Hansard

At stage 1, the committee and stakeholders called for a stronger element of prevention and early intervention to be reflected in the definition of community justice. That was to enable effective intervention to take place earlier, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of future offending. I have reflected on those views and now propose a series of amendments that aim to broaden the definition of community justice in the bill so that it applies to people at the point of arrest, rather than once a conviction has taken place, as had been set out previously. I recognise that, if we wait until someone has been convicted, that might be too late and we might have lost an opportunity to prevent offending behaviour from escalating. Evidence shows that diverting individuals from the criminal justice system is an effective way of preventing further offending; that is especially true when the diversion is complemented by an intervention that is designed to address the underlying issues that contributed to the offending behaviour. That is why I propose amendments to broaden the definition of community justice, so that community justice services must be planned for people from the point of arrest onwards. Amendment 11 is the key amendment in broadening the definition in section 1 beyond the current provision, which is limited to persons who have been convicted. It inserts three new subsections after section 1(2) that set out the persons who will be included in the broader definition. They are persons who have been convicted of an offence; persons who are subject to a relevant finding; persons who have been given an alternative to prosecution for an offence; and persons who have been arrested “on suspicion of having committed an offence”. The broader definition of community justice will also include people who are subject to “a recognised EU supervision measure” and persons aged 16 or 17 who are subject to a specified compulsory supervision order. In addition, the amendment provides that the offence, or alleged offence, can have occurred anywhere in the world. Amendment 11 therefore broadens the definition to enable earlier intervention, with a view to preventing offending behaviour from escalating. As I said earlier, if we wait until someone is convicted, that is too late and means that we have lost an opportunity to prevent future offending behaviour. I urge the committee to support the amendment. Amendments 2, 5, 16, 22 and 24 are a consequence of the changes to the definition that amendment 11 introduces. As members will have noticed, in amendment 11 I have avoided using the word “offender” to describe those who have been convicted of offences. Evidence that was given at stage 1 suggested that the use of the word was associated with negative perceptions and in the context of what the bill is about might encourage stigmatisation of those who had committed offences. However, the committee noted in its stage 1 report the challenges of finding a succinct and accurate alternative. I have reflected carefully on the evidence and reached the view that it is possible for the word “offender” to be avoided in the bill without damaging legislative clarity or precision. Amendments 6, 23 and 27 deal with that point in places where it cannot be picked up in other amendments. I therefore urge the committee to support those amendments. Amendments 4, 8, 10 and 26 remove the word “reoffending” from sections 1 and 3 and replace it with “future offending”. Given that I propose to broaden the definition of community justice to include people who have, at the time of engagement with services, not been convicted of an offence, use of the word “reoffending” is no longer appropriate, as it suggests that an offence has been committed. At the stage 1 evidence sessions, committee members and witnesses expressed a strong desire for prevention of further offending to be more strongly referenced in the bill and especially in the definition of community justice. I reflected on what I heard at stage 1 and I lodged amendments 3, 7, 9 and 25, which are intended to be a positive response to the concerns that were expressed. Prevention is vital to our aim of reducing further offending. Every form of intervention, support or management is an opportunity to work with an individual to aid prevention. The bill does not cover primary prevention—stopping people offending in the first place—which we believe is dealt with effectively by other Scottish Government policies, such as those on early years, raising educational attainment, action to tackle youth unemployment, health and housing. However, the bill covers secondary and tertiary prevention—stopping further offending and the escalation of people’s offending. The amendments allow us to more strongly reference secondary and tertiary prevention in the bill. Amendments 3 and 25 insert wording in section 1 to clarify that the ultimate aim is to support people so that they do not offend again or, if that is not possible, at least to reduce any further offending. Amendments 7 and 9 insert into section 1 a reference to prevention of offending by adding the words “eliminate or” to section 1(2)(b) and section 1(2)(c)(i). They make it clear that the ultimate goal is to eliminate future offending by the person who is referred to in section 1 or, if that is not possible, at least to reduce their future offending. Taken together, the amendments provide the stronger reference to the prevention of offending that the committee and stakeholders requested. They highlight the link between prevention and reducing or eliminating offending and put those aims up front, in section 1. I turn to a series of amendments that give effect in sections 1 and 3 to the broadening of the definition. Amendment 19 inserts new subsections after section 1(3) that explain what is meant by particular terms that are used in new section 1(2B), which is inserted by amendment 11. Amendments 14 and 15 are consequential. Amendment 16 deletes from section 1 the term “in the community” and its definition, as that term will be superseded by the wording inserted by amendment 11. Amendment 1 inserts “bail conditions” into the definition of community justice, so that community justice includes giving effect to bail orders as well as community disposals and post-release control requirements. That is an important aspect of the broadening of the definition, which gives effect to our policy intention to enable earlier intervention, upstream from the point of conviction. Amendment 12 defines what is meant by “bail conditions”, and amendment 18 defines what is meant by “recognised EU supervision order” where that term appears in the definition of “bail conditions”. Amendment 13 inserts a reference to section 227M of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in the definition of community disposals in respect of community payback orders, to reflect the fact that such orders can be granted under that section as well as under section 227A of the 1995 act. Amendment 17 inserts the words “in consequence of conviction of offences” in the definition of post-release control requirements in section 1(3), to make it clear that section 1 refers to people who have been in prison or detained in a penal institution because they have been convicted of an offence. Amendment 20 divides section 1 into two sections, to assist users of the bill, given the amount of new material that will be added by the amendments that I have just discussed. Amendments 66 to 69 were lodged by Alison McInnes and seek to define the support and services that are to be available to people who are covered by the definition of community justice. Throughout the process, and in the bill, we have been clear about the need to take a person-centred approach to improving outcomes for community justice. That means having the widest possible scope for the support that is offered to people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. The existing definition of supporting provides for just that. I recognise the important role that emotional and practical support and access to a range of other services, including those for housing, employment and support for recovery from alcohol and drug dependency, play in reducing and preventing further offending. The references to services in section 1, together with the addition of the Scottish Government amendments, are intentionally not defined, so that the services that are covered are not limited. The references include the services that are mentioned in Alison McInnes’s amendments as well as others that are not listed in the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary and potentially restricting, although I am sure that they are well intentioned. To specify a particular service, as amendment 69 does, or to include the list that is set out in amendment 68, could lead some to focus solely on those services to the exclusion of others. We want the support to be more open in scope, which will support the individual approach that is required. I remind the committee that local authorities, health boards and integration joint boards will be community justice partners and that they will therefore ensure appropriate coverage of important support services in the community justice outcomes plan for their areas. For that reason, I cannot support amendments 66 to 69, so I invite Alison McInnes not to move them. 11:00 Alison McInnes’s amendment 94 seeks to broaden the definition of community justice to include people who are at risk of first-time offending. I recognise that preventing people from offending in the first place is hugely important. That is why the Scottish Government is tackling primary prevention through a range of policies such as those on early years provision, raising educational attainment, tackling youth unemployment, health and housing. As I said, the bill does not cover primary prevention; its focus is secondary and tertiary prevention, which is about taking action to stop people reoffending and to prevent the escalation of offending once people first present to the justice system. Amendments 95 and 96 highlight two important issues: the interests of victims of offences and the preparation of people for release from prison. Margaret McDougall’s amendment 95 seeks to broaden the definition of community justice to include victims of offending behaviour. I very much recognise victims’ concerns and their interest in justice-related issues and I recognise the motivation behind the amendment. I note that the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 is the relevant legislation to cover victims’ concerns. From a community justice perspective, a number of key aspects of the new model are being developed in collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders and partners. I make it clear that organisations that support victims are included in that collaborative development work. I will soon speak to amendment 31 in group 4, which gives the third sector, including victims organisations, a stronger participative role in the planning of community justice and the preparation of key strategic documents such as the national strategy for community justice, which will give the relevant third sector organisations stronger representation in the new model for community justice. Amendment 96 seeks to insert a definition of preparing people for leaving prison that includes “assisting such persons by facilitating continuity of health care, including mental health care.” Although continuity of healthcare is undoubtedly important when people are leaving prison, so too are other support services, such as support to access housing and apply for state benefits. All such services are relevant to preparing a person for release from prison, so we believe that it would be inappropriate to single out one service over others in that context. As I said, local authorities, health boards and integration joint boards are all community justice partners that will contribute to community justice outcome plans for their areas. In so doing, they will ensure appropriate coverage of healthcare, including mental health care. Although I accept that the bill does not define what is meant by “preparing” and the associated support services, that will be covered in guidance, which has the advantage of being more flexible than legislation in order to include other support services should they be identified in the future. I therefore fully expect that preparing persons for release from imprisonment will include facilitating continuity of healthcare. Although I recognise the importance of all the issues that are reflected in amendments 94 to 96 and the motivation behind them, I cannot support them. I move amendment 1.