comment from Audit Scotland. I am low to use the term yet again this afternoon, but that seems to me to be the characteristics of what many members in the chamber today have called a cluttered landscape. There is no doubt that, in being cluttered under landscape, it sounds to me like a soft description of a work area with too many agencies, too many organisations, too many authorities, too many relationships leading to a complexity and a confusion for offenders and for clients who might access the services. Rodd Campbell indicated that, perhaps in nature of what we are trying to deal with here, occasions the fact that many agencies and authorities need to be involved. However, the description as clutter indicates to me that this landscape is unnecessarily untidy, is disarranged, might be described as a jumble and certainly is irritating to those who try to organise a response to what is a very important issue. During the minister's introduction to the debate today, I was pleased to hear that he indicated that one of the main aims of this bill is to reduce re-offending. That aim is a laudable aim, but, as has been alluded to round the chamber, it is very difficult to gather evidence of what actually works around Scotland in order that we can utilise those efforts effectively. Much has been said in the chamber that judges and others are not aware of all the opportunities that might be out there in order to divert people away from offending, but I would also offer that an absence of confidence in knowing which of those alternatives actually work and work for the offender or the client group is as important an impact as any other criteria. We have the second highest levels of imprisonment, as many members round the chamber have indicated. We have also, unfortunately, one of the highest levels of experience of substance abuse, drugs and alcohol. It has been touched on by many members that the impacts that cause and encourage re-offending are often outwith the confines of the bill, in that unemployment, a lack of education, the presence of poverty, the absence of homes and all truth, the absence of hope is what drives people to return to prisons throughout their lives and end up losing the opportunity to play a full park and what we would call Scottish society. Christine Grahame has a comprehensive list with which I would agree that there is also the fact that, if you are in prison, you become institutionalised in a sense, and that is difficult to break when you have to come back and be self-sufficient. Yes, I would accept that. Certainly within the prisons that we visited during the time that I was part of justice committee, we met those in prison, both men and women, who had suffered the experience of becoming institutionalised and, indeed, frightened to come back out into the general society. A commitment from the minister that he would like to see community solutions, which are locally focused and accept responsibility for what they seek to achieve, is a way forward. I would also caution him that, in indicating that he introduces this new model, he necessarily raises hopes and creates an anticipation that things will change and it will become better. As has been alluded to by a number of members, those within the service delivery have become jaded and overwhelmed by what has been described as the cluttered landscape. I agree with some colleagues who are concerned about merely adding another tier of authority to the landscape. It is seen in itself as being part of a solution when, indeed, it might become part of a future problem. Another step, a rejig, does not answer the questions that were raised by those two reports in 2012. I am pleased to have heard that the minister is listening to the comments that he has heard around the chamber. He seems to produce a welcomed approach that says, not only will he listen but, where he is persuaded, he will change the direction to take account, particularly in relation to the definitions that we have discussed, but also about the leadership and governance issues that pertain here. There is one element that we have all avoided, which I think has a particular impact in this whole scene, and that is the filthy money. Activity follows money. Those who are able to control budgets can demand service delivery and ensure that it occurs. Within that budget relationship, one would hope that governance would ensure that someone would be held accountable for the money that is spent on behalf of the public in trying to resolve some of the issues of re-offending and will be held accountable in an effective manner, and we will thereby drive up service delivery and bring people back into active life in our communities. There is confusion out there regarding the links to community planning and to other service delivery plans, and one would hope that the minister would pay attention to the reservations that have been expressed there. Cozzler, we are good enough to provide a briefing in relation to today's debate, and I trust that the minister will pay particular attention to the points that he has raised in his briefing paper. There is obviously a sensitivity there about nationally driven plans that do not operate with the effectiveness that one would want on a local platform. Finally, I draw the minister's attention to the briefing from Bernados, who again reiterates the definition in relation to community justice. I agree with some of the comments from the members at the back benches that our commitment should not begin after the first conviction. It needs to be long before that. We know some of the problems that lead people into the criminal justice system, and, once badged, it is hard to escape the pressures that come thereafter. On that point, I conclude that we support the minister in his efforts, and we look forward to the amendments that he brings forward at a later stage. I now call on Paul Wheelhouse to wind up the debate, minister. You have until just before 5 p.m. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to members for their thoughtful contributions that they have made across the chamber to this afternoon's debate. As Graham Pearson indicated in his closing remarks, the bill is very much about re-offending, but I take his point entirely and hope that he accepts my words of reassurance in that we very much reflect the points about prevention, and indeed the need to look beyond the boundaries of the bill to issues such as housing employment and other support services for individuals to make sure that they are supported. I note that Dave Stewart is here. I still regard him as a very fresh-faced member of the chamber, so do not be so defeatist, Mr Stewart. The input that we have had around the chamber from the expertise people who have been involved in social work in the criminal justice system in relation to former police officers and others shows the value of the Parliament bringing that experience to bear on such an important issue. I am greatly encouraged that the lead committee's endorsement of the bill has been reflected in the debate and I very much welcome the support from political parties across the chamber for the general principles and take on board that that in some cases is conditional on us working on amendments at stage 2. I will not have enough time today to respond to all the points that members have made, but I will no doubt return to number them when we consider the detail of the bill at stage 2, but I want to turn to as much as I can of the points that have been raised. First, in response to Elaine Murray, who gave a very thoughtful speech and a very considerate one, I thank her for that. I welcome the local engagement on the national strategy. I want to thank her for her positive remarks and, indeed, for taking part in that exercise and showing support for it at a local level. I am sure that that will have been appreciated by local stakeholders. I will have the opportunity to see this in person at the next local event in Edinburgh on Tuesday, where I look forward to meeting many stakeholders myself and to hearing directly from them. Most of the material that we have dealt with, I think, already, but I would just want to recognise the hard work of the community justice authorities. I know members across the chamber in reflecting Dame Eilish Angelini's report and drawing attention to perhaps some of the perceived criticisms of the current model. I would also want to share my own thoughts in thanking those who are involved with the CJA's in delivering hard work on behalf of us all across our communities and, indeed, their staff. Prevention has been much of a theme today. Prevention is very much an ethos. Every intervention, support and management is an opportunity to work with an individual to aid prevention. I reflect a number of comments from individuals at Nigel Don. John Finnie, indeed, we reflect this in another debate in another context about the need to take the approach that we have taken in terms of Gryffwick to a different level for adults to look at how we take a person-centred approach. Nigel Don and others have referred to the outcomes that we would be developing that some of them are person-centric, and we need to take that approach to look at how we get the solution right for the individual and, hopefully, prevent them from re-offending. The bill does not cover primary prevention. That has dealt with, effectively, but other Scottish Government policies, with solutions laying primarily outside the justice system, as I referred to, in early years interventions, raising educational attainment, action to tackle youth unemployment and our policies in health and housing, etc. However, the bill does absolutely cover secondary and tertiary prevention. That is stopping people re-offending and preventing the escalation of people's offending. The new model for community justice is designed to ensure appropriate, proportionate and effective interventions in response to offending behaviour. The reason why we have not so far taken this further was that we were keen to promote the increased use of diversion, community sentences and reduced use of short-term custodial sentences, because we believe that the evidence is clear that this is the most effective way to reduce re-offending and prevent further harm to victims, families and communities. However, I take on board the points that have been made across the chamber about looking again at the definition, and I take the opportunity to reiterate that point that I made in my opening remarks, but that is very much a live issue. A number of MSPs have mentioned victims, and I think that it is entirely right that we do so. I would like to reassure members that I recognise the importance and value of the voice of victims in community justice. My officials recently met with a range of third sector organisations, including Scottish Women's Aid and Victim Support Scotland, to discuss how best to involve the third sector in planning community justice. Let me reiterate the vital contribution that the third sector is making, and we will continue to make to community justice, and we will take that forward. Clearly, it is important to stop people entering the criminal justice system in the first place, though. I take that point entirely from Graham Pearson and other contributions. That is why the Government has a clear focus on advancing the whole system approach and improving life chances. I believe that we have broadly the right approach here. The drive in community justice to reduce re-offending is part of our wider approach to promoting social justice and tackling inequality, which includes action to improve early years and experiences, to raise educational attainment and to continue to promote the whole systems approach to youth justice, as I said in my opening remarks. A range of other policies are addressing issues such as drugs misuse, which Graham Pearson referred to, and the new national strategy for community justice will link those other strategies to ensure a joined-up approach. On the definition itself, there is no existing statutory definition of community justice. The translation of our policy into legislation is therefore being taken forward with some care, and any revised wording for section 1 of the bill needs to work within the existing legal framework and legislation. The definition of community justice in the bill sets out the functions and machinery required for the planning, delivery and reporting community justice outcomes, but it is very much a legal definition for the specific purposes of the bill. On prevention and early intervention, the Government has a focus on the whole system approach and a range of other policies, as I mentioned. That said, I recognise that the definition could be strengthened further. I will explore with stakeholders the possibility of reflecting, for example, the preventative impact of diversionary activity in the definition. After all, we know that, as a number of members have acknowledged, evidence shows that diverting individuals away from criminal justice is an effective way of preventing further offending. Margaret McDougall, Alison McInnes and David Stewart touched on the role of housing. I referred to it in short terms earlier on, but the national strategy is currently being developed in partnership with a broad range of stakeholders. It would be premature to offer assurances about which topics will be included, but I recognise the vital role that housing in particular is able to provide in terms of stability. Indeed, I heard that directly from those inmates in Paul McInnes' Young Offenders Institute yesterday, who were saying that housing is the very vehicle in which they get stability to get employment. From employment, they get the self-esteem and pride back in life and, hopefully, the ability to get on the street and narrow. I certainly will. One of the ministers of the way that I am perhaps is that the Project 218 in Glasgow, one of the first things that they established for women who were put into prison was to make sure that their tenancy was secure. Otherwise, it was automatically taken from them when they were in prison, and that gave them somewhere to come out. I hope that the minister will translate that into other issues regarding prisoners on release and maintaining tenancies. Indeed, that is an extremely important point. The whole issue is going to be considered as part of developing the national outcomes and performance framework. I very much give Christine Grahame reassurance that those issues are vital to our way forward. On the resourcing issues in terms of Scottish prison service and transfers to community, as we see the impact of preventative work and what happens in those contexts, while it is a separate process, it is implicit in our proposals for strengthening the presumption against short sentences, indeed for a wider penal policy and community justice reforms, that we expect to see a shift in resources from prisons to community-based services. Annabelle Goldie seems to take the wrong impression from the letter I sent to the committee. That was indeed in response to a direct question to me from the committee that I address. Perhaps the perception of the bill was not addressing the possibility of changes resulting from a presumption against short sentences consultation taking the outcome that the Government is obviously taking forward. I hope that it reassures that it was not something that was done willfully but in response to a question from the Justice Committee. Do you give reassurance that the model is flexible enough to adapt to any changes that come downstream, including reforms to the women's custodial estate, as well? We have already seen a shift in taking place with £1.5 million transfer from SPS to invested community-based justice services for women and work by the Scottish Prison Service to transform its role. For example, we are referenced to throughcare and other services to help people leaving prison to integrate back into the community. I want to take some of the time that I have left, to reflect in the third sector more, including organisations that support victims and families, as I mentioned earlier. It is vital to the successful planning and delivery of effective and efficient services for individuals. The sector, as a number of members have mentioned, delivers about a third of the community justice activity that we have already seen in Scotland. It already has a vital role and has made a long-standing contribution to the delivery of outcomes for community justice at a national level. Rod Campbell was quite correct to refer to section 18 of the bill, which requires community justice partners to consult and enable the participation of the third sector in the planning of services and improved outcomes for community justice. However, I have listened to concerns from the third sector. I am now exploring how we might amend the provisions to strengthen the role and participation. Third sector bodies have a different legal status and different lines of accountability as compared with public bodies listed at section 12 of the bill as community justice partners. There may be difficulties if parliaments sought to impose statutory duties of this type on bodies such as charities, and, accordingly, they have not been included to date as statutory community justice partners. However, I take the point that is made by Margaret MacDougall and others that we need to reflect the more fully in this. I give a commitment that we are doing so. On commissioning, this is another important area for third sector organisations. Community justice Scotland's first actions will be to work with partners and the third sector, both purchasers and providers of services, to develop a degree of strategic approach to commissioning. That will ensure that evidence-led and co-ordinated long-term approach to commissioning for community justice in Scotland. The intention is that the third sector will be an equal partner in the process of agreeing the strategic approach to commissioning itself. On the issue of short-term funding and longevity of it, we very much recognise the constraints and uncertainty that one-year funding creates particularly around the strategic commissioning of services. Short-term funding is an issue that goes wider than community justice, indeed wider than Scottish Government. Within the gift that we have for community justice, section 27 funding for criminal justice social work has been protected year on year in the face of significant cuts from the UK Government. However, the Scottish Government has provided ring-fence funding of more than £750 million since 2008-09. The funding technical advisory group has been established to consider the work of developing a new formula for section 27 funding to replace the current model. A move from annual system of funding to a funding model over a three-year period is one of the issues that is being considered by the group. The advisory group is due to report to the main funding group in the last quarter of this year. Post-discussion between Scottish Government and COSLA recommendations will then be made to the joint Scottish Government and COSLA settlement and distribution group, and the new funding model will be live in 2017-18. Time is against me. I would just want to reiterate the points that I have made that members have contributed very strongly to this debate and finished by saying that the new nationals outcome performance and improvement framework will address a number of the points raised by members, including John Finnie, Elaine Murray, Gil Paterson and Nigel Dawn, about taking a person's centric approach and developing outcomes and indicators that will improve the delivery of community justice to Scotland. However, time is against me, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much to all the members in the chamber and I look forward to working with them as we take the bill forward. That concludes the stage 1 debate on the Community Justice Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 14805, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the Community Justice Scotland Bill. I call on John Swinney to move the motion, Deputy First Minister. It moves, Presiding Officer. The question is, will we put a decision time to which we now come? There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The next question is motion number 14879, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse on community justice. Scotland Bill will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is motion number 14805, in the name of John Swinney, on the financial resolution for the Community Justice Scotland Bill. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. Can I just remind members, if you need to remind them, that the book of condolence is in the main hall for those who suffered in the Paris attacks. If you have not yet signed it and wish to do so, please do so now, because the book will be removed tomorrow. This is about your last opportunity. That concludes decision time. I now close this.