Hansard

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.”