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 debate because it gives Parliament the opportunity to examine why the current arrangement for strategic and operational responsibility with regard to community sentences and reducing reoffending is not as effective as it could be. Given that, at present, the eight community justice authorities work with 32 local authorities, 32 alcohol and drug partnerships, 16 prisons, 14 health boards, six sheriffdoms and now one police force, it is perhaps not surprising that co-ordination between the various agencies and avoiding duplication are proving to be a challenge.
The Conservative amendment highlights not only that, but shortcomings resulting from the way in which CJAs were set up. First of all, there is inconsistency in service provision in local authorities, particularly over supervised bail schemes and throughcare. Secondly, the distribution of core funding by CJAs does not encourage reduction of reoffending because the funding is based on workload with regard to the number of community sentences that are imposed in a local authority area.
Next, the make-up of CJA boards is complex and there is concern that councillors find it difficult to separate their responsibilities as CJA members from their responsibilities as local authority elected members, which has limited the ability of CJAs to move funds between constituent councils. Finally, there is a general lack of assessment of the performance of CJAs.
All those aspects are worthy of in-depth discussion, but I want to explore more thoroughly funding and the allocation of resources.
Audit Scotland questioned the effectiveness of CJAs’ short-term funding after each of the eight CJAs received an additional £100,000 from the Scottish Government in 2010-11 and 2011-12 for services to support women offenders. That money was allocated following the Cabinet’s consideration of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s 2009 report on its inquiry into female offenders in the criminal justice system, which identified the work that one CJA had done in reducing reoffending by women from more than 30 per cent to about 14 per cent.
Although the Government is most certainly to be commended for providing that funding, it could be argued that if it had gone a little further and given some direction to the CJAs in the form of information on what had worked well for the south-west Scotland community justice authority—which, by working with the charity Circle and supporting the families of women prisoners and the prisoners themselves on release, had dramatically reduced reoffending—I believe that a much better outcome could have been achieved, which would have addressed Audit Scotland’s criticism.
It is certainly not in doubt that sufficient long-term resources must be made available, not only for the third sector but for community-led projects that have proven track records in delivering and tackling reoffending. The argument for that is compelling; one such four-year project that was run by Circle that involved community-based support being given to marginalised children and families led to the return-to-custody rate among supported offenders falling to as low a level as 19 per cent.
However, although reconviction rates might be at their lowest level for a decade, in reality reoffending has barely dropped in that time and remains far too high. That is particularly true of those who are in prison, with a staggering 22 per cent of all offenders who were handed a custodial sentence last year having 10 or more previous convictions.
Furthermore, the introduction and delivery of community payback orders as alternatives to custody has contributed to the problem. The first person who was granted a CPO breached the order. In January, it was revealed that offenders were being credited with two hours’ work just for turning up if a work project could not be found for them, and the latest figures show that less than a third of the CPOs that were handed out last year were completed within a year. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the evaluation of CPOs will be completed in time to feed into the Government’s analysis of the consultation on the community justice system?
Community disposals and alternatives to custody other than CPOs are undermining community justice and the case for community sentences as an alternative to custodial sentencing. For example, according to the latest fines survey, £3.6 million is owed in unpaid court fines that were imposed in the first six months of the 2012-13 financial year. That includes £1 million that is owed in sheriff court fines, £700,000 that is owed in justice of the peace court fines, £1.1 million that is owed in fiscal direct penalties and £800,000 that is owed in police antisocial behaviour penalties.
Arrears have built up in 17 per cent of the fines that were imposed in the first six months of 2012-13. Collection rates for some fines are better than they are for others. For example, more than 50 per cent of police penalties that were imposed during that time are being ignored.
That figure is in addition to the £14.9 million that is already outstanding in unpaid fines that have been imposed since 2009-10, which means that a staggering £18.5 million of fines remain unpaid by criminals who have avoided tougher sentences. Crucially, that money could be spent on projects to reduce reoffending. It is clear that fiscal fines and fixed penalties urgently require to be overhauled—that is an absolute priority.
The Government’s consultation and this afternoon’s debate are the first step in the process to come up with the more strategic approach that Audit Scotland recommends.
It is crucial that, as well as containing an element of accountability, either through elected officials or through a publicly appointed figure, the option that is chosen should deliver flexibility in service provision. That will ensure that the new model is better placed to direct resources to projects that are known to be effective.
I move amendment S4M-06433.1, to leave out from “solid progress” to “achieving this” and insert:
“while some progress has been made in tackling reoffending, rates remain far too high; recognises that the work of local community justice practitioners has been hindered by failings in the way in which community justice authorities were established”.
The Conservative amendment highlights not only that, but shortcomings resulting from the way in which CJAs were set up. First of all, there is inconsistency in service provision in local authorities, particularly over supervised bail schemes and throughcare. Secondly, the distribution of core funding by CJAs does not encourage reduction of reoffending because the funding is based on workload with regard to the number of community sentences that are imposed in a local authority area.
Next, the make-up of CJA boards is complex and there is concern that councillors find it difficult to separate their responsibilities as CJA members from their responsibilities as local authority elected members, which has limited the ability of CJAs to move funds between constituent councils. Finally, there is a general lack of assessment of the performance of CJAs.
All those aspects are worthy of in-depth discussion, but I want to explore more thoroughly funding and the allocation of resources.
Audit Scotland questioned the effectiveness of CJAs’ short-term funding after each of the eight CJAs received an additional £100,000 from the Scottish Government in 2010-11 and 2011-12 for services to support women offenders. That money was allocated following the Cabinet’s consideration of the Equal Opportunities Committee’s 2009 report on its inquiry into female offenders in the criminal justice system, which identified the work that one CJA had done in reducing reoffending by women from more than 30 per cent to about 14 per cent.
Although the Government is most certainly to be commended for providing that funding, it could be argued that if it had gone a little further and given some direction to the CJAs in the form of information on what had worked well for the south-west Scotland community justice authority—which, by working with the charity Circle and supporting the families of women prisoners and the prisoners themselves on release, had dramatically reduced reoffending—I believe that a much better outcome could have been achieved, which would have addressed Audit Scotland’s criticism.
It is certainly not in doubt that sufficient long-term resources must be made available, not only for the third sector but for community-led projects that have proven track records in delivering and tackling reoffending. The argument for that is compelling; one such four-year project that was run by Circle that involved community-based support being given to marginalised children and families led to the return-to-custody rate among supported offenders falling to as low a level as 19 per cent.
However, although reconviction rates might be at their lowest level for a decade, in reality reoffending has barely dropped in that time and remains far too high. That is particularly true of those who are in prison, with a staggering 22 per cent of all offenders who were handed a custodial sentence last year having 10 or more previous convictions.
Furthermore, the introduction and delivery of community payback orders as alternatives to custody has contributed to the problem. The first person who was granted a CPO breached the order. In January, it was revealed that offenders were being credited with two hours’ work just for turning up if a work project could not be found for them, and the latest figures show that less than a third of the CPOs that were handed out last year were completed within a year. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the evaluation of CPOs will be completed in time to feed into the Government’s analysis of the consultation on the community justice system?
Community disposals and alternatives to custody other than CPOs are undermining community justice and the case for community sentences as an alternative to custodial sentencing. For example, according to the latest fines survey, £3.6 million is owed in unpaid court fines that were imposed in the first six months of the 2012-13 financial year. That includes £1 million that is owed in sheriff court fines, £700,000 that is owed in justice of the peace court fines, £1.1 million that is owed in fiscal direct penalties and £800,000 that is owed in police antisocial behaviour penalties.
Arrears have built up in 17 per cent of the fines that were imposed in the first six months of 2012-13. Collection rates for some fines are better than they are for others. For example, more than 50 per cent of police penalties that were imposed during that time are being ignored.
That figure is in addition to the £14.9 million that is already outstanding in unpaid fines that have been imposed since 2009-10, which means that a staggering £18.5 million of fines remain unpaid by criminals who have avoided tougher sentences. Crucially, that money could be spent on projects to reduce reoffending. It is clear that fiscal fines and fixed penalties urgently require to be overhauled—that is an absolute priority.
The Government’s consultation and this afternoon’s debate are the first step in the process to come up with the more strategic approach that Audit Scotland recommends.
It is crucial that, as well as containing an element of accountability, either through elected officials or through a publicly appointed figure, the option that is chosen should deliver flexibility in service provision. That will ensure that the new model is better placed to direct resources to projects that are known to be effective.
I move amendment S4M-06433.1, to leave out from “solid progress” to “achieving this” and insert:
“while some progress has been made in tackling reoffending, rates remain far too high; recognises that the work of local community justice practitioners has been hindered by failings in the way in which community justice authorities were established”.
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...