The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-15607, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill.
14:56
I start by thanking everyone who contributed to the development of the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill, including members of all parties, all our stakeholders and, if I may, my bill team, of whom I am very proud.
I am particularly grateful to the stakeholders, especially local government colleagues, for their considered thoughts while the Government was shaping its policy and during Parliament’s consideration of the bill. I welcome their broad support for the bill, and I believe that it reflects the wide-ranging and effective engagement that we have had in developing its key provisions, especially the new national strategy for community justice and the performance framework. Following enactment, we will continue that dialogue as we take forward implementation.
I am grateful to the convener, Christine Grahame, and her Justice Committee colleagues for their detailed scrutiny of the bill. Indeed, I was pleased to lodge a number of amendments at stage 2 in response to the committee’s recommendations.
The bill will make positive changes to community justice. It comes at a time of broader reform in penal policy. Indeed, the bill and the new model for community justice that it establishes form a key part in delivering the Scottish Government’s commitment to reducing reoffending and the harm that it causes to individuals, families and communities.
Central to reducing reoffending is actively addressing the underlying causes of offending behaviour. The new model presents a more holistic and collaborative approach to identifying priorities and planning the most appropriate interventions. Such an approach requires community justice partners to co-operate with each other, especially at a local level. The provision around co-operation was strengthened by the stage 3 amendment that Dr Elaine Murray and I worked on together, and I again thank Dr Murray for her contribution.
The model will be driven forward at local and national level by the common aim of securing better outcomes for people and communities across Scotland. It is underpinned by a transparent and robust means of measuring and demonstrating progress in achieving those outcomes.
That transparency and clarity in delivering improved outcomes might in turn contribute to the Government’s vision of a fairer justice system in Scotland that reflects the values of a modern and progressive nation in which prison sentences, particularly short-term sentences, are used less frequently, and where there is a stronger emphasis on robust community sentences. It is important that individuals are held to account for the offences that they have committed, but thereafter it is also important that they are supported to be responsible citizens and contributors to our communities.
At stage 1, the Justice Committee and stakeholders raised a number of important points relating to key issues such as early intervention, engagement with the third sector and governance arrangements. I considered those points carefully and proposed a number of amendments at stage 2 that have strengthened the bill.
At stage 1, the committee and stakeholders called for a stronger element of prevention and early intervention to be reflected in the definition of community justice to enable effective intervention to take place earlier, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of further offending. Evidence shows that diverting individuals away from the criminal justice system is an effective way of preventing further offending. That is especially true when the diversion is complemented by an intervention that is designed to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour.
I recognise that waiting until someone is convicted may be too late and would mean that we lose an opportunity to prevent offending behaviour from escalating. That is why, with the committee’s support, we broadened the definition of “community justice” in the bill so that community justice services must be planned for people from the point of arrest onwards, rather than from the point that a conviction takes place, as had been set out in the bill at its introduction.
At stage 1, members and witnesses expressed a strong desire for prevention of further offending to be more strongly referenced in the bill, especially in the definition of “community justice”. The new broader definition responds positively to those representations, too.
Prevention is central to our aim of reducing further offending. Every intervention, support or management is an opportunity to work with an individual to aid prevention. As we discussed earlier today, the bill does not cover primary prevention, which means preventing people from offending in the first place, but I emphasise again the point that Alison McInnes made: primary prevention is being taken forward effectively by this Government through a range of other policies, such as early years interventions, raising educational attainment, tackling youth unemployment and our policies on health and housing. I am happy to reiterate that we will make sure that those policies are properly referenced in the guidance that will accompany the bill.
I will say a few words about the stronger provisions regarding the third sector that are now in the bill. At stage 2, I proposed and the committee agreed to a stronger participative role for the third sector—including victims organisations, as Margaret McDougall pointed out—in the planning of community justice, and in the preparation of key strategic documents such as the national strategy for community justice. That gives relevant third sector organisations stronger representation in the new model for community justice.
I fully recognise that the third sector is vital to the successful planning and delivery of effective and efficient services for individuals, and I am grateful for the positive contribution that the sector makes to community justice, at both a local and a national level, which I hope will be even greater in the future. I am also grateful to Margaret McDougall for working with me on framing the stage 3 amendment that provided that a statement of engagement is to be included when community justice partners are preparing their outcomes improvement plans. The statement will confirm that third sector bodies participated in the plan and confirm the efforts that community justice partners made to secure and facilitate the participation of third sector bodies and community bodies in their local area.
Margaret McDougall and I also worked together to amend the bill to make it clear that third sector organisations that represent victims and their families are to be consulted in the planning of community justice and on the preparation of key documents relating to it, where those organisations provide community justice services or perform an advocacy or advisory role. I trust that the committee and stakeholders will recognise the significant amendments that were made at stage 2 and stage 3 as being a positive response to the points that they raised with me and the committee.
I said earlier that being able to demonstrate to communities that better community justice outcomes are being delivered is a key part of the new model for community justice. Supporting the community justice partners in achieving those outcomes is one of the functions of the new national body, community justice Scotland. I understand that there have been misunderstandings about the role of community justice Scotland, and, indeed, some fears that it will be a regulatory body or a body with the potential to acquire unlimited new powers with no check or brake on that. Let me allay those fears now and be clear about how community justice Scotland will work with community justice partners.
I emphasise that the model is a decentralised one that places decision making in the hands of local people and agencies who know their communities best. Having 32 sets of community justice partners boosts the potential for learning from shared good practice, as there is greater scope for innovation. It also provides transparency over performance and the achievement of improved outcomes. That is why having a national body with oversight powers will be an asset to the new model.
At its core, community justice Scotland is being established to provide leadership to the community justice sector, as well as to support partners and stakeholders to deliver better outcomes for community justice in Scotland. As part of those overarching aims, community justice Scotland has a function to provide assurance on community justice partners’ progress towards national outcomes. To provide that assurance, community justice Scotland must be able to make recommendations to community justice partners, which will include promoting good practice and recommending specific action where progress towards an outcome is not being made.
The amendments that the committee agreed to at stage 2 reframed and expanded the provisions in the bill to make them clearer about the oversight powers that community justice Scotland will hold, especially in relation to its ability to make local improvement recommendations to community justice partners and national improvement recommendations to ministers.
In its stage 1 report, the committee said that if community justice Scotland
“does not have adequate powers of oversight to measure and drive forward improvements in performance, there is a danger that weaknesses in relation to accountability, strategic leadership and the ability to properly measure outcomes in the existing arrangements will persist.”
The amendments responded positively to that recommendation by providing clarity on the arrangements for oversight and performance improvement.
I will be clear about the roles of community justice partners and the Scottish ministers in performance improvement. The responsibility for resolving any local issues with planning or the quality of delivery, and for achieving progress against improving outcomes, rests with the statutory community justice partners of each local area. Existing accountability lines for individual statutory community justice partners remain through the respective organisations.
If partners should request assistance on issues that they have not been able to resolve locally, community justice Scotland will be able to offer support and advice. Where there are persistent issues in achieving improved outcomes, community justice Scotland can make recommendations to the Scottish ministers. Recommendations could be made around the requirement for improvement plans; on the potential for specific multi-agency inspections; and in exceptional circumstances—I stress the word “exceptional”—to establish a rescue task group to work with the local partners. Recommendations at a national level can also be made. I expect that persistent issues will be the exception rather than the norm.
First and foremost, community justice Scotland is there to support partners, share good practice and champion the community justice sector, giving parity of esteem to custodial and non-custodial sentences. It sits alongside the community justice partners, not above them, and we do not see it as a regulator, nor is it intended to be.
In conclusion, the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill lays a firm foundation on which we will build a robust, transparent and inclusive new model for community justice in Scotland. The new model places decision making locally with those who know their communities best and who will be most affected by community justice issues.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill be passed.
15:06
On behalf of Scottish Labour, I thank the clerks, the witnesses, the legislation team, Scottish Government officials and the minister for their contributions to the development of the bill since it was introduced last year.
The bill has changed considerably since its first draft. Many of the suggestions that the Justice Committee made in its stage 1 report were taken on board by the Scottish Government, and others were successfully pressed by Opposition members at stage 2.
The original definition of “community justice” was generally considered to be too narrow as it was restricted to people who had already offended, and it focused on the prevention of reoffending rather than the prevention of offending. The majority of witnesses at stage 1 felt that that was a missed opportunity and that the definition should also include desistance, prevention and early intervention. Scottish Labour members were pleased to support stage 2 amendments that included bail conditions, community disposals, post-release control and persons identified as at serious risk of first-time offending.
The latter aspect was introduced as an amendment from Alison McInnes that, despite the Government’s reservations about including it in the bill rather than in other strategies, found favour with the majority of committee members.
Alison McInnes was also successful in placing in the bill some of the support services that should be offered where appropriate, including housing services. That was proposed by Shelter, whose prison advice project, which supports offenders in Perth, Aberdeen and Inverness during and after their sentences, demonstrates the effectiveness of housing support in the prevention of reoffending. I had some concerns about the Government’s stage 3 amendments that changed some of that, but I accept that the amendments that were agreed to this afternoon have altered and tidied up the wording of the stage 2 amendments and that the policy intention remains and the bill is therefore enhanced.
Community justice will work only if the community and the judiciary believe that it is an effective, successful and appropriate alternative to imprisonment. In particular, it is important that victims of crime, when a community disposal is given, know that due consideration is given to their views and needs and that the disposal is not some sort of soft option. Communities and victims also need to know that they will receive respite from the offending behaviour of those individuals.
My colleague Margaret McDougall has been determined to ensure that victims’ interests are specifically mentioned in the bill, and she is to be congratulated on her success in working with the Government to ensure that amendments reflecting the concerns of organisations such as Victim Support and Scottish Women’s Aid have been successfully introduced to the bill today, in addition to the amendment that she persuaded the committee to accept at stage 2, which will ensure that the management and support of offenders must be undertaken with regard to the safety of others in the community.
At stage 2, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed a number of concerns regarding how the proposals would impact on local government; whether the reporting mechanisms would be overburdensome; whether the funding that is available is sufficient to ensure that the new community justice partnerships work effectively; how councils would be involved in the national assurance process; the relationship between community justice partners and the community planning process; and possible conflict between the national commissioning that is undertaken by community justice Scotland and the local community justice partnerships.
Those aspects were the subject of a series of stage 2 probing amendments lodged in my name, and I hope that the discussion at committee, and the subsequent discussions that I believe have taken place between the minister and COSLA, have allayed most of those concerns. That said, I think that the majority of committee members remain of the opinion that sufficient resources must be allocated to local partnerships to enable them to fulfil their duties, and I urge the Government to ensure that funding is monitored and any shortfalls rectified. I should also say that I am pleased that one of my own proposals that made it, albeit in altered form, into an amendment in my name—amendment 32—was agreed to by the Parliament this afternoon.
At stage 1, the committee heard evidence that the term “offender” could be considered as stigmatising, although it was not clear at that stage how that could be avoided. The minister reflected on the matter and introduced at stage 2 amendments that sought to remove the term and which replaced the word “reoffending” with “future offending”, thereby including people who at the time of engagement with community justice services have not been convicted of an offence. The minister made the same point again at stage 3 when he said that in our system people are innocent until proven guilty and should not be treated as guilty, even if they need to engage with community justice services. Such engagement will obviously be extremely important for, say, those on remand.
This is a short stage 3 debate, partly because there was so much agreement on so many of the issues raised at stage 1 and partly because of the agreement that was achieved at stage 2. However, the brevity of today’s debate does not reflect the importance of the matters that we are dealing with. We in Scotland and in the UK generally are overreliant on prison to deal with offending behaviour. We lock up a greater proportion of offenders; we lock them up for short periods during which rehabilitation and purposeful activity are difficult to achieve; and we often turn offenders out on to the streets to offend again.
Of course, victims and communities often want perpetrators of crimes to spend time in prison, sometimes to gain respite from offending behaviour and sometimes because of the lack of confidence in the alternatives to imprisonment. The eight community justice authorities established under the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 did not succeed; indeed, the Angiolini commission on women offenders and Audit Scotland identified problems in the system, particularly the lack of strategic leadership, accountability and capacity. The new structure must be able to rectify those deficiencies.
If community disposals are to be used more successfully, their effectiveness and robustness must be clearly demonstrated. Community disposals must work for victims and communities as well as those who are or who might be involved in offending behaviour, and there is still a job to be done to raise not only people’s understanding of but their confidence in community disposals. That work is now being progressed, as it needs to be.
The bill is intended to address the criticisms made of the 2005 act. During its passage through Parliament, its scope has been widened considerably; the role played by the third sector has been explicitly recognised; and the types of support that can prevent offending and reoffending have been cited in greater detail. I also note that members of the Justice Committee have received information on the development of the draft guidance, the national strategy and the national performance framework.
Given the amount of movement on and the improvements made to the bill, I do not particularly want to end on a sour note, but I think that there are still issues to address about the funding of local community justice projects. This week, the Justice Committee was advised that 12 projects supporting new or enhanced community justice services for women had twice been allocated one-off funding—most recently £640,000 that had been transferred from the Scottish Prison Service—because they had found it difficult to secure full local funding.
Although the Angiolini commission recommended that enhanced community justice services for women should be sustained locally, it is not at all clear how in the current financial circumstances these projects or the wider community justice services will be sustained financially. I want to put that point into the discussion, because it would be extremely unfortunate if all our good intentions foundered on lack of funds.
15:14
I welcome this stage 3 debate on the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill, the final version of which is quite different from and a great improvement on the version that was presented at stage 1. The credit for that is largely due to the witnesses and stakeholders whose evidence proved invaluable in helping the Justice Committee to amend the bill as it progressed through the legislative process.
The bill was introduced against a background of severe criticism of the current model from Audit Scotland and the commission on women offenders. The criticisms highlighted the model’s limited impact on rates of reoffending; inconsistent service provision across Scotland; a lack of nationally agreed measures to assess performance; and an absence of strategic leadership and accountability.
Although the committee was told at stage 1 that the bill was merely enabling legislation, it soon became apparent that its provisions are more far reaching. They include provisions to define the parameters of community justice and to abolish the eight community justice authorities—perhaps the minister will address the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations in that respect in his closing remarks. The bill creates community justice Scotland as the overarching national body that is charged with monitoring the delivery of improved outcomes and it delegates the local planning, delivery and monitoring of services to the 32 sets of community justice partners.
The bill paves the way for significant reforms to the community justice system. However, a key element that initially was noticeably missing was a focus on prevention and early intervention. Furthermore, the third sector expressed serious concerns that it risked being marginalised by the proposed new structure.
Stage 2 amendments from the minister, and particularly from Alison McInnes and Margaret McDougall, addressed those criticisms, resulting in a much improved piece of legislation. Early intervention was incorporated in the meaning of community justice, while the interests of victims of offending behaviour were acknowledged in the bill, which was a welcome addition.
However, the amended provisions have been modified today and, sadly, those in relation to prevention and early intervention have been removed completely. Despite the extensive feedback from stakeholders including Police Scotland, Sacro, Barnardo’s Scotland and Victim Support Scotland, the Scottish National Party Government has rejected a holistic approach that encompasses early intervention and prevention. Many justifiably argue that that is a lost opportunity.
At stage 1 there was significant discussion about the relationship between the new body—community justice Scotland—and the 32 sets of community justice partners. Originally the model was presented to the Justice Committee as non-hierarchical, but during the scrutiny of the bill, it became clear that the relationship was indeed hierarchical, which risks putting in statute a top-down approach to community justice when decisions should be taken at a local level on the basis of local need. However, assurances have been given about the flexibility that each of the 32 sets of community justice partners will be afforded. That issue is important, as is the funding that will be allocated to the partners, which remains unclear.
The original intention was for the bill to tackle reoffending alone and serve as a de facto vehicle for the Scottish Government’s penal reforms, but the consultation on those proposed reforms has just been concluded and the responses have still to be analysed. Again, there is uncertainty as to how the proposals will pan out.
Given those unanswered questions and uncertainties, it did not seem unreasonable to insert a sunset clause. That would have made the new model for community justice subject to post-legislative scrutiny five years after royal assent, once any further changes to the criminal justice system and the penal system in particular had bedded in. It would also have ensured that the important stage 2 amendments that remain part of the bill were kept under review and properly monitored. I regret that that proposal was not supported at stage 3.
Nonetheless, there have been radical changes to the bill that mean that it now properly includes the third sector. Crucially, the changes recognise the importance of housing and homelessness services in helping to reduce reoffending by covering those issues in the bill. I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time.
15:19
It is perhaps worth reflecting on the history of the bill, which was born from the commission on women offenders report in particular, and also the Audit Scotland report, as Margaret Mitchell mentioned. It is appropriate that we are debating the bill in the same week as we heard the justice secretary give a further progress report on the implementation of Dame Elish Angiolini’s recommendations and make an important announcement on Cornton Vale. Community justice Scotland might not be quite the body that Dame Elish anticipated and it might not be able to commission, provide and manage adult offender services, but we should remember that there was insufficient support for a national model at the consultation stage.
We should also remember that improved outcomes require local input. I believe that encouraging a presumption against shorter sentences is very much at the forefront of Government thinking, along with keeping women out of prison. We heard important evidence about the prison estate for women in committee this week.
In the committee, we heard a lot of evidence at stage 1 about the importance of alternatives to prosecution. Community justice must offer a credible alternative to the criminal justice system. We need to build on initiatives that work already and encourage local initiatives, while recognising the need for outcomes to be monitored at a national level and evaluated in a consistent manner.
As is well known, the bill does not cover primary prevention—that is, stopping offending in the first place—but I am heartened by the minister’s comments on the link between primary, secondary and tertiary prevention being covered in guidance. Of course, the bill covers subsequent behaviour, and its success will be measured by the extent to which it prevents future or further offending.
The relationship between community justice Scotland and community justice partners is important, but I am not sure that we can glean much from the bill as to how that will work in practice, other than to stress that it is meant to be non-hierarchical. There must be reports, but community justice Scotland will certainly miss a trick if it becomes bogged down in annual reports, as Dame Elish Angiolini hinted when she gave evidence to the committee at stage 1.
Whether the bill will succeed in reducing a cluttered landscape appears arguable. I have come to the view that, given the number of parties that are involved in community justice, that is quite problematic. However, community justice Scotland needs to establish a rapport with local community justice partners, to demonstrate leadership and to offer appropriate assistance and advice. There should be a relationship based on mutual support to achieve agreed outcomes.
I hope that the new set-up will recognise the important role of the third sector, and I welcome the Government’s responsiveness at stage 2 and earlier this afternoon. We need to ensure that the promised national strategy is developed with full input from not only the third sector but local government. It would be good to allay the concerns of COSLA, if at all possible, about what the new set-up will involve.
The new strategy needs to improve public understanding and, as Alison McInnes indicated at stage 2, it is also important to improve access to services such as housing. Discouraging reoffending will be made all the more difficult if there are inadequate attempts to reintegrate people in the community.
It will no doubt be argued that, for the new arrangements to succeed, they must be adequately resourced. I agree but I hope that, over time, significant resources that go into the prison system can be diverted for better use in community justice.
This is an important bill. I wish it well on reaching the statute book and I congratulate the Government, stakeholders and other members in the chamber on the work that they have undertaken to make it the legislation that it is today.
15:23
I am particularly pleased to be taking part in the stage 3 debate on the bill because this is the first bill that I have seen through from start to finish since joining the Parliament in 2011. As such, it gave me a great sense of achievement to have my amendments supported today.
I thank the clerks and everyone who gave evidence to the committee, which helped to deliver what I hope is a strong and robust piece of legislation. I particularly thank Scottish Women’s Aid, Victim Support Scotland and Barnardo’s Scotland for their support with lodging my amendments. I also thank the minister and his legislation team for working with me on my amendments since stage 2 to find a form of words that was acceptable to all concerned.
I am grateful to the Justice Committee for agreeing to my amendment 95 at stage 2. Amendment 95 ensures that, when a prisoner is being released, the safety of other persons in the community, including victims of offences and their families, is taken into account.
At stage 3, the purpose of my amendments 28 and 29 was to place a specific reference to victims, communities and families in the bill. Amendments 30 and 31 were intended to ensure that the third sector is properly represented, consulted and engaged with by community justice partners when the partners prepare their plans and that the methods and outcomes are reported to CJS, which will comment on them and take action if required.
All those amendments had wide-ranging support from various organisations and stakeholders, including Women’s Aid, Victim Support, Shelter and the community justice forum. I am happy that the Scottish Government supported them today.
Some issues that were raised during evidence still need to be addressed, and one is the funding of third sector organisations. As I said during the stage 1 debate, we should be moving away from annual funding to a three-year model to allow for continuity and sustainability for the third sector organisations that provide many of the community justice services. That would reduce uncertainty and allow for planning for staff and service users. As the stage 1 committee report stated, those concerns have existed over a number of years, but no action has been taken. Perhaps the Scottish Government can confirm today whether the issue is anywhere near being resolved.
I am still concerned about the level of transitional funding to implement the bill. It is £1.6 million over the next three years, split among the 32 local authorities, which might not be enough to support the changes. That is even more crucial now that we know that local authority budgets are being cut again.
If community justice partners are to succeed in achieving their outcomes, they must be properly resourced, as my colleague Elaine Murray pointed out. Given that I raised the issue during the stage 1 debate, I ask the minister again whether he has considered the availability of resources for community justice partners to deliver the proposals in the bill.
I am happy to support the bill at stage 3, and I thank the Parliament for supporting my amendments today. With the passing of the bill, we will need to take a serious look at how we deliver community justice under increasing financial pressures. I am also keen that we find a solution to secure longer-term funding for the third sector.
15:27
It is almost four years since the commission on women offenders published its report. Of its 37 recommendations, only one gave me serious pause for thought: that on setting up a national community justice service. Such centralisation seemed contrary to the rest of the report, which emphasised a tailored, community-based response.
Community justice services are—rightly—part of the local government family. The development of close links between criminal justice services, youth justice, social work, housing, education, drug and alcohol services and so on has meant that progress has been made on tackling the root causes of crime. I was concerned at the outset that such a change would be expensive and disruptive and would lead to the loss of integration with other local services.
I understood the frustration that led to that recommendation being made; indeed, I shared much of it. The commission’s report described the lack of opportunity for strategic leadership and accountability in the delivery of offender services in the community. It described the short-term funding and the difficulties in measuring impact, as well as the inconsistent service provision across Scotland. It told us that the interventions that are delivered in prison often cease at the gate.
Nevertheless, it quickly became clear that that was the one recommendation that did not carry broad support across the sector. Consultations on the proposal faltered repeatedly, which resulted in a number of iterations. Progress has been slow. When the bill was finally introduced, I was anxious that the proposals were perhaps a compromise too far.
We have heard a lot over the past few years about the cluttered landscape in the community justice sector. At stage 1, there was some scepticism as to whether the bill would do anything to tackle that. During the passage of the bill, however, the minister listened to those concerns, and his stage 2 amendments largely dispelled my fears. His note on the draft guidelines, which we received earlier this week, starts to fill in some of the detail.
I am pleased that the stage 2 amendments that I lodged were largely accepted by the Government in the spirit in which they were intended. Throughcare from prison into the community needs to be as seamless as possible. I am particularly pleased that I have been able to widen the definition of general services to include specific provision of appropriate housing.
This week, the Justice Committee took evidence on the Government’s progress on implementing Elish Angiolini’s proposals. It was heartening to sense that we might finally be at a turning point in bringing about progressive reform. Notwithstanding the tone of COSLA’s letter today, I hope that the bill will foster a renewed drive for reform among all the community justice partners.
Many of the judiciary have, until now, been reluctant to use community sentences properly. It is to be hoped that community justice Scotland holds the key to unlocking greater confidence in community-based services and innovative approaches such as restorative justice.
Alongside the bill, we need to be ambitious about extending the presumption against short-term prison sentences. I have no doubt at all that, for many offences, prison is rarely the right answer. It is far better for community-based schemes to be the option of choice. Having offenders contributing locally, making reparations and doing work in the community that challenges and changes them for the better is a positive and constructive way of making amends, but it also ensures that offenders pay the penalty without getting caught up in the prison cycle. I believe that well-resourced and well-structured programmes increase public protection, bring down the rate of reoffending and repay the damage done by crime in a way that custodial sentences cannot.
The Government must ensure that community-based reparations are properly resourced and rigorously assessed. I urge the minister to ensure that the experience and expertise that exist in the community justice authorities are, as far as possible, harnessed as we move forward. I echo Margaret Mitchell’s comments about TUPE. If it was possible for the minister to consider the TUPE arrangements again, I would be grateful.
When the Liberal Democrats responded to the report of the commission on women offenders in 2012, I said that we would work with the Government to realise the goal of reducing reoffending. I noted that we would be in for a marathon rather than a sprint to the finishing line but that, ultimately, the prize would be worth it. That remains the case.
15:31
It is a pleasure to speak in this stage 3 debate on the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill. Being a current member of the Justice Committee, I have seen the bill make its way through Parliament at all stages and I have heard from fellow MSPs, Government ministers and, of course, groups and organisations that have an interest in the bill.
I see from the policy memorandum that the aim of the bill is to
“help create a stronger community justice system based on local collaborative strategic planning and delivery, with national leadership, support and assurance”.
It is on that basis that I will speak today.
The new model for community justice includes national leadership and oversight, and support for community justice services by a new body to be called community justice Scotland, and involves local strategic planning and delivery and monitoring of services by groups of community justice partners in each of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas, with Scottish ministers being responsible for a number of matters, including a national strategy and national performance framework for community justice.
Specifically on the local element, I feel that the new model for community justice achieves an appropriate balance between strong national leadership to drive forward improvements in outcomes, and local flexibility and planning in delivery of services. The new model places decision making locally with the people who know their communities best and who will be most affected by community justice issues. That means that local leadership and ownership of community justice are vital for the new arrangements’ success.
Community justice Scotland will provide leadership and strategic direction for the community justice sector and will promote best practice. The bill clarifies the relationships that will be in place locally and between community justice Scotland and partners including the police, the Scottish Prison Service and the national health service. That will help partners to prepare for their roles and to understand key processes.
I understand that the responsibility for resolving any local issues rests with the local statutory community justice partners. However, should partners request assistance on issues that they have not been able to resolve locally, community justice Scotland will be able to offer support and advice.
The strength of the new legislation lies in ensuring that those who have paid their debt to society have the support in place to become valued members of the community.
Audit Scotland stated that there is an urgent need for a more strategic approach to planning, designing and delivering services at national and community justice levels. There are many different bodies involved in the planning, design and delivery of services for offenders—that range of bodies creates a complex landscape. The new model in the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill brings coherence to the cluttered landscape of criminal justice by providing for strategic direction, strong leadership and an holistic and collective approach to planning, reporting and commissioning of services.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to reducing re-offending and securing better outcomes through community justice services, and that it is working in partnership with organisations and communities to reduce re-offending and deliver better outcomes for offenders and communities. The Scottish Government has a clear vision for fairer justice, with Scotland moving towards being a society in which those who have been through the justice system, having paid their debt to society, can realise their aspirations and be supported to be active and responsible contributors to our communities as fellow citizens. The Community Justice (Scotland) Bill will help to achieve that vision, so I commend to Parliament the bill and the Government’s amendments.
We turn to the closing speeches. I call Margaret Mitchell, who has five minutes, please.
15:36
Although the Scottish Government’s amendments at stage 2 have done much to improve the bill, I consider it an opportunity lost to have removed from its scope the amendment that would have ensured early intervention and prevention. The minister attempted to give assurances to the Justice Committee that the Government is tackling primary prevention through its policies on early years provision, on raising educational attainment, on tackling youth unemployment, on health and on housing. However, that approach ignores the views of people on the front line, including Police Scotland, which advocated an holistic approach. Chief Superintendent Grant Manders said in evidence last September that
“for all this to be successful it is necessary to take a whole-system approach; it needs to be right from start to finish. That leads to the emphasis on prevention and early intervention ... For me, successful community justice is a whole-system approach. It would be nice if some of the language, experience and good practice were encompassed in the language of the bill.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 15 September; c 44, 45.]
Sadly, despite the importance of early intervention in identifying people who are at risk of offending and in helping to prevent them from pursuing a life of crime being accepted wisdom, the Government has chosen to reject that holistic approach, which would have helped to improve the success of early intervention initiatives.
Consequently, the omission of prevention from the bill’s provisions represents an opportunity lost for it to become a vehicle to address groups including young carers who, due to their caring role, sometimes miss school or further education studies, which can have an impact on future employment and career prospects. Although the new Carers (Scotland) Bill addresses some of the problems, during a recent visit to the young carers centre in Falkirk I was reminded by people who support young carers that there are still young carers who leave school without qualifications or training but who have immense caring responsibility on their young shoulders. As the Carers Trust explains, that in turn means that for those young people there is
“a greater danger of developing mental or physical health issues and a higher likelihood of offending and becoming involved with the justice system.”
So, although I welcome what the Scottish Government is doing with primary prevention across the different portfolios, I do not believe that it has to be an either/or approach. Instead, by expanding the bill’s scope, the Government could have complemented and strengthened work that is already being carried out. Crucially, that would have provided young carers and other organisations access to another funding stream to sustain tried and tested work, rather than requiring additional funding—I think that that addresses a point that was made by Roddy Campbell.
So, there remains a question mark over the broader and longer-term implications of the bill. In the absence of a sunset clause, it will be incumbent on Parliament in the next session to monitor the bill’s impact closely.
Notwithstanding those comments, the bill that is before us today is, as I stated at the outset, much improved from the version that the Justice Committee scrutinised at stage 1. The new provisions seek to implement many of the recommendations that were made by Audit Scotland, the commission on women offenders and a range of stakeholders. The recognition of the importance of housing and the vital role that the third sector plays in tackling re-offending are particularly welcome. The Scottish Conservative Party will support the bill at decision time.
15:40
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. First of all, I will allude to a number of the key points that were raised during the earlier stage 3 amendments debate. Alison McInnes, Elaine Murray and others made the important point that dealing with offending begins long before an offence or a crime is committed, and the minister acknowledged that that was a well-made point. Indeed, we must hold on to the need to join up the system that lies behind the bill.
Margaret Mitchell quite properly raised the issue of TUPE, as well as the need to ensure that resources are available to those who will implement the legislation. Although Labour members were unable to support the inclusion of a sunset clause, its not having been agreed to by implication places an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that the fears that have been expressed in Parliament today are without foundation and that, as we go forward, a sunset clause would be redundant.
I want to comment on the minister himself. Today he has again demonstrated his ability not only to hear Opposition parties’ amendments, but to respond to them—quite idiosyncratically, in my experience of this chamber—in an effective way that does not scupper progress. I commend that approach to other members of the Government. It would be a refreshing way forward.
Roderick Campbell in the stage 3 amendments debate touched on the new set-up that we are discussing. Under the bill, eight CJAs will be replaced by 32 community justice partnerships—one per local authority. A national organisation—community justice Scotland—will be established with powers over performance, promoting improvement and so forth, and the Scottish ministers will be required to publish a community justice strategy. Nevertheless, when we look at the experience of reforming emergency services, we see that such reform will demand a great deal of attention from the minister and officials. From this day forward, they will need to ensure that the relationships are productive, that the method by which the various organisations are wedded works and that, at the end of the day, those to whom we seek to provide solace—the communities that we serve—see an alternative to prison that works and shows value for money. That important responsibility lies ahead for the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in a new Government.
However, we know that the eight CJAs did not work; indeed, we know that, other than the chairs of the CJAs, it is difficult to find anyone in Scotland who thinks that they worked. In that circumstance, it is all the more important that the local community networks, the authorities and others contribute positively and honestly. If the set-up does not work, it must be fixed and not left for another five years to soldier along at public expense, and to the detriment of the very people whom we seek to protect—those who may offend in the future. Let us ensure that we deliver.
COSLA made important comments in its briefing before our debate today about governance, which is an aspect that let down the emergency services reform. It mentioned the lack of effective governance—the lack of an expectation that meetings would take place and that designated chairpersons would accept the responsibilities that they were given and ensure that relationships worked in the 32 local authority areas.
Also, in my time on the Justice Committee we saw a great deal of duplication of effort in commissioning of functions, with organisations bumping into each other, competing over the same turf, spending the allocation of public money to their groups but not delivering additional value. Therefore, the comment in COSLA’s briefing about commissioning functions and the need to ensure local prioritisation is important, so I was pleased to hear the minister give full force and strength to that in his opening speech.
The final aspect on which I will comment is the ability of the third sector to play its part. As other areas of public life are, the third sector is under stress. There is no point in trying to engage with that sector and to expect it to pull its weight alongside public authorities unless we are willing to offer it the support that it needs, and to give it access to public sector relationships to the full. Various organisations, including Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid, spend as much time on trying to get funds so that they can do the work as they do on the work itself.
I join Margaret McDougall in thanking Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid for the contribution that they have made to the debate. Having watched the bill going through its various stages, I am grateful to the clerks and to the members of the Justice Committee, because their work, in conjunction with the minister’s, has produced a bill that is a great deal healthier than it was to begin with. The bill drafters have, as usual, worked like Trojans to produce something that looks as though it makes sense. I hope that the Government will be able to enforce it in a way that we will all be able to applaud in the years ahead.
15:47
I am grateful to members for their contributions to the debate. The thoughtful nature of the speeches from around the chamber marks the way in which the committee and other members have engaged in developing the bill. I agree with members that it is a stronger bill now than when we started. That is a tribute to everyone’s work.
As Dr Murray stated, the brevity of the debate is an inaccurate measure of the bill’s importance. I fully agree with her that it has profound implications for the delivery of justice in Scotland. As I said in my opening remarks, the bill has enjoyed strong cross-party support from the start. It is clear that there is a great deal of interest in community justice across the chamber, and I welcome Margaret Mitchell’s comment that the Conservatives will support the bill.
In responding to members’ comments, I will focus on a number of key issues. I will start with the biggest issues, which relate to TUPE and funding, and then cover the rest as we go on. I apologise to Margaret Mitchell for not addressing those issues in my earlier remarks.
The Scottish ministers are satisfied that the bill does not create a Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations situation for community justice Scotland. The functions of the CJAs will not transfer to community justice Scotland when it is established, so the employees of CJAs will not automatically move to community justice Scotland under the operation of TUPE or the Cabinet Office statement of practice. Whether TUPE would apply to the transfer of CJA employees to local authorities will be a matter for local authorities as potential employers to consider.
The no compulsory redundancy policy to which a number of members referred applies to staff of bodies that are covered by the public sector pay policy. CJAs were established as new local government bodies to facilitate the co-ordinated delivery of community justice services by local authorities across local authority areas. As CJAs are local government bodies, their employees are not subject to the public sector pay policy or the no compulsory redundancy policy.
However, my officials are working with the CJAs and local authorities to ensure that staffing arrangements at the community justice authorities are managed to minimise as far as possible any job losses when CJAs are disestablished and that, where that cannot be avoided, staff will be appropriately compensated. We have been considering closely the terms and conditions to ensure that everybody receives fair treatment in respect of those matters.
Is it possible that there could still be some compulsory redundancies?
I will happily come back to the member on that. Detailed negotiations are taking place at local level, and there are different policies in place across the eight different CJAs. I will respond to the member after the meeting, because there are sensitivities around the negotiations with employees.
I turn to transitional funding and the longer-term funding position. Ensuring that partners build their capability and capacity to work together to achieve improved outcomes is critical to a successful transition to the new model for community justice, so the Scottish Government has established a transition workstream and a post in COSLA is leading on that. To support the workstream, a working group meets regularly and is taking forward much of the work plan for transition. The group has representation from the Scottish Government, community justice partners, people with convictions, COSLA, CJAs, community planning partnerships and the third sector.
A wide range of transition work has been done so far. Indeed, I spoke at a national event for stakeholders at Murrayfield last autumn, where 120 people from all over Scotland gathered to discuss the common outcomes and national strategy for community justice.
At the end of January, one of the key milestones for CPPs was the preparation of transition plans. The transition plans are focused on the structures, governance and resource arrangements that the partners intend to put in place to implement the new model locally. The plans also set out each authority’s plans for engagement and involvement with the third sector, service users, people with convictions and communities on local arrangements, planning and delivery in 2016-17. That preparation work will help community justice partners to prepare their first community justice plans by January of next year. I am pleased to say that nearly all the plans have been shared, and comments will be provided with a view to further supporting a successful transition.
On resourcing, to help build capability and capacity locally, transitional funding of £1.6 million has been paid for 2015-16 and confirmed for 2016-17. That money is split equally, with each CPP receiving £50,000. I have encouraged COSLA and its members to supply us with evidence of how it is using that transitional funding, as that will reveal whether there are any bottlenecks or constraints that we can help to address. I invite them to do that, because it is important that we know whether they are experiencing problems in meeting expectations with the resources that we have provided. We have a one-year funding settlement this year, but after the election whichever Administration is in place will have the opportunity to take a longer-term view in light of the next spending review. Our intention is for the funding to be available for three years, commencing in 2015-16 and ending in 2017-18, but that position will be reviewed following the election.
The third sector also has an important role to play in the planning, delivery and evaluation of community justice and has been granted transitional funding of £50,000 per annum for three years through the criminal justice voluntary sector forum. Again, that is subject to the outcome of the next spending review.
As far as the on-going funding for community justice partners is concerned, the Government’s position is to consider and reflect on the evidence on how the three-year transitional funding is being used. I picked up the fact that members across the chamber want to ensure that we help the third sector in particular to deal with the year-on-year chase for funding, and we are looking to review that as part of the review of section 27 funding. A technical advisory group was established to consider the work of developing a new formula for section 27 funding to replace the current one. A move from an annual system of funding to a three-year funding model is one of the issues that are being considered by the main funding group. The advisory group reported to the main funding group in December, and following discussion between the Scottish Government and COSLA recommendations will be made to the joint Scottish Government-COSLA settlement and distribution group. It is intended that the new funding formula for section 27 will go live in 2017-18. We are looking at the context of three-year funding cycles in that discussion.
I turn to other points that were made. Alison McInnes, Elaine Murray and Graeme Pearson all spoke about the need to give the judiciary and communities confidence in community sentences. Community justice Scotland has a particularly important role to play in leading on the preparation of evaluation evidence, disseminating that evidence and giving confidence to all parties that community sentences have an effective outcome and can be more effective than custodial sentences in driving further improvement in that area.
I thank Graeme Pearson for his potentially career-limiting remarks on my engagement with Opposition members in the chamber; I am very grateful for his kindness.
To pick up on Alison McInnes’s point, I have very much tried to reflect the spirit of the amendments that were lodged and to ensure that we did not lose anything that was good in them in trying to tidy up the wording.
I thank Margaret McDougall again for raising the issue around victims and families. That was, of course, supported across the committee. That was an important intervention, and I hope that it will help to strengthen the bill and build buy-in from wider communities for the bill and its intentions.
The intention is certainly to continue to review the implementation. I assure Graeme Pearson that, if I am fortunate enough to have a role, the Government will take very seriously its responsibilities to ensure a smooth transition. My successors will certainly do that if I do not have a role.
I take the point about the marginalisation of primary prevention. I understand that Margaret Mitchell made a sincere point, and I hope that we can in due course convince her and others who are concerned about that matter that, through the guidance and the work through the justice board in ensuring that community justice Scotland works alongside other partners, how secondary and tertiary prevention work alongside primary prevention strategies such as the youth justice strategy will very much be looked at. Obviously, the justice board has a key role in ensuring the implementation of that strategy.
I certainly agree with Roderick Campbell, Alison McInnes, Graeme Pearson and Gil Paterson on the need for community justice Scotland to develop a rapport, to take a strategic view, to lead in a strategic way, and to provide advice and support where they are needed and when they are requested. I very much hope that that model will develop.
I welcome the support for the bill’s objectives from across the chamber. The bill provides the legislative basis for the new model for community justice in Scotland and establishes a new national body—community justice Scotland; places specific duties on statutory partners regarding the achievement of community justice outcomes; and introduces a national strategy and an outcomes, performance and improvement framework. It is a good bill, and members can be satisfied about the role that the committee and the chamber have played in making it strong.
The bill brings together a number of elements, but what we are really talking about is addressing the underlying causes of offending behaviour in a strategic and collaborative way so that people who have committed offences are supported, as Gil Paterson and others have said, to be responsible contributors to our communities. That, in turn, makes our communities safer and stronger. That is what matters to me, and I am sure that that is what matters to members across the chamber. I therefore urge members to support the bill so that we can begin the work to deliver its objectives of reducing future offending and making our communities safer.