Hansard

I no longer sit on the Justice Committee, but my last appearance at that committee was for the first evidence session pertaining to the bill—in September, I think—so I took the chance to read the Official Report this week to remind myself of what I said. I was struck by a comment that was made by Cleland Sneddon of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers Scotland. In acknowledging the importance to SOLACE of the findings of both the Angiolini report on women offenders and the Audit Scotland report “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”, he said:

“The analogy that we have used for the existing system is that it is like looking at the national health service, but only at the treatment end. We became very effective at managing offenders and discharging orders, but less successful at having a strategic overview of our work, and there was an absence around prevention and early intervention.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 September 2015. c 2-3.]

In that regard, the policy intention of the bill, which is

“to help create a stronger community justice system based on local collaborative strategic planning and delivery, with national leadership, support and assurance”,

and which, importantly, has

“local delivery, partnerships and collaboration at its heart”,

reflects the need to take a whole-system approach, because one of the fundamental concepts in any debate on justice must surely be recidivism and how we move people away from reoffending. That will not be achieved by focusing simply on the offender. We must create communities that are able to provide the homes, the skills and the jobs that would go such a long way towards making it possible for people to pursue more positive and rewarding life choices and lifestyles.

How we deal with that notion will form a cornerstone on which we can build a model of success for our entire justice system. Community justice authorities were set up to plan for reducing reoffending in their designated areas, while working alongside other relevant bodies. That remit, alongside their remits to monitor performance, promote good practice, distribute funding and report to Scottish ministers, has formed part of the community justice strategy in Scotland for the past eight years.

Although we have seen moderate success in reducing reoffending rates, a number of issues have surrounded the operation of the current community justice system. Both the Angiolini report and the Audit Scotland report raised concerns about the operation of the eight community justice authorities that cover the country. I welcome the bill’s attempt to tackle issues in the current system, as we must continue to strive for success in improving community justice.

Community justice Scotland will have a range of remits, including overseeing performance, promoting improvement, publishing a strategy for innovation, learning and development, promoting the Scottish Government’s national strategy, reviewing the national performance framework and more. Creation of that body will help by placing a specific focus on non-custodial sentencing. Replacing the eight community justice authorities with 32 community justice partnerships—one for each local authority—and establishing a new national body, community justice Scotland, should help to tackle some of the concerns about the current model of operation.

However, as much as the bill addresses those concerns, as it stands it also raises further questions. I will focus on one, accountability, and ask the minister to address that issue in order to ensure that we properly tackle the problems that were prevalent in the model of operation that we seek to replace.

The bill does not offer sufficient clarity on what the accountability to community justice Scotland will be. Accountability to that body would ensure that the objectives that are set out are being met by the individual local community justice partners. I note that the minister commented on the issue in his opening remarks, and I would be interested in hearing more about that as the bill progresses.

To again quote Cleland Sneddon, he said in evidence to the Justice Committee that

“the outcomes will flow from the national strategy and the national outcomes framework. The outcomes will be customised in different areas to reflect the local context”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 September; c 20.]

That comment prompted a discussion on local versus national commissioning, urban and rural contexts, and the role of the third sector. As others have said today, there are currently some 1,300 providers of services, so it may be the case, as Mark Roberts of Audit Scotland said, that “complexity is almost inevitable”. Although I agree that that is true to some extent, I believe that strong, effective local partnership working is a powerful way of making sense of that complexity. I look forward to hearing more from the minister on that in due course.

We have seen differences of opinion on the level of accountability that is desired. Councils prefer a light-touch approach and Sacro, among others, seeks increased accountability from local bodies to community justice Scotland. That raises the question of whether community justice Scotland will have the powers that are deemed necessary to deliver the changes that the bill seeks to make.

Given that Scotland’s imprisonment rate is the second highest in western Europe, it is clear that we must adapt our justice system so that it works more effectively. To reduce imprisonment rates, we must also tackle the issue of reoffending, and a strong, progressive community justice policy could help us to take steps in that direction. I accept the principle that we must shift our view on how we address current attitudes to the use of imprisonment. Further to that, I believe that community-based responses are essential in tackling offending rates in Scotland. That, coupled with early prevention and a divergence from unnecessarily punitive custodial sentences, except when they are absolutely necessary, will do much to address not just the rate of imprisonment but the rates of reoffending that result in our oversized prison populations.

In that context, I agree with Barnardo’s Scotland, which highlights a key point that the committee made in its report:

“The definition of Community Justice should include prevention and early intervention as well as be widened to include dependent children, families of offenders and the wider community as well as victims and witnesses”.

I hope that, as the bill progresses, we can go some way to achieving that broader definition. In particular, I would like us to do so in such a way that we continue to value and support the role of local services and the degree to which they should be involved in the planning and delivery of community justice services, whether at a strategic or a local level.