Hansard

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 justice right. As was stated at the outset, the debate is an open one in which members can contribute their views, and it is good to know that the Government will take those on board.

Various levels of criminal activity make the lives of the people we represent a misery. It is appropriate that those who commit the most serious offences and who pose a danger to society face a period of incarceration. However, there is a vital role for community justice if we are to ensure that those who have caused damage to their community are in some way seen to be giving something back to that community.

In my area, the local authority has an effective restorative justice team. There are various examples of how it has ensured that offenders on community payback orders who have been referred to it work and give something back.

I want to speak about a positive example. The cabinet secretary is aware of it as he came to visit the Carron valley medieval fort that the Clanranald Trust for Scotland is building. The initiative will be important for educational purposes and local tourism and has involved a huge amount of work. I was pleased to see that North Lanarkshire Council has allowed its restorative justice team to assist the trust in making—I should give it its proper name—the Duncarron fort a reality. Indeed, even Falkirk Council has contributed in that way, too.

I mention that not only because it allows me to highlight an important project in my constituency—which is always positive—but because my experience of the restorative justice teams’ engagement with the project has demonstrated how that method can work. Those who were involved through that mechanism not only were giving something back to their community, as I mentioned; some of them learned something about themselves. Some of those who were sent there under a community payback order returned once their sentence was complete. That is important to mention, because it demonstrates that community justice can rehabilitate, too.

Often, community justice is seen as the soft option. I do not accept that: it is an effective mechanism for delivering justice. We know that prison does not always act as an effective deterrent to reducing reoffending. Therefore, we must be prepared to do something else, and it is good that the Scottish Government has embraced the concept of community justice.

In the introduction to the consultation paper, the cabinet secretary wrote:

“Public spending should aim to prevent rather than only react to crimes and harms. This approach will lead to better results in the long term for individuals, families and communities and save money for the public purse.”

I entirely agree. The Scottish Government has set out that reoffending rates are at the lowest for a decade and Rod Campbell pointed out that recorded crime is at a 37-year low. We should not only celebrate that fact but look to build on that record. Therefore, it is right to look at the structure for delivering community justice.

Reference has been made to the Audit Scotland reports, the commission on women offenders report and the consultation paper. I am also aware that the Justice Committee published in March its “Inquiry into purposeful activity in prisons” report. It is clear that the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to redesign community justice is not being done in isolation; rather, it is building on work that has gone before it. I hear the concerns about the timing of this debate—I appreciate that it was mild criticism—but I think that we should be rather relaxed about having the debate today.

I turn quickly to the three options that are set out in the paper. Option A is the enhanced CJA model. Malcolm Chisholm made the point that that would avoid institutional upheaval. That said—Sandra White made this point too—I am not entirely convinced that CJAs are very visible entities. I am not particularly aware of the CJA that covers my area.

Option B is the local authority model. Clearly local authorities are very visible entities and have a clear line of accountability. However, Colin Keir asked the fair question whether they are equipped to provide all the necessary support.

Option C is the single service model, which Elish Angiolini has posited. Given her reputation, we have to take it seriously.

All the approaches have merits, as might option D. I am afraid that I am going to sit on the fence just now, but I look forward to the Scottish Government taking this work further forward and to seeing what type of model emerges. I wish the cabinet secretary well in that task.