Hansard

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 all the written responses were available to members. It is particularly unfortunate for someone such as me, as I have no background or experience in the area and I would have much preferred to read the views of those who do.

I was a minister when the community justice authorities were set up, but it is the nature of being a minister to plough one’s own field. I remember that there were debates at that time—similar to those that we are having now—about the tension and the choice between a central system and more local variation. In a way, we are repeating some of the debates that we had then.

I recognise the importance of the policy area. Dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders and stopping reoffending are critical to justice policy. Although I am in no way an expert, I have been inspired by some of the people who work in the area. Margaret Mitchell mentioned Circle, which is an organisation that is based in my constituency. It has remarkable success rates in stopping reoffending, and I will want to listen to what it has to say about that. I have also spoken a couple of times in recent months to the violence reduction unit, which is prioritising such work with offenders, particularly on employability, as a way of cutting down reoffending. There are leaders in the field to whom we will want to listen.

Although there is no agreement about the solutions, there is unanimity about the nature of the problems, and most people agree with what Margaret Mitchell said about the cluttered and fragmented landscape, which was a key theme of the Christie report. Everybody also seems to agree that structures are not the be-all and end-all—that is absolutely right. Equally, some changes to the structures are required, which is why three options are before us.

What are the problems? They have been well described in the Audit Scotland report and the Angiolini report, which both refer to a lack of leadership and accountability and to problems with funding. Some of those problems relate to the short-term nature of the funding, which Margaret Mitchell referred to, but both reports also say that funding is based on activity rather than outcomes. A lot of the funding is based on the historical allocation of funding, and there is the issue that councillors sometimes—understandably—favour their own local authority.

Perhaps the strongest problem is the inconsistency of service. I was particularly struck by the observation in the Audit Scotland report that, because some services in prisons are funded by local authorities, some prisoners get a service while others do not. That is a stark example of localism going too far. Audit Scotland also emphasises the importance of employability and the great variations in the availability of employability services. Another issue is poor access to purposeful activities in prison, which our amendment highlights.

On where we go from here, I agree with the principles that are set out on pages 15 and 16 of the Government’s consultation document. They include the need for strategic direction and leadership; the emphasis on prevention and early intervention; the desirability of having effective local partnerships; the need for strategic commissioning; and, of course, an approach that involves evidence-based policies that are based on an analysis of need. We all agree with those, but where does that lead us to on the options?

All the options have their attractions and disadvantages. Option A would at least avoid structural upheaval, which is often a good principle to follow, as there is an advantage in having a degree of continuity. Option A suggests that, if we have more strategic leadership, give the CJAs strategic commissioning powers and ensure that partners have a statutory duty to be involved, that will improve the present system. Option A should certainly be looked at seriously.

Option C is championed by the Angiolini report. In itself, that is quite a strong recommendation, given that most of the recommendations of that excellent report have been accepted without controversy. Clearly, in championing a single community justice service, option C is a lot more controversial, but the advantages that are highlighted are that the combination of strategic and operational responsibility would provide clearer lines of accountability, more consistency and potentially a greater quality of service. There would also be the potential to roll out models of good practice. There is a lot to recommend that option.

However, we should not forget option B or the good work that is being done at local council level. We also need to look at the arguments for that. It is attractive in principle to have local authorities in the driving seat, although it can be problematic in practice.

In my final minute, I will give an example of good practice that is being carried out by criminal justice services in Edinburgh. Launched in May last year, the break the cycle project takes old and unwanted bikes and renovates them. The bikes are then donated free to community organisations, youth groups, other interested organisations and children. Crucially, the project works with offenders who are on community payback orders as a direct alternative to going to prison. As the City of Edinburgh Council highlights,

“Experience shows that if an offender is carrying out work that they have an interest in, they are more likely to successfully complete the order. Most of the people on these orders are young men under 25, many of whom have an interest in bikes and cycling.”

The council’s criminal justice workers, who have been trained to help in cycle maintenance, are on hand to monitor and help in the process. I highlight that as an example of the good practice and good work that local councils are doing on the ground.

That example also highlights the central importance of job readiness, job opportunities and the employability agenda. Whatever solution we come up with, I hope that employability will be at the centre. For example, for what will be a really good event that will take place over three days at the end of this month, the violence reduction unit is bringing over from America people who work with offenders on helping them to get ready for the jobs market. That should be right at the centre of our agenda, and I certainly hope that I will be able to attend one of those events.

15:43