 The final item of business is members' business debate on motion 11174, in the name of Liam Kerr, on increasing awareness of restorative justice within the criminal justice system. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Liam Kerr to open the debate for around seven minutes, please. I'm very pleased to bring forward this member's debate today, and I thank all those across the chamber who added their support to the motion, either in direct support or to allow this important matter to be debated. I entitled this motion, Increasing Awareness of Restorative Justice within the criminal justice system, and if nothing else, I think that this debate will achieve that. What is restorative justice? At times it can feel like we try to empower those who break the law more than victims. One former police officer's comments are worth reading out in this regard. He said that common feedback from victims and witnesses was the feeling that they were on the outside looking in. Once they had given their statement, they often heard nothing further until receiving a citation to attend court. In many cases this came as a surprise. They had expected to be contacted when the alleged offender had been traced and spoken to in order to be involved in the decision-making process, given that they are the ones who have been most affected by the incident. The concept of restorative justice seeks to address that. The Scottish University's Insight Institute defines it as a process that brings together those harmed by crime and those responsible for that harm to safely discuss the harm and how it might be set right. In essence, it is some form of voluntary on both sides, communication between the offender and victim, which takes place in a safe manner and environment in which the offender must be prepared to admit responsibility, but crucially there is no need for victims to forgive. Joanna Shatland, the chair of the Scottish Restorative Justice Forum, says that the process allows victims and their families to ask questions that will be familiar to all those of us who have been a victim of crime such as, why me? Are you sorry for what you did and what are you doing to change your behaviour and to look the offender in the eye and receive an apology? It includes victims in the process that follows in the aftermath of a crime and allows them to confront offenders with the real human impact of their wrongdoing. Crucially, and on this we must be clear, none of this replaces a formal trial to establish the guilt of the offender. It works. An academic evaluation of three schemes in England found up to 83 per cent of victims to whom restorative justice was offered wanted to take part. Those who did appreciated the offender meeting them, answering questions and the opportunity to receive a direct apology, which is not normally possible in the criminal justice process. An outcome agreement, being an agreement between the parties for some kind of appropriate restoration, was reached in 98 per cent of cases. International research consistently shows very high rates of participant satisfaction, with typically over 80 per cent of respondents saying that they found the process helpful and are pleased that they did it and would recommend it to others. Better for the victims and better for society. However, there is something else here. Scotland's reconviction rate has barely changed in 17 years. According to the University of Sheffield research, restorative justice processes significantly reduced the frequency of re-offending. Figures from New Zealand over a five-year period show that offenders who took part in restorative justice had a 15 per cent lower rate of re-offending, and committed 26 per cent fewer offences overall than an appropriately constituted control group. The principles appear to be sound, but we are not doing it to any great degree. The Scottish Government last year published guidance for the delivery of restorative justice in Scotland. It is good guidance, and I welcome it, but guidance does not work unless it is used. When asked what restorative justice is, nearly half of local authorities either did not know or supplied an answer that substantially contradicts the Scottish Government's own definition. Only five of our 32 local councils offer any sort of restorative justice service for adults. The cabinet secretary's predecessor Kenny MacAskill said of restorative justice that there has been a failure to take action as a natural consequence of it not being made a ministerial priority. I may be wrong, Presiding Officer, but I think that that is political speak for I ignored this when I was a minister. Steve Kirkwood and Mary Munro, academics at the universities of Edinburgh and Strathclyde, respectively, are clear that the relatively neglect in Scotland is rather odd, given developments of restorative justice in other parts of the UK across Europe and in jurisdictions across the world. We need to get those services up and running. That is the first step to creating a justice system that puts victims at its heart. That means trained professionals available to facilitate the communication. It means informing victims that the service is available and of their ability to access it. However, we also need to be clear what restorative justice is not there for. Of the five councils in Scotland that offer restorative justice, three do it as a diversion from prosecution. I find that disappointing. Joanna Shatland, the chair of the Scottish Restorative Justice Forum, is clear that restorative justice cannot replace a formal trial. In my view, she is right. Involving victims in the justice process is not a substitute for punishing offenders adequately for the wrongs that they have committed, but victims can be included as part of and alongside the existing justice process. One sheriff has fairly asked why victims are not part of community payback review hearings. Everyone is represented around that table except the person who has suffered the most from the crime. Wouldn't the public have more confidence in community senses if victims were able to input into the punishment? What if the unpaid work carried out by offenders on CPOs had more of a connection with the original offence so that lawbreakers properly understand the impact of their crimes? What if social workers writing reports for courts and hearings had a greater idea about the specific victims' experience and whether they want to meet the offender and pose their own questions to hopefully achieve some kind of closure? That is why I wanted a debate on restorative justice, Presiding Officer. We can send a message out from this chamber that when a crime is committed, we will not forget the victim, the individual whose life is changed, ornally, through no choice, no fault of their own. If we care about victims, we will make them an essential part of putting things right. We do that by increasing awareness of restorative justice within the criminal justice system. We move to the open debate, and I call Fulter McGregor to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Speech is of four minutes, please. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Liam Kerr for bringing the important subject matter to the chamber. I have got two declarations to make, Presiding Officer, as a PA low to the justice portfolio and also a registered social worker with the triple SCC in the last four years of practice before becoming an MSP. I was a worker in the justice system, and that is what I want to start picking up from some of Liam Kerr's points. I was able to see in the justice system the value of restorative justice, and it did work indeed that I would say very well, particularly with young people. There was a particular focus on that, and I witnessed first-hand that a lot of times young people had driven a change in attitude to their offending and to the restorative justice process itself, perhaps being a bit sceptical. First, there is even one occasion—I know that this is not the usual focus or the usual outcome—where I witnessed two young people becoming fast friends through the process. We know that it does work, and it can be very effective. I agree with the points that Liam Kerr made in relation to that, but I would like to pick him up on saying that there is no awareness of it. I worked as a social worker, and I was very aware of it, so we are all my colleagues. I would imagine everybody that worked in the justice system. There is a wee bit of flexibility in the community payback order system as well to do that wee bit of work, but you have to make an assessment whether it is appropriate or not to do that, and it is not always the case. It certainly would not be appropriate to have as standard victims in the community payback order meetings, but I accept the general point that I made that there is perhaps more that can be done at an earlier stage. Certainly, when I was doing criminal justice social work reports, and I know my colleagues, we would take into account aspects of attitude towards the offence and perhaps what the victim's view on it would be. There may be more that could be done along those lines, but I think that there is a degree of flexibility. I want to talk about a wee bit of local good practice in North Lanarkshire 2013, where North Lanarkshire Council's restorative justice team, with funding from the Erdring Coatbridge Round Table, facilitated the renovation of a school that had been targeted, but it vandalised, and it has done that work with offenders that have been through the community justice system. It was a really good example. I know that Maureen Hughes, the restorative justice service manager, at the time was quoted as saying that three out of five people on schemes like that do not go on to re-offend, so it has a pretty powerful quote at the time. It made quite a lot of good local news. It picks up on the point that the value of restorative justice in the scheme. I do not think that that point is lost on the Scottish Government. I know that ministers will speak later, but the publication of guidance for the delivery of restorative justice in Scotland in October last year outlined the key principles and guidelines for utilising restorative justice. I am pleased that there is this clear commitment to support the delivery of the scheme in Scotland. I accept the point that only a small number of local authorities are using restorative justice in identifying it. However, I would say that most local authorities are doing that, because I think that the local authority that I worked for, for example, is one of the stats that you talked about, yet we are clearly using it. There may be a wee bit of work to be done there around terms of statistics and stuff like that, just to tighten all that up. However, I can see that I am running out of time. It is an area that I have got a lot of interest in, and I will be keeping, obviously, a close eye on how things are going. I am pleased with the steps that I have taken to bring this forward nationally. I will leave it at that. Daniel Johnson, followed by John Finnie. I thank Liam Kerr for bringing forward the debate. It is extremely useful, particularly in the wider context of the justice debate at the moment. While I do not have any particular interest to declare, I should probably mention to the chamber that I studied philosophy as an undergraduate. I waffle on a little bit about the concept of justice at the beginning. You can blame the choice of studies at a university for that. It is important, because we are absolutely right to be talking about exploring the justice system and examining whether what we are doing actually works and what we can do to make it better. We are making progress. We have seen the presumption against short sentences. We have seen a much greater focus at looking at the underlying causes for crime, rather than one that looks particularly to identify criminals and criminality. We are also adopting a focus of what works. We are looking at practices that reduce the levels of offending in the first place, but also re-offending. That is absolutely right, because the traditional model of justice, one that focuses on punishment, is defective. The old model that looked at retribution, correction and punishment as deterrence is fundamentally flawed, and it does not work, because it assumes that somebody who is committing a crime is going to be A, acting rationally and B. Very often, those people are victims in the first place. The people who have suffered adverse childhood experiences or other tragedies in their life. The thought that punishing is the way to deal with that is fundamentally flawed, but justice is banned. Liam Kerr made a very good point that sometimes the victim can get lost. Moreover, we need to be careful not to treat justice simply as about correcting behaviour. It is about achieving balance. After all, Lady Justice herself not only carries a sword, but she carries scales. Addressing that restoring balance is fundamentally important and what restorative justice is about. While it is about the victim, it is also about the perpetrator confronting their behaviour, understanding the causes and the effects. That is just as an important element of restorative justice, as the victim's perspective is within all of that. There can be no better example of that than the example that came to the end of last year of Jay Beattie, who, as an 11-year-old with Down syndrome, was a form part of Celtic celebrations back in 2014, but suffered abuse online, on social media, appalling abuse. As part of the steps that were taken subsequently, Jay met the person who was behind those attacks. According to the father, that was a powerful and emotional exchange, with the perpetrator fundamentally realising what he had done, coming face to face with his victim. It is not just beneficial for the victim, but it can show the real consequences of what they have done. That two-way process, the two-way element of restorative justice, is very important, but we must look at how we can move forward. We must confront some of the home truths, because as well as we would like to be progressive, while we look towards being more progressive in terms of the way in which we seek to advance criminal justice policy, we still put an awful lot of people away in prison in this country. According to the Council of Europe, we have 584 entries into prison per 100,000 population, that far outstrips the European average of 167, and even England and Wales is down at around 197. We need to confront those issues. Why do we put so many people in prison in Scotland, despite all our efforts, despite everything that we have been doing? Restorative justice is one element of that, but we must look more broadly at how we can tackle that and alter what is a flawed model of criminal justice. I do not think that you waffled at all, Mr Johnson. I put John Finnie to be followed by Liam McArthur. I, too, congratulate my colleague Liam Kerr on bringing this matter to the chamber when he asked to sign it at its many differences of opinion between myself and the Conservative Party, but I think that this is a subject worthy of debate and I enjoyed his and indeed other contributions so far. I would like to talk in some of the wording that is in that motion, because I think that it is very important—the motion talks of the importance of restorative justice in complementing, because I think that it is right to say that there isn't one model that should be each individual case in its merits as regards the wellbeing of the victim and the wellbeing of the accused. It talks about the aims to bring those who are harmed by crime together with those who are responsible for crime. Of course, it is very important that engagement is appropriate and it does not compound any difficulties for either party, but perhaps particularly for the victim. It is for that reason that, again, sticking with the motion, we talk about the use of trained facilitators and their role in direct and indirect initiatives, such as face-to-face meeting shuttle dialogue, and one that I should declare an interest to give in my past career on police restorative warnings. The most powerful tool that the police officer in Scotland has is not their sea-incapacitant spray, but their rigid handcuffs for some of them at a firearm. It is the power of discretion and it is to exercise that discretion wisely and proportionately. When the motion also talks about a positive and tailored way forward, I think that that is the direction that we should go. Daniel Johnson and others have talked about the direction of the travel, the presumption against short sentences. An important word again out of the motion is the chance for an apology to be offered in response to crime. It is not only the victim that wants that. Very often, given that most of our crime is committed by young men and most of those young men are under the influence of drinker drugs at the time, often the next day when it becomes upon what they have done, the only two readily some of them would wish to apologise. On to the next phrase in the motion, empowering the victim. That is very important, because the victim has to be in charge of that option. It is an option, and I will not repeat the statistics, but I will repeat the phrase that Liam Kerr used. It is better for the victim. It is evidenced, and that is very important, because as a member of the justice committee, we struggle with various statistics and competing opinions as to what is and isn't good and hard empirical evidence is important. It is not available everywhere, and I think that that is an issue, but we know that not everything is available to everyone providing a sentence. I know in my own area, Murray, the youth justice team, they work with the young offenders aged 18. They are aware of the Scottish Government youth justice plan. I saw that from their website this afternoon. The key objectives to reduce youth offending and the impact that this behaviour has on communities throughout Murray is what it says. Of course, victims are all members of that community of Murray, and in the very short time, I will say that they have a lengthy list, including acceptable behaviour contracts, anger management, safer lives programme, independent living, so on, so forth, including intensive support and monitoring service. That is for young people who have a potential to find themselves in secure accommodation arrangements. In the short time I have left, I want to say that this is an opportunity that dovetails with others. I would disagree with my colleague Liam Kerr that I would say that this is a diversion for prosecution, an alternative prosecution. I think that that is a positive option. However, like everything else, it has to be used proportionately. The wellbeing of the accused has to be a factor, not least as I said, because a lot of those people have been under them to drink their drugs at the time, and the welfare of the victims should be at the forefront. It is very clear that it is not for every victim. Liam Kerr, followed by Oliver Mundell. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I join with others in congratulating Liam Kerr on making this debate possible. He was right to emphasise the importance of raising awareness. I congratulate the other speakers in this debate, because I have long since realised that I took on the role as just a spokesperson for my party, that one of the key planks of my role is to pay tribute to my predecessor, Alison McInnes, on a regular basis. However, in this instance, it is very much merited as she was the member that brought forward the amendment during what is now the 2014 Victims and Witnesses Bill Act 2014 that gave rise to the guidance that we saw published at the end of last year. I would pay tribute to John Finnie, who is perhaps a little local difficulty with those previous party members, who perhaps released them in order to vote in favour of that amendment at stage 2. However, I would pay tribute also to the Government who had a majority at that stage but did not seek to reverse the amendment at stage 3. I think that that is very much to the credit that is reflected also in the debate that we are having this afternoon. If nothing else amplifies and underscores the extent to which we have moved on over that period, there is a better understanding of restorative justice, what it is and what it is not, how it fits, as Daniel Johnson said, in the wider context of what we want to achieve through our criminal justice system. It is not, as I think has been previously assumed, some sort of soft option and it is an option. In some cases it is a hard and very challenging option. As Alison McInnes pointed out at the time of moving her amendment, restorative justice services can assist victims to overcome their experiences and provide a form of accountability and a forum in which to receive an apology. At the same time, it can enable those who have committed crimes to reflect on their actions, take personal responsibility, appreciate the harm that they have caused and start to make amends. That is key to rehabilitation of both parties. I know that it is felt perhaps to be particularly effective in the cases of youth justice, but it is not exclusively the case. It is also worth recalling that the amendment brought forward to the 2014 act reflected article 12 of the EU victims directive, which stipulates that member states must, quote, facilitate the referral of cases as appropriate to restorative justice services, including through the establishment of procedures or guidelines on the conditions of such referral. That directive maintains that victims who choose to participate should have access to safe and competent restorative justice services. I do not think that that is yet happening enough, although, as I said, progress has been made. There is a better understanding, but the benefits are not properly realised due to the slow and patchy extent of that progress. If Alison McInnes were in the chamber now, as well as not sparing her blessings, she might regret the time that it has taken to come forward with that guidance, although Liam Kerr rightly pointed out that the guidance in and of itself is a very positive move and I welcome the content. In 2013, Kenny MacAskill declined the opportunity to set up a short-life working group, thinking that that might hold things back. Instead, he wanted to meet Alison McInnes and other stakeholders in his office. I think that it is confident that that way, swift of progress, was to be made. Therefore, it is a bit disappointing that it took three years for the guidance to be produced. However, there is an opportunity now to press on. Steve Kirkwood and Mary Monroe from the University of Edinburgh were quoted earlier. I noticed that, in writing for Scottish justice matters, they observed recently that, despite the political support—that has been very evident again this evening— there are still too few services offering restorative justice to victims and offenders. Those that exist tend to be for younger people who have committed lower tariff offences and some activity that is labelled restorative justice is not. I think that we can take some reassurance from the tone of the debate that we are having this evening. It will, as Liam Kerr indicated at the outset, help to raise that awareness, but I think that we have some way to go in realising the full potential both for victims and for those who may be likely to re-offend, as we would all wish to do. However, again, I thank Liam Kerr for allowing us this opportunity this evening. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I start by saying to Liam McArthur that I am very confident that, one day, someone else will stand up in this chamber and compliment his efforts in the justice brief. I would like to start by thanking the other Liam Kerr for bringing that motion to the chamber this evening and fording myself and other members the opportunity to talk about this important issue. More importantly than talking about it, I have already enjoyed the opportunity to listen to others. I think that we have heard a number of considered contributions already from across the chamber, and whilst there will be no philosophy here, I have enjoyed the different takes. It is important to remember that, despite whatever political differences exist between the parties on justice issues, there is a lot of common ground. That is a good example of where we can build consensus and improve the experience of the criminal justice system for everyone. Resortive justice provides the opportunity for a victim of crime. I was interested in John Finnie's point about the opportunities that it offers offenders to experience justice in a comprehensive and different way, rather than just through the prosecution and sentencing process alone. It allows the offender to fully face up to the consequences of their actions and better understand the process that led them there in the first place. That is why the evidence from elsewhere around the world shows that it is so successful, because rather than simply focusing on punishment, it allows for that reflection. Unlike mediation, restorative justice does not offer moral playing field that is level. What it does is recognise that a wrong has been done, and it is both for that reason a victim-led process, but it is also one that the offender has to be part of and drive. When it is used effectively, as we have heard, international research has shown that more than 80 per cent of participants in restorative justice initiatives found the process helpful. I do not think that you would hear the same figure in relation to other criminal justice proceedings. It is therefore a little bit disappointing—I am not seeking to make a big point of it—that Scotland seems, in some areas, to be lagging behind. I note the point that Fulton MacGregor makes in relation to his constituency and past experiences, but certainly mine, as a member representing a more rural community, patchy provision across many aspects of criminal justice. It is, in part, inevitable, but exists in a way that is unhelpful, and I think that, with more support and focus, it could be addressed. I think that one of the other points that I would like to draw on is just around the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal inquiry, some of which I saw when I was on the Justice Committee, where we heard a lot of evidence about the breakdown in communication. I think that, most of all, if restorative justice has any benefit, the one that I would single out as a key benefit is the ability to start a dialogue, start a conversation and address misinformation. Obviously, it is not going to be for everyone. It is a forum that sits alongside the formal trial process, and I think that it is not right in every case, and it is not intended, necessarily, always to replace prosecution and sentencing, but it rather recognises that prosecution and sentencing is only one dimension to achieve justice for victims and rehabilitation for offenders. The last of the open debate contributions is from Lewis MacDonald. Thank you very much. I congratulate Liam Kerr on bringing this debate, and I commend the principles of restorative justice that he has described. It can be tempting, as we have heard, to think about restorative justice as an alternative to action under the existing justice system, but I agree with Liam Kerr that we should resist that temptation. The experience of existing alternatives to prosecution suggests that restorative justice cannot be based on goodwill alone. Restitution needs to be enforceable, and that principle must apply in future, too. Requiring offenders to meet their victims and to apologise for their crimes can encourage offenders to face up to the consequences of their actions, perhaps make them think twice about committing another crime and help to reduce re-offending overall. Restorative justice is equally important for victims. Their recovery can be helped by the knowledge that offenders have paid a price for their crimes and paid their debts to society, whether that is through a community sentence or through financial compensation to the victim. When victims do not see justice being done by contrast, measures that are intended to deliver restorative justice can undermine their faith in the justice system. My constituent Michelle Gavin, for example, has had that experience. Two years ago, she was the victim of damage to a property when a man entered her garden. The bill ran into hundreds of pounds. The Crown Office took the apparently reasonable decision to offer the offender the option of paying compensation direct to his victim, so that the offender would not be taken to court and the victim would benefit from a form of restorative justice. Two years later, with not a penny paid, that fiscal compensation offer is something that Michelle Gavin has had cause to regret. The offender has not paid. The Crown Office is effectively unable to do anything about it. He has been arrested and warranted, detained in custody and taken to court for non-payment not once but three times. On each occasion, the justice of the piece has set new payment terms and told the offender that he should pay the compensation but to no avail. If that was a fine imposed by the courts, the fines enforcement officers employed by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service would be able to take action, but because that was a fiscal compensation offer, there is no effective sanction that fines enforcement officers can take. Critically, offenders who have received a fiscal compensation offer are under no obligation to complete a declaration of income form. Without that, fines enforcement officers cannot know whether offenders are in work or on benefits, they cannot identify bank accounts or arrest wages or benefits or savings. If a fines enforcement officer encourages an offender to provide such information on a voluntary basis and the offender's defence agent does not, the outcome, sadly, is all too predictable. Not only that, but when it comes to fines and compensation offers issued by ffiscals, courts cannot impose an alternative sentence as they would for fines imposed by a court, like a community payback order, so there is no incentive for the offender to pay up. In a case like Michelle Gavin's, an effort to achieve restorative justice without the full powers of enforcement available under the traditional justice system has actually done the opposite of what was intended. In such a case, the victim loses faith in the justice system, the offender does not require to change behaviours and justice is not seen to be done. As we go further down the road of restorative justice, as I believe and very strongly believe that we should, we need to learn those lessons in order to achieve the desired results. Annabelle Ewing will respond to the debate for around seven minutes, please minister. I congratulate Liam Kerr on securing the debate on restorative justice this afternoon. I thank all members for their interesting contributions. Over the last decade, Scotland has become a safer place with less crime and better support for victims. Restorative justice offers an opportunity to build on this progress. Restorative justice can, crucially, provide victims with the chance to have their voice heard and their questions answered. It can also help to tackle the likelihood of someone being drawn into further offending. It is a particularly powerful tool when used to address the behaviour of young people who can learn so much from a dialogue with those harmed by their actions. That can potentially lead to a route out of crime and the revolving door of the justice system. However, we are keen that the main benefit is felt by victims of crime, giving them an opportunity to communicate the impact on their lives and regain some control. Our vision is to have high-quality restorative justice services available across Scotland. Our vision includes the need to have victims' interests and needs at the heart of the restorative justice process and ensuring that further harm is avoided. We also recognise the need to build public awareness, as has been referred to tonight, and understanding what restorative justice is and the benefits that it can deliver. As a step towards achieving that vision, we published guidance for the delivery of restorative justice in Scotland in October last year, as has been referred to. That guidance was, in fact, developed in partnership with a range of stakeholders, most notably the members of the Restorative Justice Forum, which includes Police Scotland, Sacro, Victim Support Scotland, among others. I would like to take this opportunity to thank forum members for their contribution and for their role in championing restorative justice over the years. The guidance is aimed at practitioners and facilitators. It sets out the principles that need to be followed in a restorative justice process. A key principle is that participation in the process must be voluntary for both the victim and the person who has caused the harm. That is an important point that is worth stressing. Yes, we want to see and need to raise awareness of restorative justice, but we need to do so in a manner that recognises that there is no obligation on either party to participate. Now that the guidance has been published, we plan to consult by the end of this year on an order under section 5 of the Victims and Witnesses Act 2014 to prescribe which bodies must have regard to it. In addition to publishing the new guidance document, we also wanted to get a better understanding of the current provision of restorative justice in local areas throughout Scotland. We have therefore surveyed local authority community and youth justice teams to investigate how restorative justice is currently being delivered and to help to identify any barriers that may be hindering its use. We aim to publish our survey findings before the summer recess, and hopefully that will help to respond to some of the points that were made tonight on that very subject. However, we do see evidence that there is good work already under way in a number of areas. For example, stakeholders in Aberdeen are working with community justice Scotland and SACRO to increase and improve diversion from prosecution. That includes the provision of access to restorative justice services in Shetland, the space to face project, certainly. The constituent to whom I referred earlier was indeed in Aberdeen, and I wonder whether she would accept the point that, in taking that exploration forward, regard has to be had to the need to enforce where there is a diversion for justice if that diversion for justice is not honoured by the offender. That was Lewis Macdonald. This is now Annabelle Ewing. I heard the point that the member made about his constituent, and I am not entirely sure whether that has been the subject of correspondence with the Scottish Government or not, but the member is nodding his head. As regards any decision made by the local fiscal as to how to proceed in any given case, it is not a matter for ministers. However, I note the wider point about enforcement in circumstances in which fiscal compensation orders are imposed, and I will ensure that that is drawn to the attention of officials. We will have a look at that. In Shetland, in the space to face project, that enables young offenders to work with trained artists to make a gift of artwork for the person they have harmed. Offences included within the area that the project has covered have included assault, cyberbullying, theft, breach of the peace, fraud and vandalism. In Edinburgh, restorative justice processes are being developed for those serving community payback orders related to hate crime. To support that work, an information sharing protocol has been developed, and staff have been trained in the delivery of restorative justice. Those examples demonstrate how restorative justice processes can be tailored to local need. They also highlight some of the challenges associated with the expansion of restorative justice provision across the country. Challenges such as how and when to contact victims—indeed, each victim's journey is unique, as is the point at which they may feel willing and able to participate in a restorative justice process. In some cases, that might be months or even years, in other cases, in terms of when the crime was committed. Contact protocols that recognise the challenge and which are compliant with data protection legislation are therefore required. We also need to ensure that high-quality training is available for restorative justice facilitators. That is essential to ensure that services are of a consistent standard and are carried out safely and effectively. A third challenge and one that this debate is helping to address, and that point has been made by speakers tonight, is that we need to build public awareness and understanding of restorative justice and the benefits that it can deliver. We need to promote restorative justice as an option that runs in tandem with and complements the mainstream criminal justice system. It is not a replacement for it, nor, as Liam McArthur said, a soft option for those who do harm. I believe that the cross-party support that is provided to this motion, and indeed the welcome tone of the debate tonight, Presiding Officer, do well illustrate that we have achieved a good degree of consensus on those points. Finally, there is a need for clarity on the roles and responsibilities of all those involved in encouraging, managing and delivering restorative justice in Scotland. That will require commitment and support from local authorities, public sector bodies and third sector partners and volunteers. The challenges are clear and we are committed to providing strategic leadership to address them. We will build on the momentum of our work to date and consider how best to encourage the development and delivery of restorative justice in Scotland. One potential option could be the development of a national strategic framework to inform work at a local level, ensuring access to existing restorative justice services and the development of further provision to meet the needs of victims. We are working with community justice Scotland to scope out our next steps. Consultation and engagement with stakeholders, including local authorities and the restorative justice forum, will follow. To conclude, Presiding Officer, we want restorative justice to be a key component of our justice system, empowering victims and enabling offenders to take responsibility and to make amends. We will continue to work with our partners to turn this vision into a reality. That concludes the debate. The meeting is closed.