Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 02 May 2013
02 May 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Community Justice System
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.”
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.”
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith)
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06433, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on redesigning the community justice system.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Kenny MacAskill)
SNP
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 agr...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
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 ve...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
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 ...
Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
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 genera...
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
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 “purpo...
Lewis Macdonald
Lab
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 ch...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con)
Con
I welcome the debate because it gives Parliament the opportunity to examine why the current arrangement for strategic and operational responsibility with reg...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
Lab
We move to the open debate, with speeches of six minutes. We have a little bit of time in hand for interventions.15:30
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
SNP
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 sta...
Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Lab
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 ...
Colin Keir (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
SNP
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 ...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
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 ...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
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...
Graeme Pearson
Lab
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 interventi...
Roderick Campbell (North East Fife) (SNP)
SNP
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 sent...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
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...
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
SNP
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 communit...
Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
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 ...
Sandra White
SNP
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 differentl...
Mary Fee
Lab
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...
Christine Grahame
SNP
Can I tempt Mary Fee with option D?
Mary Fee
Lab
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 opport...
Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
SNP
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 Scotlan...
Jamie Hepburn (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
SNP
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 jus...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott)
Con
We move to closing speeches. I call Annabel Goldie, who has six minutes or thereby.16:36
Annabel Goldie (West Scotland) (Con)
Con
I welcome both the Scottish Government’s recent consultation and this afternoon’s debate on redesigning the community justice system. That matters not only b...
Jenny Marra (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
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 d...
Kenny MacAskill
SNP
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 tha...
Jenny Marra
Lab
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...