Hansard

I am pleased to be taking part in the debate today. It is important that we get the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill right to support a reduction in reoffending through joint working and innovative thinking. We will support the bill today, but Labour has a few issues with its current format and I urge the Scottish Government to consider them as the bill progresses.

The current community justice authority model seems to have made a small impact on reducing reoffending rates, although there has been no consistency across Scotland. A clear national strategy has been lacking and there are no measures in place to monitor effectiveness.

The range of bodies involved has led to a—I hate to repeat the word—cluttered landscape, with no clear direction. The bill before us today recognises that that needs to change. It has been argued that creating 32 community justice authorities rather than the current eight will not help to reduce the clutter, but they will be overseen by a national body that will provide a national strategy and framework and will produce an annual report, which is a necessary step forward. However, as I said, I have a few issues with the bill: the definition of community justice; clarity of roles; and the role of the third sector are just a few of them.

I was pleased to hear the minister say today that he will look at the definition of community justice again. As presented to us in the bill, it is problematic. It does not refer to preventative or early intervention and it also fails to include victims and their families. During evidence sessions, Scottish Women’s Aid and Victim Support Scotland expressed concern about the lack of focus on victims in the definition and throughout the bill. Barnardo’s Scotland argued that the definition should be

“widened to include the need to support children, families, victims, witnesses and the wider community, not just individuals with convictions”.

We cannot view the issues in isolation and, as I said at the committee evidence sessions, the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill should have a clear focus on victims and their families. In addition, there should be a greater focus on preventative spending and early intervention, so that we reduce not only reoffending rates but also first-time offending, which is at the heart of what we want to achieve. We cannot improve outcomes for victims, offenders and our local communities if they are not even mentioned in the bill.

The bill also needs further clarity on the roles and responsibilities of local community justice partners and community planning partnerships. I agree with Barnardo’s that the role of CPPs lacks clarity in the bill. Dr Foster of NHS Forth Valley argued:

“It is very important that delivery should be through community planning partnerships, because they are the vehicle that we are currently working with; they are our local partners in tackling many issues.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 15 September 2015; c 43.]

The role that CPPs will play in community justice needs to be clearly defined and set out within the bill, and I agree with the committee’s recommendation that the bill needs to clearly specify that CPPs have responsibility for community justice with a view to making the new arrangements as clear as possible.

Concern was also raised about who the named partners should be. Evidence was given to the committee about the importance of stable housing in reducing reoffending. Will the minister consider including housing provider representatives as a community justice partner and having housing provision as an indicator in the annual report?

Like the criminal justice voluntary sector forum, I am concerned about how the bill will interact with third sector organisations, given that the bill lists the third sector as a provider rather than a partner. Although the bill states that the third sector should be engaged with, it would be better for the third sector to be defined as a community justice partner, given that it delivers many services and projects. At the very least, a statutory duty to engage with the voluntary sector should be introduced as evidence has suggested. I welcome the minister’s comments on the third sector in his opening speech.

I have talked to third sector organisations about funding, and it is apparent that we need to consider moving away from annual funding to a three-year model to allow sustainability and to reduce the existing uncertainty. That would allow voluntary organisations to forward plan instead of constantly wondering where the next tranche of funding is coming from. As the stage 1 committee report states—the committee convener mentioned this, too—concerns about that have existed for a number of years, but no action has been taken. I urge the minister to take that on board and to take action to address that long-standing issue.

I also worry that the £1.6 million in transitional funding for the next three years, which will be split between the 32 local authorities, will not be enough to support the changes. I am even more worried about that given the financial pressures on public services at this time. The funding works out at about £16,700 a year for each local authority, which is cause for concern. If the system is not properly resourced to deal with the increased workload of community justice partners then many projects will be at risk of lacking sustainable funding. Community justice Scotland is to receive £2.2 million for the same period.

Although I am happy to support the bill’s general principles, a lot must still be done to improve on what is before us today. We need a wider definition of community justice to include preventative measures and early intervention; the bill should mention and give consideration to victims and communities, not just offenders; and further clarity is required on the roles of CPPs and the third sector, as well as on who the CJA partners should be. I am supportive of the bill, but I am keen to see what amendments the Government will lodge to improve it at stage 2.