Committee
Justice Committee 19 January 2016
19 Jan 2016 · S4 · Justice Committee
Item of business
Community Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
The group of amendments relates to changes to the definition of community justice as currently set out in the bill. A great deal of the evidence that we gathered in the committee focused on the need to widen that definition. It is important to remember the bill’s genesis. The report from the commission on women offenders described the lack of opportunity for strategic leadership and accountability in the delivery of offender services in the community, the short-term funding, the difficulties in measuring impact and the inconsistent service provision across Scotland; it told us that interventions delivered in prison often ceased at the gate; and it argued for radical reform. I supported the recommendations that it made then and I support them now. The bill could be stronger, and setting out clearly the scope of community justice would be a start. I have been dismayed by some of the wrangling that has gone on between the different players in the development of the proposals. I generally support the Government’s amendments in the group and I will vote for them. I am disappointed that the minister does not support my amendments, because I think that we can go further. Amendment 94 seeks to add the responsibility to consider persons who are identified as being at serious risk of first-time offending when activities that relate to community justice are considered and designed. The bill as it stands focuses heavily on people who are already in the criminal justice system. However, we should strive to reduce first-time offending. Amendment 94 recognises that merely adding “reducing offending” to the meaning of community justice would be too far-reaching. I have instead chosen to focus on people who are at significant risk of offending. The risks of offending are clear and well documented, and putting that wording in the bill would ensure that services were not deflected from working in the area. The criminal justice voluntary sector forum strongly supports amendment 94. Amendments 66 and 67 identify the type of support that should be provided to persons who are serving their sentences in the community—it is emotional support, such as counselling, and practical support, such as housing advice or education advice. The amendments recognise that receipt of such support can in itself make the difference for someone between turning their life around and ending up back in court. Similarly, amendment 96 would set in statute the requirement to facilitate the continuation of healthcare, including mental health care. As with amendments 66 and 67, amendment 96 recognises the importance of such support in preventing further offending. We only need to look at how inadequate mental health care provision is in the wider community to know that it is even poorer—almost woefully inadequate—in our criminal justice services. Amendments 68 and 69 seek to add to the definition of general services that are provided to persons who are serving their sentences in the community. Amendment 69 recognises the crucial role that appropriate, safe and secure housing has in preventing further offending. I have worked closely with Shelter Scotland in developing the amendments that seek to put access to appropriate housing in the bill. Shelter Scotland’s recent report “Preventing Homelessness and Reducing Reoffending” was a powerful call to action. We know that a person who is without a stable home has an increased risk of reoffending, and yet 50 per cent of people who go to prison lose their homes. The committee has heard over and over again about the importance of providing appropriate housing. The Scottish Government commissioned a report on the issue entitled “Housing and Reoffending: Supporting people who serve short-term sentences to secure and sustain stable accommodation on liberation”. I hear the minister’s argument about having the widest possible definition, but one of the problems that were identified in the past was the lack of appropriate leadership. He is worried that the focus would be solely on the services that are listed, but I believe that listing the key issues that need to be focused on would encourage greater development of services. Amendment 68 relates to the wider definition of community justice. It sets out further areas of support that there would be a benefit in naming. In addition to housing, it includes employment, education and support for groups that we know to be particularly vulnerable, such as looked-after children, those with alcohol and drug dependency and those who have been affected by physical or emotional childhood or adolescent trauma. I recognise that other members might wish to add areas to the list, but I believe that support in relation to all those issues, or the lack of it, can make a difference to whether someone offends again. If members feel unable to support the wider list in amendment 68, they should at least lend their support to amendment 69, which would be superfluous if amendment 68 was passed. Shelter Scotland strongly supports both amendments.
In the same item of business
The Convener
SNP
Agenda item 3 is stage 2 proceedings on the Community Justice (Scotland) Bill. Members should have their copies of the bill, the marshalled list and the grou...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 6, 94, 95, 66, 7, 8, 67, 9, 10, 96, 11 to 15, 68, 69, 16 to 20 and 22 to 27.
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Paul Wheelhouse)
SNP
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 ...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
The group of amendments relates to changes to the definition of community justice as currently set out in the bill. A great deal of the evidence that we gath...
Margaret McDougall (West Scotland) (Lab)
Lab
Amendment 95 seeks to include the meaning of “community justice” by identifying the risk management and public protection elements of community justice that ...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 31A is in another group. You can persist with it if you want to—I am quite flexible today.
Margaret McDougall
Lab
I am sorry.
The Convener
SNP
Rather than “flexible”, perhaps I should have said “weakened”.
Margaret McDougall
Lab
I can stop and start again later.
The Convener
SNP
Just leave it then. We will keep to the amendments in group 1. Do you want to speak to other amendments in the group—did I stop you in full flow?
Margaret McDougall
Lab
No.
John Finnie
Ind
I want to comment on amendment 11. I welcome the Government’s broadening of the definition. I particularly welcome the categories that have been picked up be...
Roderick Campbell
SNP
As John Finnie is, I am supportive of amendment 11, which will broaden the definition of community justice. It is right that we look beyond “persons who hav...
Elaine Murray
Lab
First of all, I welcome the Government’s work to address the concerns that the committee expressed at stage 1. I support the Government’s amendments. I wan...
Margaret Mitchell
Con
Good morning, minister. Like others, I very much welcome the amendments that have been lodged that take cognisance of concerns that were expressed at stage 1...
Christian Allard
SNP
Good morning, minister. First of all, I would like to compliment the minister and thank him for all the changes with regard to the word “offenders”, which I ...
Paul Wheelhouse
SNP
I thank members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate on the first group of amendments. I have listened carefully to the points that have been ma...
The Convener
SNP
Amendment 94, in the name of Alison McInnes, has been debated with amendment 1.
Alison McInnes
LD
I will move amendment 94. I have heard what the minister said, but I have also heard the strength of other committee members’ points of view. However, if we ...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind) McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotla...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 1. Amendment 94 agreed to. Amendment 95 moved—Margaret McDougall.
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind) McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotla...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0. Amendment 95 agreed to. Amendment 66 moved—Alison McInnes.
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind) McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotlan...
The Convener
SNP
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 3, Abstentions 1. Amendment 66 agreed to. Amendments 7 and 8 moved—Paul Wheelhouse—and agreed to. Amendment ...
The Convener
SNP
The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.
The Convener
SNP
There will be a division. For Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind) McDougall, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab) McInnes, Alison (North East Scotlan...