Hansard

It is almost four years since the commission on women offenders published its report. Of its 37 recommendations, only one gave me serious pause for thought: that on setting up a national community justice service. Such centralisation seemed contrary to the rest of the report, which emphasised a tailored, community-based response.

Community justice services are—rightly—part of the local government family. The development of close links between criminal justice services, youth justice, social work, housing, education, drug and alcohol services and so on has meant that progress has been made on tackling the root causes of crime. I was concerned at the outset that such a change would be expensive and disruptive and would lead to the loss of integration with other local services.

I understood the frustration that led to that recommendation being made; indeed, I shared much of it. The commission’s report described the lack of opportunity for strategic leadership and accountability in the delivery of offender services in the community. It described the short-term funding and the difficulties in measuring impact, as well as the inconsistent service provision across Scotland. It told us that the interventions that are delivered in prison often cease at the gate.

Nevertheless, it quickly became clear that that was the one recommendation that did not carry broad support across the sector. Consultations on the proposal faltered repeatedly, which resulted in a number of iterations. Progress has been slow. When the bill was finally introduced, I was anxious that the proposals were perhaps a compromise too far.

We have heard a lot over the past few years about the cluttered landscape in the community justice sector. At stage 1, there was some scepticism as to whether the bill would do anything to tackle that. During the passage of the bill, however, the minister listened to those concerns, and his stage 2 amendments largely dispelled my fears. His note on the draft guidelines, which we received earlier this week, starts to fill in some of the detail.

I am pleased that the stage 2 amendments that I lodged were largely accepted by the Government in the spirit in which they were intended. Throughcare from prison into the community needs to be as seamless as possible. I am particularly pleased that I have been able to widen the definition of general services to include specific provision of appropriate housing.

This week, the Justice Committee took evidence on the Government’s progress on implementing Elish Angiolini’s proposals. It was heartening to sense that we might finally be at a turning point in bringing about progressive reform. Notwithstanding the tone of COSLA’s letter today, I hope that the bill will foster a renewed drive for reform among all the community justice partners.

Many of the judiciary have, until now, been reluctant to use community sentences properly. It is to be hoped that community justice Scotland holds the key to unlocking greater confidence in community-based services and innovative approaches such as restorative justice.

Alongside the bill, we need to be ambitious about extending the presumption against short-term prison sentences. I have no doubt at all that, for many offences, prison is rarely the right answer. It is far better for community-based schemes to be the option of choice. Having offenders contributing locally, making reparations and doing work in the community that challenges and changes them for the better is a positive and constructive way of making amends, but it also ensures that offenders pay the penalty without getting caught up in the prison cycle. I believe that well-resourced and well-structured programmes increase public protection, bring down the rate of reoffending and repay the damage done by crime in a way that custodial sentences cannot.

The Government must ensure that community-based reparations are properly resourced and rigorously assessed. I urge the minister to ensure that the experience and expertise that exist in the community justice authorities are, as far as possible, harnessed as we move forward. I echo Margaret Mitchell’s comments about TUPE. If it was possible for the minister to consider the TUPE arrangements again, I would be grateful.

When the Liberal Democrats responded to the report of the commission on women offenders in 2012, I said that we would work with the Government to realise the goal of reducing reoffending. I noted that we would be in for a marathon rather than a sprint to the finishing line but that, ultimately, the prize would be worth it. That remains the case.