Hansard

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”.