Hansard

I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee, which led consideration of the bill at stage 1. I thank all who submitted evidence and gave evidence, our clerks and, as always, my diligent and hard-working committee.

I am going to say again on the record that I always find it odd that, as convener, I speak to the committee report after the minister has responded to it. It seems to me that that is putting the cart before the horse. We must change the rules at some point so that the committee makes its statement, the minister responds and on we go. Perhaps it is not relevant, but it really seems daft that I am going to be saying things that have already been responded to, but there we go.

The topic might seem to be as dry as dust, but the bill deals with how we set up systems and organise support at national and local levels in order to prevent reoffending, which costs the public purse an arm and a leg but, in the first place, fails society, individuals and their families. As the current arrangements for community justice came into being only in 2007, some people might ask whether the wholesale change that is provided for in the bill is premature. However, in two separate reports in 2012, the commission on women offenders and Audit Scotland both identified significant problems with current structures, the number of bodies, accountability, funding mechanisms and the complexity of the arrangements—that seems to be an awful lot—which they argue are inhibiting the potential to reduce reoffending.

Throughout stage 1, the Justice Committee has been keen to establish whether legislative reform is needed and, if it is, whether what is in the bill can achieve the change that is envisioned by those parties. We took evidence over three meetings and heard from a range of local authority bodies and partnerships, third sector and victims groups, the commission on women offenders, the Scottish Prison Service, Police Scotland and Audit Scotland. I would like to thank everybody who made the effort to respond and to give evidence to the committee.

The committee broadly supports the general principles of the bill, but we have made a number of recommendations aimed, in particular, at strengthening strategic leadership and accountability, and at demystifying the complex landscape, which mystified me. I am not sure what “demystifying” means, but I think that it means making it understandable and workable. [Interruption.] I am being given definitions.

Many who responded to our call for evidence were concerned that the definition of community justice that is used in the bill is too narrow and differs substantially from that which was used in the Government’s earlier consultation. As the minister knows, the committee was particularly sympathetic to the view that prevention and early intervention should be reflected not only in the definition but elsewhere in the bill. I note the minister’s comments on that point, which the committee welcomes. We appreciate that prevention and early intervention are being progressed through other policies, but we feel that if we are going to try to do the right thing, save money and prevent lives from being wasted, we might get in early rather than wait until the person has offended.

Back in 2012, the commission on women offenders described the community justice system as a “grossly” cluttered landscape—another phrase that I do not like. On the basis of the evidence that we received, the committee still has some doubts as to whether the new arrangements that are set out by the bill would simplify that landscape. As the minister has said, community justice relies on a diverse range of service providers working in partnership; we believe that more could be done to streamline arrangements by setting out clearer roles and responsibilities.

We drew the minister’s attention to the concerns that were raised in particular by representatives from the third sector, including smaller voluntary bodies that have to operate with minimal staff and limited budgets. At present, such organisations deal with eight community justice authorities, but under the model that is set out in the bill, that number would increase fourfold to 32 local authorities. That is likely to put significant pressure on them, as providers, to raise funding, which is already under strain, so the bill would impact on local services that are often very well tailored to their area.

As we all know, many of the organisations that make up the community justice system rely on short-term funding. The committee is disappointed that the same concerns about the funding and sustainability of third sector projects have persisted over decades. However, we welcome the Scottish Government’s current review of the funding mechanism for community justice social work services, which is due to report shortly, and we would welcome early sight of the report. If the minister could make headway with regard to funding for the voluntary sector, that would be very much welcomed by the committee and—more important—by the voluntary sector.

A lack of strategic vision is one of the major issues that were highlighted by the commission on women offenders and Audit Scotland. The committee therefore welcomes the provisions in the bill that will require the Scottish ministers to develop a national strategy. That should allow for a clearer strategic direction and improved oversight.

There were differing views among witnesses on the level of oversight that the national body should have. Local authority bodies prefer a light-touch approach and others—including Dame Elish Angiolini, who was chair of the commission on women offenders—supported local bodies being more accountable to community justice Scotland.

The committee remains concerned that, without adequate powers to measure and bring forward improvements, weaknesses that the bill seeks to overcome may persist. However, we welcome the provisions to introduce a national performance framework, which should help to ensure that the success of the model that is proposed in the bill can be adequately measured, and that problems can be identified. However, we consider it vital that stakeholders be fully involved in development of the strategy and framework. I think that the minister has said that they are busy doing that already, which is to be welcomed.

We note the Government’s intention to publish the national strategy and framework in the middle of next year; the committee requests early sight of those documents to ensure that they are fit for purpose.

Under the bill, community justice partners would be responsible for local planning, delivery and monitoring of community justice services. Some witnesses felt that the bill should specify a lead partner among each group of community justice partners. Although the committee considers that there may be merit in appointing a lead partner to ensure a focus, we are wary that doing so could lead to other partners avoiding their responsibilities. Therefore, the committee does not support there being in the bill a specific requirement that a lead partner be appointed. Instead, we recommend that partners have the flexibility to appoint a lead partner where they consider it appropriate to do so. We are at least sympathetic to there being somebody taking the lead.

The bill makes no reference to community planning partnerships, but the policy memorandum suggests that CPPs should have a key role in planning community justice arrangements. We remain unclear about why the bill will create a new level of partnerships rather than give responsibility for community justice planning to CPPs, although I acknowledge what the minister had to say about the statutory status of the two.

The committee is of the view that any new system for community justice must achieve an appropriate balance between strong national leadership to ensure that improvements are made in performance, and local flexibility in relation to delivery of services. It is difficult to achieve such a balance, but it is important that we do so. As such, the committee thinks that there is merit in the general approach that is taken in the bill, but we have concerns that the detailed proposals might not achieve the correct balance, so we recommend that the oversight functions of the national body be strengthened to provide the robust leadership and accountability that have been found to be lacking currently.

In general, the evidence that we received did not show any great enthusiasm for there being one system with which all the bodies that are involved in community justice would be wholly satisfied. However, the committee recognises that the bill is enabling legislation, that the detail of how the arrangements are to work in practice will be set out in the national strategy, the national performance framework and guidance, and that the success of the bill will, to some extent, be evident once it is in operation.

I look forward to listening to the speeches of other members, who will touch on issues that I have not raised, and to receiving the Scottish Government’s response to our stage 1 report, which I think I have just heard.