Meeting of the Parliament 19 November 2015
I am pleased to contribute to this stage 1 debate and I am happy to reiterate Labour members’ support for the principles that lie behind the stage 1 report.
Much has been said around the chamber to suggest that members have reservations about some issues; I hope to visit some of those reservations in my concluding speech. It will be worth visiting some of the aspects that caused us to consider the need for a Community Justice (Scotland) Bill at this time.
Those aspects emanate largely from the Angiolini report on women offenders and Audit Scotland’s report “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”, both of which were published in 2012. Both reports independently raised concerns about a lack of strategic leadership and accountability, the impact of short-term funding on diverting workers away from their main task of delivering services for those who might reoffend, inconsistency in the standards of service, and lack of throughcare for offenders. In its briefing for the debate, Shelter Scotland made—I think appropriately—major play of the fact that the lack of appropriate housing has a significant effect on people who may reoffend.
The two reports also talked about a lack of strong leadership and said that statutory partners are not accountable to the criminal justice authorities. Audit Scotland made a specific comment about CJAs’ limited capacity to undertake the full range of work.
I am loth to use the term yet again this afternoon, but taken as a whole, those seem to be the characteristics of what many members have called a “cluttered landscape”, which sounds like a soft description of a work area that has too many agencies, organisations and authorities with too many relationships, leading to complexity and confusion for offenders and clients who might access the services. Rod Campbell said that what we are trying to deal with means that many agencies and authorities need to be involved. However, the description “cluttered” indicates that the landscape is unnecessarily untidy and disarranged, and that it might be described as a jumble. It is certainly irritating to those who try to organise a response to an important issue.
I was pleased to hear the minister say in his opening speech that a main aim of the bill is to reduce reoffending. Although that is a laudable aim, as has been mentioned by members across the chamber, it is difficult to gather evidence of what works in order that we can utilise efforts effectively.
Much has been said about judges and others not being aware of all the opportunities that might exist that could be used to divert people from offending. I also offer the suggestion that the absence of confidence in knowing which alternatives work for the offender or client group has as important an impact as any other criterion.
We have the second-highest levels of imprisonment, as many members have said. Unfortunately, we also have among the highest levels of alcohol and drug abuse. Many members have mentioned that the issues that cause and encourage reoffending are often outwith the confines of the bill. Unemployment, lack of education, the presence of poverty, absence of homes and—in truth—absence of hope are what drive people to return to prisons throughout their lives and end up losing the opportunity to play a full part in what we would call Scottish society.