Hansard

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. Although there might be some concerns about the proposals, there seems, with some exceptions, to be little enthusiasm for the existing arrangements. The current system, which relies on community justice authorities to ensure consistent and effective community justice throughout Scotland, has led to implementation issues and limited progress in reducing reoffending rates, albeit that such rates are at their lowest for 16 years.

As Audit Scotland argued in its review of the community justice model,

“CJAs were established to improve joint working and reduce reoffending. They have made progress in bringing people together but have had little impact on reducing reoffending. The way they were set up has significantly limited their effectiveness, and there are no nationally-agreed measures to assess their performance ... Stronger leadership is required if reoffending is to be significantly reduced.”

I agree. If we are to tackle reoffending, we need another model—an alternative to custody that works—and we also need to take on board the importance of preventative measures, either in the strategy or otherwise.

The bill is a compromise that removes the existing CJA model and combines aspects of a national body providing leadership and strategic direction with local delivery. In that way, the bill addresses inherent weaknesses in the current system and creates the framework for a model that I hope will help achieve the Scottish Government’s goal and admirable aspiration of

“a justice system that contributes positively to a flourishing Scotland, helping to create an inclusive and respectful society in which all people and communities live in safety and security, individual and collective rights are supported and disputes are resolved fairly and swiftly”.

As for streamlining the cluttered landscape of services that the CJA model is often described as, the bill sets out a framework for more effective community justice services, beginning with local implementation. Responsibility for reaching outcomes is given to the 32 local authorities, and their intimate knowledge of their localities, respective issues and strengths ought to allow for more effective organisation and planning.

In response to concerns that replacing the eight CJAs with 32 authorities will contribute further to the cluttered landscape, I think that we need to accept that aiding past offenders might necessitate the involvement of diverse services such as those for housing, employment, health and education. The minister—if I may dare to quote him—said in evidence:

“we must reflect on the fact that some people whom we are trying to help—by reducing their reoffending and getting them back into a positive place—have extremely complex needs, which inevitably may need to be tackled by a multiagency approach.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 6 October 2015; c 5.]

Alison McInnes referred to Audit Scotland’s evidence, but I believe that it, too, has accepted that there are certain complexities to deal with. Mark Roberts said:

“more than 1,300 different community services are provided by different providers across Scotland, which means that an awful lot of players are involved—and need to be involved and engaged. The complexity that we have been discussing is almost inevitable with work in this area.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 1 September 2015; c 24.]

As a result, I think that we have to accept that we need some kind of cluttered landscape. That said, the framework for effective collaboration that the bill suggests, however cluttered, means that community partners such as Police Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service are obliged to co-operate with each other, as well as with members of local communities, in both the planning and delivery phases to maximise effectiveness.

Local organisations will also maintain some discretionary power over how they share information and work and will judge which collaborative efforts are most effective to further simplify their services. Community partners and local agencies that already work together need to continue to do so.

On the specific role that the third sector is to play, my view is that the transition from eight CJAs to 32 authorities will not necessarily limit the input of third sector organisations. As has been noted in committee evidence, third sector organisations provide roughly one third of current community justice services, which makes their participation and input significant, and section 18 of the bill provides an opportunity for third sector groups to engage effectively in planning and implementing services. I leave it to the Government to decide whether the bill can be strengthened in that area, but I certainly welcome the minister’s earlier comments on the matter.

Alongside delegating operational responsibility to local authorities and community partners, the bill establishes community justice Scotland to provide national leadership, the opportunity for innovation, and oversight and assurance of outcomes. I accept that the degree of interaction with community planning partnerships might not be clear in the bill, but we need to avoid the pitfalls that too much prescription in legislation might bring. I hope that community justice Scotland will develop a strategy that allows local service providers to work towards the same outcomes.

On the issue of how national leadership will be balanced with the duties of local providers, we know that community justice Scotland will not provide any community justice services itself; rather, it will work in collaboration with local agencies and community justice partners to establish a national framework and strategy that service providers will carry out.

Questions have been asked about the allocation of funds. It is proposed that the national authority will also take input from community justice partners in order to best prioritise the distribution of funds at national level, so I hope that it should be fully responsive.

On the provision of oversight of and assurance about the delivery of community justice outcomes, I believe that the bill provides a marked improvement on the current model. As the commission on women offenders noted, a primary weakness of the CJA model is the inability to measure community justice successes. Establishing national standards against which each local agency and community justice outcome will be measured will allow for analysis of what services and programmes are effective.

I will address concerns that the bill too narrowly defines community justice in relation to those who have already offended. It is clear that early preventative measures are critical in limiting reoffending rates. I am sympathetic to the belief that adopting a more holistic approach to community justice measures can not only reduce short-term sentencing but be productive in limiting offending.

There is work to do, certainly on the issue of short-term funding, and we need to clarify certain aspects of the bill, but the bill is a substantial step in the right direction.