Meeting of the Parliament 19 November 2015
I echo Gil Paterson’s thanks to those who are currently doing a very good job in community justice. Those who work in our communities on trying to prevent people from reoffending make our communities safer, and we should thank them for everything that they do.
We should recognise that the bill’s primary purpose is to reduce reoffending. I will not add to the comments that have been made about whether the purpose should be widened; instead, I will address the structure, as Stewart Stevenson has just done.
Having a national body to lead, and rather more local bodies, appears to make life more complex, but there is every opportunity for that arrangement to succeed. Providing some national leadership is important, as that aspect has plainly been missing. The 32 new bodies are not new at all. First, they are based on local authority boundaries, which have been around for some time, and, secondly, they are contiguous with community planning partnerships. In fact, unless I have missed a trick, I have not yet read in the bill the term “community justice partnership”—there are lots of “partners”, but no partnerships. That is simply because the term has never been defined, as the Government is trying to make the community planning partnerships pick up the reins. I think that I have got that right, and I am pleased to note that I have.