Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 02 May 2013
02 May 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Community Justice System
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
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
References in this contribution
Motions, questions or amendments mentioned by their reference code.
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...