evidence-based policies that are based on an analysis of need. We all agree with those, but where does that lead us to on the options?

All the options have their attractions and disadvantages. Option A would at least avoid structural upheaval, which is often a good principle to follow, as there is an advantage in having a degree of continuity. Option A suggests that, if we have more strategic leadership, give the CJAs strategic commissioning powers and ensure that partners have a statutory duty to be involved, that will improve the present system. Option A should certainly be looked at seriously.

Option C is championed by the Angiolini report. In itself, that is quite a strong recommendation, given that most of the recommendations of that excellent report have been accepted without controversy. Clearly, in championing a single community justice service, option C is a lot more controversial, but the advantages that are highlighted are that the combination of strategic and operational responsibility would provide clearer lines of accountability, more consistency and potentially a greater quality of service. There would also be the potential to roll out models of good practice. There is a lot to recommend that option.

However, we should not forget option B or the good work that is being done at local council level. We also need to look at the arguments for that. It is attractive in principle to have local authorities in the driving seat, although it can be problematic in practice.

In my final minute, I will give an example of good practice that is being carried out by criminal justice services in Edinburgh. Launched in May last year, the break the cycle project takes old and unwanted bikes and renovates them. The bikes are then donated free to community organisations, youth groups, other interested organisations and children. Crucially, the project works with offenders who are on community payback orders as a direct alternative to going to prison. As the City of Edinburgh Council highlights,

“Experience shows that if an offender is carrying out work that they have an interest in, they are more likely to successfully complete the order. Most of the people on these orders are young men under 25, many of whom have an interest in bikes and cycling.”

The council’s criminal justice workers, who have been trained to help in cycle maintenance, are on hand to monitor and help in the process. I highlight that as an example of the good practice and good work that local councils are doing on the ground.

That example also highlights the central importance of job readiness, job opportunities and the employability agenda. Whatever solution we come up with, I hope that employability will be at the centre. For example, for what will be a really good event that will take place over three days at the end of this month, the violence reduction unit is bringing over from America people who work with offenders on helping them to get ready for the jobs market. That should be right at the centre of our agenda, and I certainly hope that I will be able to attend one of those events.

15:43

It is clear that there is a fair degree of agreement across the chamber this afternoon. I associate myself with many of the comments that other members have made.

We know that the most persistent reoffenders are those who serve short-term sentences. The revolving door in and out of prison is used by many in our communities. If we could slow down that movement, we would see an easing of prisoner numbers and of other pressures on the justice system. For that to happen, we require those who enter the justice system—many of whom live chaotic lives, whether due to poverty, drugs or the psychological problems that they suffer—to be shown a path other than to the front door of a prison. We require a management system that can be at home in a national policy context but which is flexible enough to allow local decisions to be made that ensure that local priorities are met.

Therefore, I welcome the consultation document as well as the report of the commission on women offenders, which was chaired by Dame Elish Angiolini. Both documents are valuable, in that they bring to the debate information that could previously have been seen as anecdotal.

I am a member of the Public Audit Committee, which last year scrutinised Audit Scotland’s report, “Reducing Reoffending in Scotland”. A clearer picture has emerged of the actions that are required. CJAs across the country are not uniform. They have different governance systems, arrangements and lines of accountability and there are different levels of success on reoffending. Certainly, CJAs have brought organisations together, but it was obvious that they work, as people say in horrible managementspeak, in silos. Communication between many CJA partners is limited and, as a result, the system can fail the people whom it was designed to deal with.

Dealing with cross-territory prisoners is another problem. A good example would be a woman serving a short-term sentence at Cornton Vale prison who comes from, say, Aberdeen or Galashiels. On release, does she have a family and home to return to? She is highly unlikely to have a job lined up, so does she have a point of contact to help her, especially if she is released on a Friday afternoon when there is little time to arrange benefits or council services?

Throughcare is difficult enough at local level, let alone on a cross-territory basis. It is also something that CJAs and other partners have difficulty managing. That is why I am not all that keen on option B in the consultation. I am also not convinced that local authorities are fully geared up to provide throughcare and other services on their own. The third sector, the national health service and others must have a part to play, particularly in evolving a national strategy.

However, local authorities are vital partners in delivering with other stakeholders a plan for their own area and tying in national and local priorities. I have no real view at this time of whether I prefer option A or option C—I am certainly not going to introduce an option D, as Christine Grahame suggested she might—but if we are to go down the road of national management, a form of true local accountability will have to be found.

Every speaker in the debate will have some real-life stories to tell. I will give members two examples. A few months ago, David McLetchie and I visited Saughton prison in Edinburgh. We looked at the facilities and talked to staff and prisoners. We tried to ascertain the difficulties faced by staff and prisoners—in particular, how to get prisoners back on track through the prison system. We met two prisoners who were being released the following week and who had quite clear views that the 18 months that both had served was nothing more than—I quote—“an inconvenience”. It was not the first sentence that they had served, they had not learned anything in their time inside, and I do not suppose that it will be the last sentence that they will serve. Facilities are geared up for longer-term prisoners. The system cannot work for short-term prisoners; there is just not enough time for the rehabilitation side of things to work.

The second example involves a male aged around 17 whom I met with members of the Streetwork organisation. He was leading a group of younger boys. In front of them, he was bullish. He was proud to have already done time in a young offenders institution. He also appeared proud that he had another charge against him and that it was likely that he would find himself sentenced to time inside an adult prison for the first time. Only afterwards, when we started to talk to him after we got him away from the youngsters he was with, did we realise that perhaps he was not quite so bullish after all. He saw his life in prison as inevitable, but if he had the full support that perhaps he deserves, there would be a way out for that lad.

Those are two examples of why we need a total redesign. The partners that we have already are vital. They have experience, but the issue is the management of bringing the system together. I thoroughly believe that there is hope for the people out there, that we have a way forward and that there is common ground across all these benches. We can make this work and ease the pressure on the prison system.

I am convinced that we should get rid of short-term prison sentences. When I became an MSP, I came here thinking that many of the problems that we face locally should be sorted out by sending people to prison. I have learned that sentences of anything less than two and a half to three years are a waste of time—I have been converted to that. There are better ways to deal with people in our system.

I support the cabinet secretary’s motion.

15:49

I acknowledge the speeches from all members thus far and I associate myself with many of the comments that have been made. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s indication—as I understood it—that he would welcome cross-party discussions outwith the chamber to identify an appropriate way forward. That is a productive way to look at where we are and to identify future delivery in the community justice system.

I agree with many of the comments that have been made, particularly by Labour colleagues, that we would have benefited from having sight of a report on the responses, as we might have been better placed to offer strong and, I hope, educated views about the various options that are being considered.

I hope that, in the time left to me, I can bring a slightly different view to the debate. As regards the size of the problem that we are trying to address, the prison population—in spite of annual declarations from the Government—continues to rise. In 2011-12, the daily average was 8,178. In 2012-13, that rose to 8,300, and the forecast from those who have knowledge of such matters indicates that it is feasible that 9,500 prisoners will be in our prisons in 2020-21. There is an endemic, systemic problem that needs to be addressed, not only from the point of view of the human tragedy that it reflects, but in terms of the public investment and finance that are necessary to care for offenders in our system.

As regards reconviction rates, Audit Scotland reported—I think fairly—that progress on reoffending has been fairly static. Reconviction rates were 31.8 per cent in 1997-98, and 30.1 per cent in 2009-10—a reduction of 1.7. While that is welcome, it does not reflect progress, in the wider sense of that word.

At the same time, the Scottish Prison Service, the Government and community justice authorities spent £419 million in 2010-11 dealing with people convicted in the courts, but less than a third of that—£128 million—was spent on cutting reoffending. The prison population continues to increase and the cost to wider society of reoffending is estimated by Audit Scotland at about £3 billion per year—without even considering the impact on victims and witnesses.

Audit Scotland also noted that the reconviction rates are significantly affected by changes in the criminal justice system and by how the Scottish Government chooses to classify cases. That is illustrated by the fact that the reconviction rates do not include people who have reoffended after receiving early intervention measures such as police fixed-penalty notices and the like.

It is important that we have a debate and decide the way forward. It is a pressing issue. However, of the 8,300 prisoners that I mentioned earlier, we should bear it in mind that more than 70 per cent are classified as functionally illiterate and innumerate. Unless we find a way to deliver purposeful activity—I prefer to call it “activity with purpose”, and that purpose should be to educate and provide the facilities that will give prisoners opportunities as they leave the prison environment—we will always slam into a wall of self-defeat.

Does Graeme Pearson agree that the meaningful and purposeful activity that he refers to can be delivered in so-called short-term sentences? Putting people in prison may not be the first option, but if they are there, they should not be allowed just to wither on the vine.

Yes. When a prisoner is in custody 24/7, there are always avenues for delivery, if there is the will to deliver, the necessary support, the health interventions and the whole panoply of services that can make a difference. That will give the young person mentioned earlier who finds himself or herself in custody the opportunity to reconsider.

Like other members of the Justice Committee, I visited prisons to gather information. As someone who knows something about the system, I was shocked to learn from a prison officer that a prisoner who leaves one of our establishments—a man who has served his sentence—is guaranteed only three nights in a sleeping bag in a homeless persons unit as part of our society’s homelessness provision. Given the hundreds of millions of pounds that we dedicate to community justice, that does not seem to reflect the linked-up services that we should seek to deliver in the future and which might work in reducing reoffending. The option that men often take in those circumstances is not to demean themselves by accepting the sleeping bag. They are then left to the vagaries of life on the streets of our cities and towns. It is no surprise that they return to where they came from.

Much has been said about the sheer panoply of services that are involved. The key to deciding the way forward is ensuring that, whatever our solution is—A, B, C or the pick and mix of option D—accountability for what we spend and the results that are achieved will be at the kernel of whether we can trust things.

The role of the third or voluntary sector is vital, because it has the commitment, the expertise and, with people such as those in the Robertson Trust behind it, the finance to help to deliver in this important area.

15:57

Recorded crime is at a 37-year low, and the number of first-time offenders is falling. However, around half of the number who receive a short custodial sentence still go on to commit a further offence within a year of their release. That poses serious problems for the justice system and the public purse, for which there are no simple solutions.

Notwithstanding the progress that the Scottish Government has made in recent years, there remains a lot of work to do to reduce reoffending further, in respect of which the community justice system must play its part. We therefore need to look at ways of improving the whole system, from the reporting of a crime right through sentencing to release and, crucially, beyond. We know that simply locking people up, particularly for less serious crimes, is not an effective crime prevention solution.

Scottish Government research from 2011 shows that community sentences are more effective in reducing repeat offending than short-term custodial sentences—and a great deal more affordable. The average cost of a community payback order is in the region of £2,400, or half the cost of a three-month prison sentence.

We should not forget the Scottish Government’s reducing reoffending change fund of £7.5 million, plus the contributions of the Robertson Trust and the Scottish Prison Service. In 2012-13, that enabled projects in Fife that were run by Sacro and Addaction to move forward. I particularly welcome the use of funding for mentoring, the importance of which was underlined by Dame Elish Angiolini and her commission and referred to in the Justice Committee’s report on purposeful activity in prisons.

Community justice authorities have, of course, been involved in work on reducing reoffending. In its November 2012 report, “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”, Audit Scotland highlighted the fact that

“Many bodies are involved in reducing reoffending.”

It said:

“Eight CJAs were established ... to develop a more coordinated approach to delivering services for offenders and reduce reoffending.”

Its conclusion was:

“CJAs have brought people together, but the way they were set up and inflexible funding have significantly limited their effectiveness.”

Moreover, it damningly said that CJAs had

“made little progress in reducing reoffending.”

Change is therefore clearly required.

As the cabinet secretary has said, Audit Scotland also identified a need for

“stronger leadership at national, regional and local levels”,

and recommended that the Scottish Government needed to target money more effectively.

That recommendation is clearly important when we remember that, in 2010-11, the SPS, community justice authorities and the Scottish Government together spent an estimated £128 million on reducing reoffending. CJAs dispensed most of the money to local authorities—£37.8 million was spent on rehabilitation, including drug addiction programmes, and £11.9 million was spent on reintegration, including supported accommodation and employment services.

Among the other recommendations that Audit Scotland made were the need to be more flexible in meeting local needs and priorities and the need to ensure that allocations are more responsive to changes in demand.

As other members have said, three strategic options were identified in the consultation document. In considering that document and the responses to it, we need to ask which options will encourage flexibility and responsiveness.

Option A seeks to enhance the role of community justice authorities as a means of reducing reoffending by conferring on them responsibility for carrying out strategic commissioning and procurement of services and ensuring that they allocate funding on the basis of need, thus enabling them to move funds between constituent councils. That seems to meet the test of flexibility and responsiveness. However, option A also proposes that the CJA chairs be appointed by Scottish ministers and that one member of the local health board be included on the CJA board. I am not sure that that is quite so important, but I recognise that it might improve the overall operation.

Option A further includes the possibility of transferring responsibility for the operational delivery of criminal justice social work from local authorities to CJAs. CJAs do not deliver services; local authorities do. As Audit Scotland has stated, CJAs lack operational control, and priorities can easily become those of the local authorities involved, not the community justice authority. If multiple local authorities are involved, it might be difficult to liaise effectively with them. Those criticisms are undoubtedly valid.

Option B would mean CJAs being abolished, with powers transferred to local authorities, which would have a statutory duty to work with other partners to deliver a statutory plan for reducing reoffending. Local authorities would be required to take account of the strategic planning of community planning partnerships. That all sounds wonderful in principle and certainly more joined up, but I am not sure how much difference it would make in reality.

I cannot ignore the irony of the situation in my constituency. Cupar sheriff court has been earmarked for closure, and criminal justice social service work in north-east Fife—in Fife Council’s jurisdiction—receives funding from the Fife and Forth valley community justice authority. Under the new court set-up, it will be necessary to work with a court system that is located in a different local authority area—and, uniquely in Scotland, as far as I can see—in a different CJA area.

On option C, notwithstanding efforts to streamline the provision of reducing reoffending services, as outlined in the single-service option, I assume that the single service would be required to produce 32 local plans. I note that the Scottish Government would expect local representatives of the Department for Work and Pensions and further education colleges to be involved in the development and delivery of reducing reoffending plans. I am not sure how that would work in practice. I accept, however, that grouping local delivery around the three federation model, as now employed by the Crown Office and the police, would have some attractions, but a single service led by a national social work service will certainly require significant cultural change.

I welcome the consultation, which has just closed, and I hope that the Scottish Government will carefully consider the responses to it.

16:03

We know that the economic and social cost of offending and reoffending is immense, and we pour so many resources into picking up the pieces. Lives are ruined, communities are blighted and potential is lost.

Considering those who are in our criminal justice system, we can see that we have failed to get to grips with the underlying problems—mental health problems, a history of abuse, addiction, poverty, exclusion from education and being in the care system. We know what lies behind the chaotic lives that lead to prison. Worse, we also know what makes a difference. Reoffending rates remain stubbornly high, however.

Liberal Democrats want safer communities, people brought to justice when they offend and robust community justice schemes. We also believe that everyone deserves a chance to get back on track. A robust but compassionate targeted community justice system that is flexible enough to respond to individual needs will benefit everyone in Scotland.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the status quo is clearly not an option. The Angiolini and Audit Scotland reports both highlighted serious shortcomings in the operation of the community justice system, and the Justice Committee has seen clear evidence of failings in the system. The Angiolini report had some frank words to say about the lack of leadership up until now. For sure, it will take strong and sustained leadership, both nationally and locally, to make a difference.

Audit Scotland found a mismatch between the services that are provided and what we know works in tackling reoffending. It found that access to and availability of services varies significantly throughout Scotland. While CJAs have been successful in bringing people together, Audit Scotland reported that the way in which they were set up and the inflexible funding arrangements that are in place have limited their effectiveness. Audit Scotland concludes that funding for community justice services is particularly inflexible and does not encourage reductions in reoffending. Only a small amount of funding is currently available for local discretion, and the funding is based largely on historical activity.

The CJAs report to ministers and have regional budgets to dispense to local authorities, but they also have little discretion and a lack of clear governance arrangements. I acknowledge that good work is going on, but I cannot legitimately argue that what we have at the moment is the right model.

I agree with the Labour Party that although it is good to have an exploratory debate on this complex issue, it would be useful if we could come back to it once we have all had the opportunity to review the consultation responses.

Faced with the fact that a number of the other agencies involved—the Scottish Court Service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Prison Service and now the police—operate nationally, some might be tempted to say that we should also have a national community justice organisation. I am instinctively uncomfortable about that option. Like it or not, a complex web of societal interactions need to come together to prevent reoffending and ensure that community justice disposals provide both punishment and alternatives. A national agency—possibly remote and bureaucratic—is unlikely to be able to maximise those connections.

Audit Scotland made much in its report of the number of people round the table at CJA meetings. In fact, we need everyone working together. The real problem at the moment is that no one has the proper clout to bring about the change that is needed.

Criminal justice social work is rightly part of the local government family. We need to develop and build on those close links between criminal justice services, social work, education, drug and alcohol services, disability services and of course the third sector. Those connections have meant that there has been progress on tackling the root causes of crime. I am concerned that removing criminal justice social work from the local authority family would be expensive and disruptive and might lead to the loss of integration with other local services.

On the other hand, disbanding the CJAs completely and returning responsibility to our 32 separate local authorities will not address the current problems of poor integration and postcode-based justice services. What we need is a structure that facilitates a tailored, community-based response, while ensuring that a much more rigorous approach is taken to the standard of service that we should expect to see throughout Scotland. I am probably with Christine Grahame on this issue. None of the three options outlined in the consultation document seems quite to fit the bill. I suspect that the answer lies in a hybrid form of them.

It seems at this stage that the best way forward would be to reform the CJAs by ensuring that they have the right—indeed the responsibility—to plan, co-ordinate and monitor services in their area. Clearer governance, proper control of budgets and building on what is good in CJAs is likely to bring about change most effectively. However, there also needs to be a national strategy—one that sets standards and ensures equality of access to services, especially in relation to specific groups such as sex offenders, young offenders and women prisoners. Leadership needs to be provided nationally to champion all the change that needs to come about. It might be that a federation of the CJAs working in tandem with the Government could drive that forward; if necessary, we could have joint commissioning of regional specialisms at the same time. However, if we are to reduce reoffending drastically, at the heart of it all has to be local, community-based solutions.

Over and over again at the Justice Committee we have heard how patchy throughcare is for short-term prisoners because there is no statutory provision for them, yet we know that those prisoners are most at risk of reoffending. I genuinely urge the cabinet secretary to use this opportunity, this year, to extend statutory throughcare to all prisoners. He would have our support for that.

Recent research by the Prison Reform Trust concluded that it is important for offenders to take responsibility for their own resettlement. Right now, there is no dialogue with or involvement of offenders or ex-offenders. We want that to change.

Although the Liberal Democrats are open to further discussion on the best way forward, we are clear that there must be improvements in how community justice services are funded, how performance is measured and how services for offenders are planned, designed and managed.

16:09

Perhaps I am the only one—I do not know—but I am pleased to speak in the debate. I take on board what everyone has said, but the more we discuss the community justice system, the better it is all round. I am sure that we will come back to a fuller debate.

I say that not only because I am a member of the Justice Committee but because I believe passionately in delivering a justice system that serves all the community and delivers a better outcome for victims, communities and offenders. It must also deliver positive outcomes for all, because that is what we are in the Parliament to do. It is difficult when we go out to communities and listen to the victims’ stories, but it is also difficult when we go into prison and speak to prisoners who have experienced the revolving-door system and had a chaotic lifestyle, perhaps even from childhood.

It is important that we debate the redesign of the community justice system. It will be better for everyone in society, not only in our local communities.

A number of people mentioned the three options for the CJAs. Members will probably be glad to know that I will not mention those, but I will make a small point about CJAs. Perhaps it is a failing on my part—I really do not know—but I have never had any contact with my local CJA. No one from it has contacted me, and I could not tell anyone who the members are. Perhaps, if some other members tell me their experience of CJAs, I will be able to understand the options better. I am sure that we will get further into that.

I will raise two areas that a number of members have mentioned: throughcare and delivery, and mentoring.

Like other members of the Justice Committee, I recently went on a visit. I visited Barlinnie prison in Glasgow and, when I spoke to the officers, agencies and prisoners, one thing came through clearly: the need for joined-up thinking and throughcare in relation to housing—which has been raised before—health and financial support. The prisoners I spoke to told me that, although they were visited by agencies that could provide housing, they received no advice about housing until they were released. When they turned up, there was no housing for them and they had to go into hostels. As Graeme Pearson mentioned, in some cases they were given sleeping bags. The prisoners told us that they did not want to go into the hostels because that would mean that they were going back into a life of crime and would have to sleep on the streets.

That must be looked at. I hope that the redesign of the community justice system will examine that in particular. I hope that it will also consider the simple matter of what time people get out of prison and how they can access social work and finance. It became clear that, although there are a number of agencies that do a fantastic job, they do not seem to meet together. There is a desperate need to look at the number of agencies, the services that they provide and whether there is joined-up thinking in throughcare.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the £7.7 million that has been given to extend the mentoring system. I am a great supporter of mentoring, as I have said in the chamber before. In particular, the extension of using prison staff and peer groups to mentor prisoners is a fantastic idea. That system provides support to vulnerable prisoners who lead chaotic lifestyles. It is not only about the prisoners but about the communities into which they are released and their families. Everyone in the Parliament should be extremely proud of the mentoring system and the fact that we are moving it on and delivering more.

Much has been said about reoffending. I take that on board, but we must also take on board the fact that progress has been made on tackling reoffending. The reoffending rates are at their lowest for more than a decade. Graeme Pearson mentioned the figures for 1999, which is more than 10 years ago. Recorded crime is also at a 37-year low.

We must also consider the fact that community payback orders, which members have mentioned, have been successfully implemented. Between April 2011 and March 2012, 10,228 orders were commenced. Although I realise that the system must be looked at, the whole-system approach for young people continues to be rolled out throughout Scotland, resulting in a decrease in the number of recorded crimes and offences committed by young people. There are positives, but we have to do something to move forward.

I think that we all agree that there is a revolving-door system and that, although progress has been made, we need to do something to stop that. As I said, I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I believe that the outcome of the consultation will go some way towards achieving proper community justice and stopping the revolving-door system, which is a blight not just on individuals but on entire communities.

16:15

Today’s debate seems premature given that the consultation finished only two days ago and we are awaiting the responses and conclusions. However, like other members in the chamber today, I would like to give my views on the redesign of community justice in Scotland.

First, I express my disappointment that the Government motion makes no mention of the excellent work of the CJAs. I am expressing the views of members of the CJAs, who feel that their work is unappreciated and undervalued.

Looking at the three options that are proposed in the consultation document, I have concerns about how a national model will best meet local needs and reoffending patterns.

Perhaps Mary Fee will be able to educate me on the CJAs. She said that various members of CJAs had contacted her. Would she say that the CJAs work differently in different areas? As I said in my speech, no one from my local CJA has ever contacted me. I wonder whether the situation is different in various local authority areas.

I think that CJAs work in broadly the same manner in different local authorities. I am perhaps fortunate in that I was a local authority member before I came to the Parliament, so I knew who the CJA members were. That may explain to Sandra White how I know about that.

Although most offenders come from the poorest backgrounds and communities, which often share similar levels of poverty, addiction and inequality, there must be a local focus that meets local needs in addressing crime and rehabilitation. Centralising the community justice system and creating a national body could remove the ability of local services and local authorities to develop the best action plans to reduce reoffending.

Although I agree that there must be reforms that improve efficiency and effectiveness, any changes should equip communities with the best tools and guidance on how to keep people out of prison, support families in need and create a safer country.

The Government’s consultation is to be commended for reaching out to a wide range of stakeholders and partners. However, the three options that the Government outlined offer no guarantee of improved outcomes, and the case for such structural reform needs to be clearly outlined.

Can I tempt Mary Fee with option D?

I thank Christine Grahame for her intervention—I will hold my decision on option D for a bit longer, if that is all right.

Before the debate, I had the opportunity to preview two responses from CJAs in West Scotland. The south-west Scotland CJA has concerns that the overall approach to redesign

“will not deliver the changes required, for a number of reasons”.

It goes on to list the reasons for its concerns, stating that

“The redesign does not appear to be connected to other reforms or policy developments”,

such as getting it right for every child, the road to recovery and health and social care reform, among others that it names. It states that

“The redesign has removed the opportunity to capitalise on the current momentum and positive direction of reducing crime, convictions, and re-offending”

and, most critically, that

“the whole consultation is based on a false premise that change will in itself deliver the required improvements.”

The main theme of the south-west Scotland CJA’s response is that none of the stated options will deliver the 15 key characteristics, support the four pillars of public sector reform or tackle the key barriers to progress.

The CJA offers instead its own model, which aims to retain the best existing arrangements and to continue to build on good progress and the expertise developed by CJAs, as well as address the barriers to progress that CJAs have individually and collectively experienced over the years since their inception. Once the Government evaluates all the consultation responses, I look forward to its response to the south-west Scotland CJA.

The north Strathclyde CJA also expresses concern that the consultation and redesign will reduce the current momentum towards reducing crime and reoffending. If we are serious about continuing that progress, the Government has to address those concerns as quickly as possible. Indeed, many of the concerns highlighted by the south-west Scotland CJA are shared by the north Strathclyde CJA. Another major issue with the redesign is the lack of costing provided so far, and both CJAs link that with the warning offered by the Christie commission.

I turn from the consultation to discuss why we need strong community justice, an effective prison system and well-designed throughcare. Reoffending rates are too high, which is a fact that we are all too familiar with hearing. However, what is being done to reduce the rates? Freedom of information requests to the SPS show that a total of seven rehabilitation programmes are used in Scottish prisons. However, each prison will run no more than four of the seven and most will provide only one or two programmes, with limited spaces. When we consider the annual funding and the places provided, it is not surprising to hear that reoffending is at the level that it is. One programme receives annual funding of £188,000 for 52 places, which means that the total cost per prisoner is approximately £3,300.

Last month, I met a group of ex-offenders, and one of the key themes that arose from that was the lack of purposeful activity and joined-up working that they had experienced. For example, one ex-offender told me that he had decided to take up an education course to improve his chances of employment on release. He received £6 per week for attending the course, but if he had taken up a vocational course, he would have received £15 per week, with the possibility of a bonus. There is therefore no incentive to take up educational activity, which is deeply worrying, given the literacy levels in prisons. Also, when he completed the course, he was transferred between prisons and he has yet to receive his certificate, which prospective employers require. That is an example of the lack of joined-up working.

If we are serious about reducing reoffending, throughcare should start as soon as the offender enters prison, as many feel the need to reoffend on release because they have little support or money, or they do not have a home to go to. We on the Labour benches support the need for reform, but it needs to be reform that meets the needs of offenders, their families and the community as a whole.

16:22

It has been highlighted already that the total economic and social cost of reoffending in Scotland is about £3 billion a year. According to the Audit Scotland report on reducing reoffending that was published in November last year, we spend over £400 million every year on criminal justice-related services, with some £99 million of that going to the community justice authorities every year for the past five or six years.

Some of the key challenges that we face in Scotland are that we have one of the highest prison population rates in Europe and that approximately 30 per cent of offenders are reconvicted after a year. There are, however, a number of positives and the trends are favourable: recorded crime is at a 37-year low, having fallen by 26 per cent since 2006; offences by young people have fallen; and the reoffending rates are at their lowest level for 10 years. The stakes are pretty high. The cost to society of offending is massive and the public investment in tackling it is substantial. That level of investment must return higher dividends to us, and the time is right for the Scottish Government to move the agenda forward.

I am a member of the Public Audit Committee, which has looked at the reoffending issue a few times. We did so in September 2011 and again last November. In the 2011 report “An overview of Scotland’s criminal justice system”, the Auditor General said that,

“Although CJAs were established in 2007, there are no agreed measures to assess their performance or impact”,

and he noted that funding arrangements were particularly complex in relation to the targeting of spend. As a result, CJAs tended to develop localised performance indicators, which made it difficult to establish a consistent picture on progress towards delivering on the national objective of reducing reoffending.

In last year’s follow-up report, “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”, Audit Scotland noted that none of the statutory partners who attend CJA board meetings is accountable to the CJA, which ultimately limits the effectiveness of the current model of delivery. Of course, that is not the fault of the CJAs themselves.

Audit Scotland made several recommendations, such as targeting spend at measures that are known to be effective, promoting collective responsibility among key players, co-ordinating work with the third sector and introducing clear lines of accountability, underpinned by effective monitoring of performance.

The recommendations are the natural next steps to take, seven or so years after CJAs were established, if we are to see the progress that I know we all want to see. I hope that the consultation on redesigning the community justice system will lead to our embracing the recommendations. Indeed, I am confident that all stakeholders will see the merit in moving in such a direction.

Over the past few years, my contact with the south-west Scotland CJA has been positive. We have an extremely dedicated and able convener in Councillor Peter McNamara, who is very committed to the task. I have been particularly impressed by the work that has been carried out under his stewardship.

When I was elected in 2007, one of my first visits was to Bowhouse prison in my constituency, to see for myself the work that is going on to come up with a strategy to reduce reoffending. I met prison officers, council officials, voluntary sector staff, the local community justice authority team and an ex-prisoner, who talked openly about his experience of prison and his journey away from offending. If one message stood out for me that day, it was this: one of the most important factors in reducing the risk of reoffending is the maintenance, as much as possible, of the links between the prisoner and their family. Prisoners who maintain close relationships with partners and children are less likely to develop associations with fellow criminals, which might lead them to reoffend.

Audit Scotland gave several examples of what works. More holistic, person-centred approaches, which involve throughcare and support services, all have encouraging results in the context of reducing reoffending. Such interventions do not come cheap, but we know that they work. They will help us to achieve our goal and reduce the massive cost to the public purse that I mentioned.

I commend the work that is carried out by my local CJA and its partners. Despite the deficiencies that Audit Scotland and the Parliament’s Public Audit Committee highlighted, the commitment that is given by everyone involved, even in the absence of clear governance arrangements, still gives me confidence that dedicated and capable people are at the heart of the criminal justice system in Scotland.

I make a plea to the cabinet secretary and the minister not to forget victims and families in the community justice system. It is not all about offenders; victims’ needs and expectations are just as important. Given the funding that we channel into offenders services, I hope that victims of crime will also feel that they are part of the new community justice process.

I have no doubt that whatever model the cabinet secretary adopts, he will have teams of excellent people, who will all be determined to work towards reducing reoffending in Scotland and who will be backed up by clear expectations and strong governance arrangements, to assist them in their task. That will be crucial.

16:29

I welcome the debate and, like Sandra White, I am quite happy to speak on an important subject. It is important to get the structure to deliver community justice right. As was stated at the outset, the debate is an open one in which members can contribute their views, and it is good to know that the Government will take those on board.

Various levels of criminal activity make the lives of the people we represent a misery. It is appropriate that those who commit the most serious offences and who pose a danger to society face a period of incarceration. However, there is a vital role for community justice if we are to ensure that those who have caused damage to their community are in some way seen to be giving something back to that community.

In my area, the local authority has an effective restorative justice team. There are various examples of how it has ensured that offenders on community payback orders who have been referred to it work and give something back.

I want to speak about a positive example. The cabinet secretary is aware of it as he came to visit the Carron valley medieval fort that the Clanranald Trust for Scotland is building. The initiative will be important for educational purposes and local tourism and has involved a huge amount of work. I was pleased to see that North Lanarkshire Council has allowed its restorative justice team to assist the trust in making—I should give it its proper name—the Duncarron fort a reality. Indeed, even Falkirk Council has contributed in that way, too.

I mention that not only because it allows me to highlight an important project in my constituency—which is always positive—but because my experience of the restorative justice teams’ engagement with the project has demonstrated how that method can work. Those who were involved through that mechanism not only were giving something back to their community, as I mentioned; some of them learned something about themselves. Some of those who were sent there under a community payback order returned once their sentence was complete. That is important to mention, because it demonstrates that community justice can rehabilitate, too.

Often, community justice is seen as the soft option. I do not accept that: it is an effective mechanism for delivering justice. We know that prison does not always act as an effective deterrent to reducing reoffending. Therefore, we must be prepared to do something else, and it is good that the Scottish Government has embraced the concept of community justice.

In the introduction to the consultation paper, the cabinet secretary wrote:

“Public spending should aim to prevent rather than only react to crimes and harms. This approach will lead to better results in the long term for individuals, families and communities and save money for the public purse.”

I entirely agree. The Scottish Government has set out that reoffending rates are at the lowest for a decade and Rod Campbell pointed out that recorded crime is at a 37-year low. We should not only celebrate that fact but look to build on that record. Therefore, it is right to look at the structure for delivering community justice.

Reference has been made to the Audit Scotland reports, the commission on women offenders report and the consultation paper. I am also aware that the Justice Committee published in March its “Inquiry into purposeful activity in prisons” report. It is clear that the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to redesign community justice is not being done in isolation; rather, it is building on work that has gone before it. I hear the concerns about the timing of this debate—I appreciate that it was mild criticism—but I think that we should be rather relaxed about having the debate today.

I turn quickly to the three options that are set out in the paper. Option A is the enhanced CJA model. Malcolm Chisholm made the point that that would avoid institutional upheaval. That said—Sandra White made this point too—I am not entirely convinced that CJAs are very visible entities. I am not particularly aware of the CJA that covers my area.

Option B is the local authority model. Clearly local authorities are very visible entities and have a clear line of accountability. However, Colin Keir asked the fair question whether they are equipped to provide all the necessary support.

Option C is the single service model, which Elish Angiolini has posited. Given her reputation, we have to take it seriously.

All the approaches have merits, as might option D. I am afraid that I am going to sit on the fence just now, but I look forward to the Scottish Government taking this work further forward and to seeing what type of model emerges. I wish the cabinet secretary well in that task.

We move to closing speeches. I call Annabel Goldie, who has six minutes or thereby.

16:36

I welcome both the Scottish Government’s recent consultation and this afternoon’s debate on redesigning the community justice system. That matters not only because more and more offenders are being punished within the community but because it relates directly to Scotland’s eight community justice authorities, the sole purpose of which is to reduce reoffending in Scotland.

As a number of members have noted, reoffending is a both worrying and costly problem in Scotland. Margaret Mitchell was right to reflect that in her amendment, which I support. Why is it worrying? It is worrying because nearly one in three offenders is reconvicted within a year. Why is it costly? Despite spending £128 million annually in an attempt to reduce reoffending, the Scottish Government estimates its economic and social cost to be around £3 billion a year.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government accepts that reform is necessary. The Audit Scotland report, to which many members have referred, concluded that the way in which CJAs were set up, along with inflexible funding, have “significantly limited their effectiveness.” The report was remarkably blunt and concluded that CJAs

“have made little progress with reducing reoffending.”

Identified shortcomings include a lack of incentive to reduce reoffending, complex management arrangements, a short-term approach to funding and a lack of assessment of CJA performance. Those are serious criticisms.

The Scottish Government has put forward three proposals for reform, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. Like the Government, I, too, will wait for the consultation responses before indicating a preferred option. However, I would like to make three general observations.

First, the priority of any future model must be to direct resources to what works in reducing reoffending. As the Audit Scotland report notes:

“There is a mismatch between what is currently being delivered and what is known to be effective.”

That is damning, so we need to ensure that the new model is much more clearly focused.

Secondly, I suggest that the Scottish Government must learn from its mistakes in driving through the reform of the police service despite justified criticism. It must seek to carry all the relevant agencies and, I would suggest, the Opposition parties, with it in the process. I welcome the Government’s apparent willingness to take time to get this right. It is helpful that this debate has been called before any firm decision has been made.

Thirdly, I suggest that the Government should not restrict itself to the three options proposed for reform. Perhaps in summing up the minister will indicate whether the Government has considered more radical reform. For example, there is clearly room for improvement in throughcare. Christine Grahame, Colin Keir, Graeme Pearson and Alison McInnes all made what I thought were helpful and reflective contributions in that respect. Has consideration been given to the creation of one body with overall responsibility for reducing reoffending both inside and outside prison?

It would be remiss of me not to look back at the creation of the system that we are debating today. I was convener of the Justice 2 Committee, which considered community justice authorities back in November 2005. My party was the only party in this chamber to vote against the bill that introduced them. We did so for two reasons.

First, we took the view that insufficient time had been afforded to assess the regime that CJAs replaced, which had been established in 2002. By 2005, it was already proving to be useful in effectively co-ordinating activity and co-operation between agencies. My party worried about unnecessary bureaucracy. Eight years down the road, we are debating whether CJAs are fit for purpose.

Back in 2005, the view was taken—and has been embraced by the Scottish National Party—that because reoffending rates were slightly lower for those who were given community sentences than they were for those who were given custodial sentences, more offenders should be dealt with in the community.

My party has no principled objection to robust community sentences, which are cheaper and can be more effective than a prison sentence for some crimes, but we do not support the use of community sentences as a means of emptying our prisons of violent and dangerous individuals who should be locked up for the protection of the law-abiding majority. We fundamentally disagree with the SNP’s analysis that, because reoffending is lower with community sentences, more and more offenders should be spared prison. That is like saying that, because lambs in fields do not attack people, we should put more lions into fields—it is perverse logic. It is not the community element that reduces reoffending; it is simply that less serious offenders are given community sentences, so the risk of reoffending is lower.

The second reason why my party opposed the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 was that it introduced home detention curfews and did so under the much-discredited automatic early release regime. I lodged amendments to try to end that practice, but I am afraid that the Labour and SNP members of the committee voted against them.

As I was looking back at the passage of the 2005 act, I came across a statement by a substitute member of the committee, who agreed with my approach on automatic early release. He told me:

“I have a great deal of sympathy with what you are trying to achieve”.

He added:

“We would all agree that we wish that we were not where we are. We are not in the chamber so, to some extent, who did what and when does not matter. What matters is what we are going to do about it. Lawyers are all aware of the differences: 50 per cent for those serving under four years and two thirds for those serving more than that. The public, however, are baffled; they simply think that whether the sentence is six months, two years or 12 years, what you see should be what you get.”—[Official Report, Justice 2 Committee, 27 September 2005; c 1688.]

I wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, still stands by the comments that he made eight years ago.

16:42

I reiterate what other members have said about the timing of today’s debate. Two days after the closure of the consultation is perhaps a little too soon to debate the redesign of the community justice system properly, because expert opinion on the matter is crucial. Under any restructuring of the system, the difference will be made by those who deliver services in our communities—those who work day in, day out with some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Those people who do the work know how to get the results, so it is important that we inform ourselves of their opinions.

If we are to transform lives, to drive down the cost of reoffending and to avoid incarceration rates growing in the way that has been predicted, we must build a system that is more integrated than ever before with health, social work and education systems, not least in our poorest communities.

The economic and social cost of reoffending cannot be overestimated, nor can it be teased apart from the wider social problems that are faced in our most deprived areas. It is not coincidence that 40 per cent of prisoners come from the very poorest communities of Scotland. We can be in no doubt that the staggering £3 billion cost of reoffending will affect those areas the most.

To tackle reoffending is to build a system that creates not just meaningful second chances, but meaningful first chances. To ask how we tackle reoffending is to ask why the first person whom a released prisoner meets outside the prison gates is the same drug dealer who helped them end up in jail in the first place. To ask how we tackle reoffending is also to ask how we overcome childhoods that have been blighted by the trauma of neglect, abuse and substance misuse; how we build an education system that empowers every child with the ability to learn not just the facts of the world around them, but how they can shape their own world; and how we build a health service that not only treats illness and addiction but teaches us how to make healthy choices. That is the scale of the challenge that we face, and it is Labour’s starting point in this debate.

We need change that is expert led, integrated and driven by innovation in every aspect of our public services. So, when we are asked to debate the restructuring of the community justice authorities without the benefit of the evidence, we are not satisfied that that is the best approach, and neither are the CJAs themselves. As Mary Fee says, there is disquiet among the community justice authorities about the timing of this debate. In response to the Government’s motion, on which we will vote at decision time today, Howard Llewellyn, the chief officer of Tayside community justice authority, says:

“It does not seem unreasonable to infer from the absence of an expressed commitment in the motion by the Cab Sec to continue to work with CJAs as well as the other partners referred to that there is no intention to do so and that therefore the CJAs are ‘dead’.”

Did the member not listen when we said quite clearly that the proposal—whether it is A, B or C—would not come into effect until the spring of 2016? Given that that is the case, CJAs will need to continue operating until then. To suggest that they are dead when we are only in the spring of 2013 is, frankly, fanciful.

Fanciful or not, those are not my words but the words of a leader of a community justice authority, and they are a response to the cabinet secretary’s motion. Mr Llewellyn continues, making a pertinent point about the timing of the debate:

“This is an extremely disappointing message especially so soon after the closure of the consultation process upon which so much effort has been spent by those of us who believed the Cab Sec’s and his officials’ assurances that no assumptions had been made and who believe in the potential for CJAs to rise to the challenge if enhanced appropriately.”

It is important that, as Lewis Macdonald said, we debate the issue again once we have all had a chance to digest the consultation responses.

I spoke about enhanced and expanded CJAs with oversight at a national level. I wish that Jenny Marra would refer to my D option, because I think that it could be the solution. I certainly did not say that I wanted to get rid of CJAs.

I am reading the response of the leader of a community justice authority. I very much appreciated Christine Grahame’s speech, in which she outlined a number of options. As Labour has outlined today, we need to see the evidence first before we explore any of the options and come to any decision on what option we should choose.

The options raise a number of questions. If we opt for a local authority model, how can we be sure that funding will be targeted to the areas that need it most? I raised that issue with the cabinet secretary in my intervention during his opening speech. How can we ensure, under that model, that innovative programs are shared between local authorities? How can we ensure that they will be sustained under a funding arrangement that is devolved to local authorities when, currently, 83 per cent of cuts are at a local authority level? The cabinet secretary assured me that he would answer all those questions. If the Government’s preference is to centralise the system, which is implied in the motion, how can we ensure that central control does not stifle local expertise? [Interruption.]

I hear qualms being expressed on the SNP benches, but those are all legitimate questions.

How do we make community justice authorities integrate better with the local health practitioners, alcohol and drug partnerships and social work services when their jurisdictions are all different? That point was very well made in Rod Campbell’s speech. He highlighted the implications of the Government’s wider programme of justice reform and the effect that the proposed closure of Cupar sheriff court will have on integrated services to reduce reoffending, as cases from north-east Fife will be heard in Dundee, which is outwith the local CJA area, the health board area and the local authority area. The Government must consider these reforms in the round. Labour raised that point in the courts debate last week and we emphasise it again today.

Malcolm Chisholm and Annabel Goldie reminded us that we have had this debate before, when the CJAs were set up. Perhaps the challenge that we face again with the options in the consultation is in striking a balance between council and Government control and where the power lies.

On the specific matter of Cupar sheriff court, it may interest the member to know that, when I met David O’Neill of COSLA and I mentioned the proposed closures, he made the point that, as the leader not only of COSLA but of North Ayrshire Council, he has no court in his council area but people there cope quite well and do not miss having a sheriff court. Does Jenny Marra disagree with David O’Neill?

That is beside the point. Lucky him if the court reforms do not affect his area. The point that Rod Campbell was making is that court cases will be heard in a jurisdiction outwith the control of the local health service, the local authority and local social services. That does not make sense if we are trying to improve community justice.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s invitation to discuss the matter outwith the chamber. We very much look forward to that meeting after we have all had a chance to digest the consultation’s findings.

16:51

I am grateful to members for their speeches in this afternoon’s debate, which I think has been productive. It is clear that reducing reoffending and protecting victims and communities from crime is a high priority across the chamber. I suspect that Malcolm Chisholm had it right when he said that there is unanimity on the nature of the problem.

I recognise the good work that has been and continues to be done by our community justice partners. Working with offenders can be very demanding, as they often have complex and entrenched problems. Changing their behaviour to help them to make a positive contribution to their families and communities and to make reparation for their crime requires a professional, competent and very skilled workforce. We must continue to support and empower practitioners, managers and leaders in the public and third sectors who work in that important area—I recognise that it cuts across both sectors.

We cannot ignore the serious issues that have been highlighted by reports from Audit Scotland and the commission on women offenders. Those reports have identified a lack of strategic leadership, the absence of robust accountability arrangements and the need for a more strategic commissioning of services that are based on what works. It is crucial that structural arrangements support rather than hinder those who work in community justice if we want real and lasting improvements.

A redesigned community justice system should meet the needs of offenders and their families, deliver services that are evidence based and cost effective, and have the confidence of the judiciary and local communities. Engagement with partners across the whole public sector is critical. Reducing reoffending is a matter not just for criminal justice but, as many members have flagged up, for those working in mental health, addiction, employment and housing. All those services have a key role to play.

In addition to changes to the existing arrangements for the planning, management and delivery of offender services in the community, a host of other work is under way to reduce reoffending, and that work will continue. Under phase 2 of the reducing reoffending programme, we are establishing a community justice centre for women who offend. We are also introducing changes to existing funding arrangements to give more flexibility to local partners to commit resources to what works to reduce reoffending, and we are reviewing voluntary throughcare services for offenders in custody and on their release into the community. All those aspects of the programme were raised by members throughout the debate.

All of our activity is underpinned by a strong preventative approach, whether that is diverting minor first-time offenders out of the criminal justice system or using the proceeds of crime to fund facilities and activities for young people who are at risk of turning to a life of crime.

As most members here will agree, effective prevention and early intervention can make a positive difference. Such an approach has the potential to bring not only long-term savings for the public purse but benefits to individuals, their families and communities. Of course, that approach does not go without criticism, and we must be robust in our defence of how important it is. When prevention and early intervention are brought into play, they are not a soft option but an important part of all the tools that are available to us. The importance of early intervention was articulated strongly during the consultation exercise.

As members will know, the consultation exercise ended only a few days ago. We held 13 events across Scotland and heard the views of more than 550 people. I could hardly pre-empt and summarise all those views, but I can tell members that the discussions were insightful and well informed and they will play an important part in our consideration of the way forward. Before the summer recess, we plan to publish a report summarising the findings from the consultation events, but members should be reassured that the discussion is continuing. Indeed, today’s debate is part of that.

Can the minister confirm whether the Government’s approach is restricted to the tripod of options in the consultation document? Is there a willingness slightly to look outside that envelope?

If Annabel Goldie is a little patient, I will come to that aspect.

I think it fair to say that most members will agree that, in Alison McInnes’s words, the status quo is not an option, although I detected a departure from that in Mary Fee’s speech. As Lewis Macdonald rightly articulated, a key point in the debate is whether the delivery of the various services needs a single national service or better local responses, and each option has its merits. I can reassure him that MAPPA funding will continue irrespective of the approach adopted, because the management of serious offenders remains a Government priority. Margaret Mitchell made a fair point about the almost guaranteed duplication that arises out of the many different agencies that are involved at present.

Members across the chamber grappled with the real difficulty of achieving the right balance between localisation and central direction—Margaret Mitchell, Christine Grahame, Malcolm Chisholm and others mentioned that. I know that Malcolm Chisholm recognises the tensions that exist in that debate, as we have had some interesting conversations on Twitter precisely about the issue of centralisation versus the criticism of having a postcode lottery, which tends to come with localisation. We all have to be mature about that debate.

On fine collection, Margaret Mitchell rather skated over the fact that a great deal of the money that she mentioned would go to the Treasury and would not be available to us to do what she wanted. On her specific question about the timing of the CPO evaluation, I can confirm that that will not be completed until November 2014. I am sure that she would not want us to hold things back until then, but we will consider any learning from it that we can.

Christine Grahame reminded us that all the good work that is done in prisons can be undone when there is no joined-up delivery on the outside. She also introduced an ad hoc option to the list that she will not allow us to forget.

A number of members, including Colin Keir, drew attention to the problem of working in silos. Colin Keir also raised a point about people being released from prisons that are far away from their local communities, which creates difficulties for joining up services. Other members, including Graeme Pearson and Rod Campbell, also mentioned their own experience of the problem.

Annabel Goldie asked about the options. I think that she may have given some succour to Christine Grahame about her ad hoc option. Without committing the Government only a few days after the consultation has closed, I can say that other options, or even hybrid options, are still open for consideration. That is why we are having today’s debate.

I am sorry that Jenny Marra introduced a rather discordant note at the end of the debate. In the main, the debate has been profoundly productive and positive, and there will be further debate before any legislation is introduced. Today’s debate has been thought provoking, I thank all members for their contributions to it, and I hope that we can continue to work together constructively in the future. With that, I draw my remarks to a close.