Hansard

Absolutely, and that is acknowledged as one of the problems with the current criminal justice system. There is a revolving door, and people do not turn their lives around.

An important factor is that alternative approaches are not understood: they are not out there in the public eye or in the media. Even members of the judiciary do not always know that alternatives that are a lot more successful than just banging somebody up for a few weeks are available to them.

Most witnesses who gave evidence to the committee agreed that the current community justice model is not effective. They accepted that the community justice landscape is “cluttered”—which seems to be a popular word at present. Some doubted, as Christine Grahame said, that going from eight CJAs to 32 CPPs plus CJS will simplify anything. That concern was compounded by community justice partners, rather than CPPs, now being the vehicle for community justice.

The relationship between the CJPs and the CPPs is unclear, and there is a danger of yet another organisational layer when the CPPs could perhaps be the CJPs—indeed, that may well be what happens in practice in many areas.

The bill defines the statutory community justice partners, all of which are public sector agencies, and requires them, in formulating their community justice outcomes and improvement plans, to consult community bodies and

“such other persons as they consider appropriate.”

One consequence of that flexibility could be that those extra organisations might not be included as community justice partners and might be consulted only when the statutory partners see fit.

Another concern is about the capacity of small third sector organisations to engage with several groups of community justice partners if their services are available in more than one area. As we discussed in committee, however, there is nothing in the bill to prevent CJPs from working together in geographical areas where that makes sense. It is hoped that that sort of model will appear. Although CJPs are separate, they could work in partnership across council areas.

The bill does not propose a lead partner with overall responsibility within each CJP to ensure that the improvement plans are driven forward. I understand that ministers are concerned that such designation of a partner could encourage other partners not to engage fully and simply leave the work up to the lead partner. On the other hand, others are concerned that the lack of a lead partner with overall responsibility for driving forward the local plan could result in everybody sitting back and nobody taking responsibility. Again, it is quite difficult to strike a balance.

The bill proposes several functions for the national organisation to be called community justice Scotland. It will have to promote the national strategy that is published by the Scottish ministers, review the national performance framework and publish a strategy for innovation, learning and development in relation to community justice matters. It will oversee performance, promote and support improvement and promote public awareness.

That takes me back to some issues that I have already discussed. At the strategy day that I attended, there was discussion of what role community justice Scotland could have in ensuring that the public are aware of the successes of other models. The CJPs will have to consult CJS when preparing their local improvement plans, and CJS will have to monitor their performance in achieving the nationally and locally determined outcomes.

Some witnesses considered that some form of inspection of CJPs should be introduced, although other witnesses strongly disagreed with that. The committee came to the conclusion that that should be the role of CJS and Audit Scotland until the new bodies have time to become established. However, it is not certain from the bill what powers CJS will have if a CJP fails to achieve the outcomes that are set in the plan, or fails to consult non-statutory partners appropriately. The minister gave further assurances on that in his opening speech, and I am sure that we will reflect on that and consider whether amendment is necessary at stage 2 to reflect the ability of the Scottish ministers to intervene.

The boards of the existing CJAs include elected local councillors, and the CJA conveners expressed concern about losing that input under the new arrangements. There was discussion of whether one or more places should be reserved on CJS for elected-member representation, although some witnesses considered that it might be difficult to identify one or two councillor representatives who could speak for all the community justice partners across the 32 local authority areas.

CJS will have a role as a national commissioning body. A concern was raised in evidence about striking the correct balance between national commissioning and local flexibility. CJS will be able to identify community justice services, design an appropriate model and make arrangements for provision of those services. In doing so, it will be able to encourage, assist or act in collaboration with any of the community justice partners. The community justice partners will, in producing and implementing their plans to improve community justice outcomes in their areas, be able to purchase services from those nationally commissioned organisations, if those are best able to deliver locally. Alternatively, they will be able to purchase services from local organisations that might be more appropriate for the needs of the local area.

CJS is to receive £614,000 in set-up costs and £2.2 million in annual running costs while the 32 local authorities will share £1.6 million for each of the next three years. We are a bit concerned about whether that will be sufficient, especially if the desired transfer from criminal justice to community justice disposals is achieved and if the CJPs are active in promoting and providing alternatives to prosecution and early intervention to support desistance.

We all want fewer people in prison, especially to serve short sentences during which little can be achieved in addressing the reasons for the offending behaviour. That will bring significant savings but, until fewer people are in prison and more are receiving community justice alternatives, the savings will not be made. That is the nub of the problem. The problem is how resources can be transferred from prisons to community justice while there is still a significant prison population. If fewer people are sent to prison, that should free up funding, but there will still be prison buildings and prison officers. The role of prison officers is changing and will continue to change, with more emphasis being put on providing throughcare and support for offenders. There are issues about how we free up funds to get the process started.

I am pleased to say that Scottish Labour members are happy to support the bill at stage 1, and that we look forward to further discussion of the issues that have been raised at the amendment stages.