We know that the economic and social cost of offending and reoffending is immense, and we pour so many resources into picking up the pieces. Lives are ruined, communities are blighted and potential is lost.

Considering those who are in our criminal justice system, we can see that we have failed to get to grips with the underlying problems-mental health problems, a history of abuse, addiction, poverty, exclusion from education and being in the care system. We know what lies behind the chaotic lives that lead to prison. Worse, we also know what makes a difference. Reoffending rates remain stubbornly high, however.

Liberal Democrats want safer communities, people brought to justice when they offend and robust community justice schemes. We also believe that everyone deserves a chance to get back on track. A robust but compassionate targeted community justice system that is flexible enough to respond to individual needs will benefit everyone in Scotland.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the status quo is clearly not an option. The Angiolini and Audit Scotland reports both highlighted serious shortcomings in the operation of the community justice system, and the Justice Committee has seen clear evidence of failings in the system. The Angiolini report had some frank words to say about the lack of leadership up until now. For sure, it will take strong and sustained leadership, both nationally and locally, to make a difference.

Audit Scotland found a mismatch between the services that are provided and what we know works in tackling reoffending. It found that access to and availability of services varies significantly throughout Scotland. While CJAs have been successful in bringing people together, Audit Scotland reported that the way in which they were set up and the inflexible funding arrangements that are in place have limited their effectiveness. Audit Scotland concludes that funding for community justice services is particularly inflexible and does not encourage reductions in reoffending. Only a small amount of funding is currently available for local discretion, and the funding is based largely on historical activity.

The CJAs report to ministers and have regional budgets to dispense to local authorities, but they also have little discretion and a lack of clear governance arrangements. I acknowledge that good work is going on, but I cannot legitimately argue that what we have at the moment is the right model.

I agree with the Labour Party that although it is good to have an exploratory debate on this complex issue, it would be useful if we could come back to it once we have all had the opportunity to review the consultation responses.

Faced with the fact that a number of the other agencies involved-the Scottish Court Service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Prison Service and now the police-operate nationally, some might be tempted to say that we should also have a national community justice organisation. I am instinctively uncomfortable about that option. Like it or not, a complex web of societal interactions need to come together to prevent reoffending and ensure that community justice disposals provide both punishment and alternatives. A national agency-possibly remote and bureaucratic-is unlikely to be able to maximise those connections.

Audit Scotland made much in its report of the number of people round the table at CJA meetings. In fact, we need everyone working together. The real problem at the moment is that no one has the proper clout to bring about the change that is needed.

Criminal justice social work is rightly part of the local government family. We need to develop and build on those close links between criminal justice services, social work, education, drug and alcohol services, disability services and of course the third sector. Those connections have meant that there has been progress on tackling the root causes of crime. I am concerned that removing criminal justice social work from the local authority family would be expensive and disruptive and might lead to the loss of integration with other local services.

On the other hand, disbanding the CJAs completely and returning responsibility to our 32 separate local authorities will not address the current problems of poor integration and postcode-based justice services. What we need is a structure that facilitates a tailored, community-based response, while ensuring that a much more rigorous approach is taken to the standard of service that we should expect to see throughout Scotland. I am probably with Christine Grahame on this issue. None of the three options outlined in the consultation document seems quite to fit the bill. I suspect that the answer lies in a hybrid form of them.

It seems at this stage that the best way forward would be to reform the CJAs by ensuring that they have the right-indeed the responsibility-to plan, co-ordinate and monitor services in their area. Clearer governance, proper control of budgets and building on what is good in CJAs is likely to bring about change most effectively. However, there also needs to be a national strategy-one that sets standards and ensures equality of access to services, especially in relation to specific groups such as sex offenders, young offenders and women prisoners. Leadership needs to be provided nationally to champion all the change that needs to come about. It might be that a federation of the CJAs working in tandem with the Government could drive that forward; if necessary, we could have joint commissioning of regional specialisms at the same time. However, if we are to reduce reoffending drastically, at the heart of it all has to be local, community-based solutions.

Over and over again at the Justice Committee we have heard how patchy throughcare is for short-term prisoners because there is no statutory provision for them, yet we know that those prisoners are most at risk of reoffending. I genuinely urge the cabinet secretary to use this opportunity, this year, to extend statutory throughcare to all prisoners. He would have our support for that.

Recent research by the Prison Reform Trust concluded that it is important for offenders to take responsibility for their own resettlement. Right now, there is no dialogue with or involvement of offenders or ex-offenders. We want that to change.

Although the Liberal Democrats are open to further discussion on the best way forward, we are clear that there must be improvements in how community justice services are funded, how performance is measured and how services for offenders are planned, designed and managed.

I, too, welcome today's stage 1 debate on the first of a series of bills that are being introduced as a result of a number of tax-raising powers being devolved by the Scotland Act 2012. I admit to a certain disadvantage, in that most of those who have spoken up to now have been members of the Finance Committee and I have not had that benefit.

Like Lewis Macdonald, I was disturbed to learn last Friday that the Scottish Government had, with barely a week's consideration, decided to accept the complete set of Scottish Court Service proposals. I emphasise from the start that the Liberal Democrats are not against change. Where a case has been made and evidence listened to, we are happy to work constructively to deliver an improved service. However, I am struggling to find many improvements in these proposals.

Reading through the consultation document, the responses and the final recommendations, I am left with the overwhelming sense that the changes are not about making our court system better but, first and foremost, are about cutting £1 million from the Court Service's revenue budget. That is not a good way to approach the reform of something as fundamentally important as our courts.

We know that once the Government introduces the order it will come to the Justice Committee and that only if the committee rejects it will the whole Parliament be able to vote on the plans. Therefore, I hope that my fellow committee members will not mind my mentioning their fine words in defence of their local courts. I trust that they will continue to stand up for them so robustly when we get a chance to vote on the order.

Peebles sheriff court is one of those scheduled to be closed, and Christine Grahame has argued strongly for its retention. The court's new facilities are less than 10 years old and, in common with many of the smaller courts mentioned in the consultation, its closure would add a great deal of inconvenience for court users, particularly with regard to travelling time. Christine Grahame has also mentioned the importance of localism, a subject to which I will return.

At the other end of the country, the closure of Dingwall sheriff court has also been proposed. John Finnie has rightly highlighted that the geography of the Highlands has largely been ignored, and has expressed similar concerns about the closure of the court at Wick. Moreover, as we have just heard, Cupar court in Fife has been proposed for closure, with most cases being moved to Dundee. That throws up a number of concerns; indeed, in what must be one of the most comprehensive consultation responses that I have ever read, Roderick Campbell highlights 14 separate arguments that call into question the decision to close Cupar. I hope that he will not mind it if I add a 15th argument to his list. Shifting trials from Cupar to Dundee does more than simply force people to cross the Tay; it takes the disposal of those cases away from the Fife and Forth Valley community justice authority area, the local police command area and the local NHS board area into an entirely separate local authority area. Surely such a move will have huge implications for managing offenders in the form of throughcare, support for rehabilitation, social care and so on.

Before I turn to the north-east, I must also mention Rothesay. There are, of course, particular problems with removing all court services from Bute. I know that both the local MP, Alan Reid, and MSP Mike Russell are united in their opposition to the closure and I certainly agree with them.

In my region, Stonehaven and Arbroath sheriff courts have both been put forward for closure and I have serious concerns about both proposals. For a start, the combined business of Forfar and Arbroath totals more than the available sitting days for the court in Forfar. However, in common with much of its response to genuine concerns from members of the public and interested organisations, the Court Service document is rather dismissive of the point and simply notes that

"Consolidation of all court business in a single location offers greater opportunity to manage business more efficiently".

Similarly, with Stonehaven, a major concern is that if Aberdeen court is to absorb the extra business, the already overloaded schedule will get even further behind. However, the Court Service's response states:

"the period between first calling of a summary criminal case and trial in Stonehaven is 10 weeks as against Aberdeen's 20 weeks."

As for the question of how the service is working to reduce "Aberdeen's 20 weeks", the response says only "we are addressing that". Again, I ask: how?

I cannot be the only one for whom this offhand approach to issues has started alarm bells ringing. Before we even consider closing a court, we have to know that every possible impact has been addressed satisfactorily. I do not believe that the Court Service has cast more than a cursory glance at the impacts. It is even more of a worry that the cabinet secretary has moved to accept its plans without even drawing breath.

At the heart of this is a problem that I have brought up time and time again in the chamber: the erosion of local services. Liberal Democrats are passionate about local decision making and locally delivered services; in contrast, the SNP proves time and again that it is a party of centralisation. It simply seems incapable of understanding Scotland's rural communities.

Justice is best served when it is delivered locally and I have to wonder whether the cabinet secretary finds it a bit incongruous to be standing up and defending the closures today when next week he will be leading a debate on redesigning the community justice system. I fear for the content of that redesign because communities have been wantonly ignored in this one. We are seeing this approach not only with the sheriff and JP courts but with the High Court as well, although we have no control over that. Halting High Court sittings in Dundee, Inverness and Perth is a further case in point.

The Court Service has taken a very blinkered approach to the redesign and, by blithely accepting all the recommendations, the SNP Government has once again failed to support Scotland's rural communities. The SNP proposes a move away from a locally delivered justice system; instead, we will be left with regional delivery that incorporates the worst of all worlds. I intend to vote against the plans when they come before the Justice Committee, and I hope that members on all sides will do likewise and stand up for their local communities.

Margaret Thatcher was a politician of world renown who achieved a great deal. The country's longest serving peacetime Prime Minister, she won three consecutive elections. People often ignore that she had that clear democratic mandate. She was courageous in the face of great difficulties-the Falklands war, the Irish Republican Army bombing in Brighton and the murders of her colleagues Airey Neave and Ian Gow. She was a conviction politician who demonstrated remarkable resolve, but she could also be strident and self-righteous.

Good morning conference. Let me add my own personal welcome to all of you to this great city- a city that I'm proud to have represented at Holyrood for the last six years.

I've been lucky in that time to have had the chance to work with Fraser Macpherson. Fraser is one of our outstanding local councillors. He is an excellent campaigner, and I know how highly he's regarded by his constituents.

Good morning conference. Let me add my own personal welcome to all of you to this great city- a city that I'm proud to have represented at Holyrood for the last six years.

I've been lucky in that time to have had the chance to work with Fraser Macpherson. Fraser is one of our outstanding local councillors. He is an excellent campaigner, and I know how highly he's regarded by his constituents.

At last Thursday's First Minister's question time, Alex Salmond asked me why we had not returned to the subject of police reform the week after we had first asked him about it in January. Sadly-and I know that members on all sides are as unhappy about this as we are-the Liberal Democrats get only one day of debating time a year. That day is today and we would not want to disappoint the First Minister again.

Developing a national action plan for human rights is a welcome way of ensuring that the human rights that we assume that we have are, in practice, assured. As the SHRC explains, we have a fairly strong legal and institutional framework for human rights, but there are gaps in the realisation of those rights. The most important thing to strive for in developing the action plan is to ensure that it has relevance to people in the real world. Our human rights are not abstract; they are the basis for ensuring that, at every step in our lives, we are afforded the best possible opportunity, treatment and freedoms.

Had the establishment of a Scottish civil justice council been proposed on its own, we would have been glad to support it. Although I would have liked Jenny Marra's amendment on the make-up of the council to have been agreed to, I still believe that the council's creation will prove to be of benefit to the development of our civil justice system.

I welcome members of Camphill communities from around Scotland who are in the public gallery this evening, and I thank fellow MSPs who supported my motion and enabled it to be debated tonight.

Camphill is a worldwide movement of communities, which support children, young people, adults and older people who have learning disabilities and other support needs. Support is provided through an holistic model of care, support and education. The approach seeks to provide mutual support and nurture independence, through living, learning and working together.