Hansard

The amendments in this group refine the meaning of “community justice”. It is clear to me that we need to take a person-centred approach to improving outcomes for community justice, which means that there should be the widest possible scope with regard to the support that is offered to people who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Amendment 2 will amend the definition of “community justice” to include helping people to access services that they will need on release from prison. As the new definition will include healthcare, subsection (2ZA) of section 1 will no longer be necessary and will be removed by amendment 7.

Amendment 1 will insert the word “relevant” before “general services” in the meaning of “community justice” in section 1(1), and amendment 6 will make the same change to section 1(2)(c)(ii). In consequence of those amendments, amendment 8 will make the same change to the definition of “general services” in section 1A.

Amendment 3, also in my name, will remove paragraph (e) from section 1(1). Paragraph (e) was inserted at stage 2 and amended the meaning of “community justice” to include

“designing, managing and arranging general services for persons identified as at serious risk of first time offending”.

I fully understand the good intention behind the provision and I thank Alison McInnes for highlighting an important matter. However, the bill does not cover primary prevention—that is, stopping people from offending in the first place. Primary prevention is being taken forward effectively by this Government through a range of other policies, for example on early years intervention, raising educational attainment, tackling youth unemployment, health and housing. Furthermore, we have a specific youth justice strategy, and good work is being done on diversion of young people from serious and organised crime and substance abuse.

There are also practical issues with the wording of paragraph (e) as inserted by Alison McInnes’s amendment, given the difficulties that are attached to assessing risk and identifying people who are at risk without stigmatising individuals. Any such system would have to be human rights compliant. I therefore urge the Parliament to support my amendment 3.

Amendment 4 will remove paragraph (f) from section 1(1). The paragraph, which was also inserted at stage 2, amended the definition of “community justice” to include managing and supporting persons who are covered by the definition

“in ways which take into account the safety of other persons in the community, including victims of offences and their families.”

I thank Margaret McDougall for highlighting the important issue of safety, and I reassure the Parliament that this Scottish Government is committed to reducing reoffending and the harm that it causes to individuals, families and communities. I very much recognise the concerns of victims about justice-related issues, but I think that the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, rather than the bill, is the relevant legislation through which to address such concerns. To reassure the Parliament, I can say that we have worked with Margaret McDougall to ensure that there will be appropriate references to the needs of victims and their families elsewhere in the bill. Group 3 contains amendments in that regard.

Margaret McDougall’s stage 2 amendment also sought to bring within the scope of community justice such activity as is directed not at reducing future offending but at managing the risks to public safety that arise from having people with offending backgrounds in the community. That is not appropriate in this bill. I therefore urge members to support my amendment 4.

Amendment 5 will amend section 1(2)(c) so that the meaning of “supporting” in the definition of “community justice” includes helping to access “emotional and practical support”, which references a provision that was inserted by Alison McInnes at stage 2.

Amendments 26 and 27 seek to amend the definition of “general services” in section 1A. I understand the reason for listing appropriate services—the approach was entirely well intentioned—but I want to refine the list that was added at stage 2 by Alison McInnes. I have discussed with Alison McInnes the reason why refinement is required.

Amendment 26 will remove “looked-after” from paragraph (d) of the definition in section 1A, so that it refers to services and support provided to all children rather than just looked-after children. The approach avoids making an implied link between looked-after children and offending behaviour. Some looked-after children do go on to offend, but there is no automatic link; the change avoids any such inference in the legislation.

Amendment 27 will amend paragraph (e) of the definition, building on the existing reference to alcohol and drug issues and drawing them into the broader spectrum of physical and mental health services. The wording reflects the fact that many individuals who are in contact with relevant services are no longer dependent on substances and might be in recovery.

In a similar way, I have sought to cover

“physical and emotional childhood and adolescent trauma”

as set out in existing paragraph (f), by reference to “physical or mental health”, which will be in amended paragraph (e). Proposed new paragraph (f) will provide a more general reference to “social welfare”, in recognition of the important role of social services in promoting the welfare of individuals in our communities. Proposed new paragraph (g) will make general provision for

“any other matter which does or may affect the likelihood of future offending by persons falling within”

the definition of “community justice”. That will ensure that the definition of “general services” is not limited to the services that are listed in paragraphs (a) to (f).

Amendment 9 is consequential, in that it will remove wording from section 1A that was added at stage 2, which will no longer be appropriate in light of the refinement of the definition of “general services” by amendments 26 and 27.

Finally, amendments 10 and 11 will amend section 1A(4), which sets out what, in the definition of “community justice”, is meant by a “relevant finding”, to reflect that in certain circumstances an offence can be committed by omitting to do an act as well as by committing an act.

I move amendment 1.