We turn now to item 5. I do not seem to have received a copy of paper J1/02/40/2 by the adviser and the clerk, which is headed "Community Sanctions in Europe". Do other members have it?
Yes.
I do not appear to have it among my papers. This is the first that I have seen of it. I ask members to bear with me.
Is there not a case for requesting written evidence in the first instance? We could consider following that up with a visit, if necessary.
From which sources should we seek written evidence?
From all the countries to which reference has been made.
I ask our adviser to indicate which officials we should approach.
That varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some of the information that I have collected comes from published materials, whereas other information comes from officials. I have contacts with officials in Denmark and the Netherlands. It would be easy to find out who the appropriate officials are.
I ask our adviser to provide us with a list of those officials, which we will e-mail to members. Members may indicate whether they are content with that.
I recall that we held a videoconference with an academic from Canada. It may be possible to do the same with recognised academics in one of the countries that are mentioned in the paper.
I ask our adviser to indicate on the list of contacts that he will supply to the committee which of them would be worth questioning via video link. In our previous videoconference, the exchanges were a bit stiff, because of the time lag between questions and answers.
It would be interesting for us to follow up the information that we have received about how the Netherlands is approaching this issue—especially the idea of short-term detention combined with intensive training in community services. I am not sure what that programme involves, but it would be interesting to obtain more background information on it.
The paper states:
The paper states that in Norway
I have limited knowledge of jurisdictions such as Norway and Finland. The paper states:
Do you have any statistics on how successful those countries have been? We do not seem to have any about how successful we are.
From the evidence that I have gathered, I have found data on prisoner recidivism rates in Denmark and Sweden but no systematic evaluation of community sanctions. In many jurisdictions—even in the Netherlands for example—a systematic evaluation of community sanctions has not been undertaken.
The problem is that we can look at as many programmes as we want, but we do not know whether they are proven to work.
I agree with Maureen Macmillan, but we are looking at countries where the recidivism rate is lower and fewer people per head of population are jailed. If countries are achieving that, the implication is that people are jailed for more serious crimes—they are the more hardened criminals. If those countries have a lower rate of recidivism than our rate of about 50 per cent, that is, to an extent, a proxy measure for success. One of our problems is that more than half of the people we put into prison will end up going back into prison.
We need to consider the logistics. I share Wendy Alexander's view about finding out about video links and so forth to get more detail on programmes in Finland for example, about which we have a lot of information. If committee members want to undertake a visit, I suggest that that would have to be along the lines of a visit to the Netherlands to look at its short-term detention programme, which is combined with intensive training and community service programmes.
I thank Neil Hutton.
Throughout our preparation for today's meeting and our submission, we have been concerned to address effectiveness. Fundamentally, we are concerned with providing evidence to the committee about what we regard as effective practice in work with offenders. By effectiveness, we mean effectiveness at reducing or stopping reoffending. That is the basis from which we start and on which we undertake to answer the questions that the committee asks.
You referred to 14,000 community disposals a year. Can you split them up?
Yes. In 2001-02, 6,500 community service orders were issued. The committee might be interested to know that 21 per cent of those orders were breached, and that the maximum length of an order is one year. In that year, 7,057 probation orders were issued.
Was that in 2001-02?
Yes. Probation orders run for a minimum of six months to a maximum of three years, and 27 per cent were breached. In the same time span, 2,610 supervised attendance orders were made, 18 per cent of which were breached.
What is the duration of a supervised attendance order?
They are for a number of hours, from 10 to a maximum of 100.
Over what period do they run?
The order must be completed within one year.
Aside from the inquiries for risk assessments, do all the orders take up social work hours?
Yes. All the programmes involve the use of qualified social worker time for assessments and for the delivery of the programmes and supervisory time is required for community-based supervision of unpaid work. We also use the voluntary sector widely to provide components of the disposals.
Do you or your colleagues have statistics for the preceding years? That would allow us to get an idea of whether there has been a substantial increase in demand.
My research covered the period from 1991 to 2001. Without reference to individual years, I can say that over that period there was a general increase of between 14 and 16 per cent in the use of community disposals.
Thank you. Your comments have been helpful and have given us some background on the work load.
It would be useful to have a copy of the figures that Chris Hawkes gave.
The research to which our submission refers, which was based on a large study of 100,000 offenders throughout North America, found that disposals are most effective when they are targeted properly and that if programmes are targeted inappropriately, they can be ineffective. The research went further and stated that if low-risk offenders are given disposals that are more appropriate for high-risk offenders, the programmes are more likely to go wrong and the person involved is more likely to reoffend. Conversely, intensive programmes are more likely to be successful if they are targeted at high-risk offenders.
Who makes the judgment about whether a disposal is appropriate? If we persuade the Executive to give you more and better-targeted money, could you produce a better system and cope with the demand?
The person who makes the decision is the sheriff—or another representative of the judiciary—who has the offender before them. They are informed by the social inquiry report, which contains the risk assessment and the recommendation about what form of community disposal might be appropriate.
Which offences are classed as low-risk offences and which are classed as high-risk offences?
A significant amount of work on that issue has been done over about 10 years. Rifkind's important work was followed by subsequent Parliaments' recognition of the need for the development of a twin-track policy in Scotland. Such a policy recognised that high-risk offenders—by which we mean offenders who present a risk of reoffending and of causing harm to the community—need to be in custody. There was no equivocation about that—high-risk offenders have to be in custody for the protection of the community. The other side of the twin-track policy stated that low-risk offenders are dealt with more effectively in the community.
Let me clarify what you said. In relation to low-risk offenders, you were referring to people who are sentenced to six months or less rather than to those who serve six months or less.
I was referring to those who are sentenced to six months or less.
They probably serve half of that.
That is correct.
You mentioned your relationship with the sheriffs. I would like to know how that works. You present the social inquiry report, which recommends a disposal, and then you have a dialogue with the sheriff. There must be cases when the sheriff does not agree with you. How often does that happen?
Of the 34,670 social inquiry reports that were requested, the number that attracted community-based disposals was 14,000. You can therefore see the relationship between the recommendation and the outcome. Sheriffs prefer us to use the language of options rather than that of recommendations.
Thank you. That is useful.
I hear what you say. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to wish to put on record that it is for the sheriff to make the decision and not for any of the professionals from whom the sheriff seeks advice, whether they be social workers, psychiatrists or whatever.
We suggest sentencing options; we do not recommend.
I just wanted you to make that clear because I suspect that the sheriffs would be jumping about if they read the Official Report and it is not made clear that the decision is ultimately at the discretion of the judiciary.
I want to pick up on the second point of the question about the dialogue that goes on the between the report writer—
Could you clarify that?
Sometimes there is dialogue in that situation and sometimes there is no clarification of what the report actually says. The committee might be interested in the wider dialogue that consists of the formal meetings between local authorities and sheriffs or sheriffs principal that take place regularly across Scotland. Those meetings discuss annually how the criminal justice social work services are delivered.
The committee has heard on numerous occasions that little or no research is being undertaken in Scotland that would seek to provide a comprehensive evaluation or assessment of the effectiveness of alternatives to custody. Given that there seems to be widespread support for alternatives, why do you think that this situation has persisted?
That is an accurate reflection. The research to which I referred earlier is North American research and it has not been validated in Scotland. We regard that as a significant weakness. We understand that that is because there is no established mechanism for accessing the criminal records organisation in order to track cohorts of offenders who undertake programmes. Although one might do a complete offending population survey—as was undertaken in 1995—that information is not routinely available for tracking specific cohorts of offenders.
What changes would be required in order to make research results more readily available?
We would require cohorts of offenders who undertake intensive programmes of probation and community services to be tracked during the period of supervision—
I might be terribly dim, but what is a cohort?
It is a group of individual offenders at any one time—a collection or a number of offenders.
Is it a statistical term?
It can be used statistically.
All the members are helping me now. I wish I had not declared my ignorance in public.
Can I take it then that you would support research along those lines if it would gather that information and allow proper analysis to be made with appropriate conclusions?
I apologise for the use of the word. Just to repeat the point, we need to be able to access the criminal records of those offenders in Scotland who undertake intensive programmes of intervention. We could then consider the period of the intervention, and two years after the intervention, and see whether the offenders reappear in either the Scottish courts or other courts within the wider jurisdiction.
I think that you have probably answered at least part of my next question, but it would be helpful if you could clarify exactly what your position is.
I should make it clear that we do not provide all the programmes ourselves. We also commission and are involved in arrangements with the voluntary sector. That allows a much wider range of programmes to be offered.
Can you give an example of that?
We work with Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending—SACRO—on programmes that address offending behaviour and promote effective practice. In some groupings, SACRO provides services rather than the local authority.
What services do you provide?
Local authorities can provide services such as programme work with sex offenders in the community. We work with people who have addiction problems and help them access services. There are a range of programmes specifically targeting the various problems that offenders might have, such as alcohol or drug addiction, sex offending, anger management and so on.
Would the sex offenders that you are talking about be people who had been given long or short sentences?
It could be both. If the person had been given a longer sentence, they would just be coming out of prison, so you would hope that the work that was done with them at that point would dovetail with the work that had been done in prison. Our programme in Aberdeenshire fits onto the back of Peterhead's STOP programme. It is designed to be modular, so that there is coherence between the two programmes. In the main, the programmes that we work on deal with people who have been convicted of lighter offences.
Have you ever had any difficulty finding a place in a community for someone who has left prison?
There have been a number of high-profile cases involving difficulties in placing people who have come out of prison after serving a sentence for sex offences. However, the vast majority of people are resettled.
Have you found the problems insoluble?
We have found the Sex Offenders Act 1997 to be particularly helpful in that regard, as there is now a requirement for sex offenders to be subject to registration. That allows the police and the local authority to risk-assess the person who is coming out of prison or who has arrived in an area. It is for those two organisations to manage the risk. One of the large components that we find in relation to managing risk is accommodation. In locating an offender of that kind in the community, we have to ensure that they are not in the immediate vicinity of schools, playgroups or other places where children go.
Your written submission quotes from research evidence from Canada, which suggests that high programme intervention in high-risk cases reduces recidivism. Can you elaborate on that and indicate how you think that that concept can usefully be applied in Scotland?
We have tried to adopt the work described in the submission, which is based on several principles. First, offenders must be assessed in terms of risk, and you must target whom you work with. Secondly, you must be sure that the right programmes and materials are used when working with offenders. That is known as the responsivity principle. It must also be ensured that the wide range of other needs that an offender has are being met. Therefore, it is not just about addressing the person's offending behaviour; it is about taking account of learning needs and other factors that may be a feature in the offender's life, such as unemployment, addiction, homelessness or poor relationships. Those principles combine to describe what is known as the effective practice agenda, which is covered within that research. When those programmes and components are put together, it results in the successful outcomes that have been claimed from North America.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked for a specific example. One example is the original STOP programme at Peterhead prison, which was developed from a Canadian model.
We are well aware of the STOP programme.
I have a brief point on the effectiveness of the programmes. You mentioned the research issue and I want to crystallise some of the points that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton raised. There is no conclusive evidence that alternatives to custody are, in fact, a massive success. You cannot tell me that you have conclusive evidence that cannot be contradicted in any way. The important question is whether you think that we will ever achieve the goal of obtaining research that will undoubtedly conclude that alternatives to custody are a massive success.
First, the programmes that have been described have not been validated in Scotland. We are at the very early stages of delivering the American style of intervention with Scottish offenders.
I will make the point in terms of the resources that you will ask the Executive to continue directing to alternatives to custody. Effectively, you do not have a business plan—which is the analogy that I use—to show how effective the programmes are. If you were starting a new business and told a bank manager that you were developing a really effective business, you would need to prove that in the form of a business case. My point is that you do not have a business case that actually proves that alternatives to custody work. I am not saying that I think that alternatives to custody are not successful; the issue is proving that they are successful.
That is an interesting concept. I suppose that in that situation our business plan would be about margins. In terms of the evidence that exists, the community disposals—alternatives to custody—are at least as effective as imprisonment. They are certainly cheaper. The perception of the judiciary, people who have successfully completed them and the professionals involved is that they are a success. There is evidence—it may not be the conclusive research evidence that Paul Martin asked about—to back up the assertions that we have made. The community disposals are at least as effective and they are cheaper.
In your submission you state:
That is not really a question for the witnesses, but it is a point to put on the record.
Exactly.
We use two mechanisms in Scotland that have been developed and validated in another jurisdiction. They are very reliable in determining whether offenders are low, medium or high risk, in the categories of both re-offending and the potential to cause harm. Those programmes have been rolled out across Scotland, so there is consistent use of risk assessment tools throughout Scotland.
Does that answer the question?
It is good to know that the tools are there. Having a process is one thing, but if two people carried out the risk assessment exercise would they be likely to reach the same conclusion? I am trying to get a view of how disputed the status of offenders would be. If we were to say that 20 per cent of offenders are high risk and 80 per cent are low risk, would the disputed cases be in the region of 20 per cent? How easy is it to establish their status? To what extent does the profession have a common view on the matter?
I am not sure that I can answer that technical question specifically. I can say that the models of risk assessment that we use have been validated and are widely used in other jurisdictions.
Where?
They are used across England and in North America.
That is very useful.
The final paragraph on page 3 of your submission states:
Community service was intended, from the original community service legislation, to be a direct alternative to custody. When the sentencing court is considering a sentence of imprisonment, it has the freedom to consider a community-based option. That is the community punishment aspect of the community service order.
Why do you think that people who breach a community service order are not getting custodial sentences?
I am afraid that that question would have to be directed to the sentencers.
But what you are saying is that the disposal is being used like a deferred sentence.
With the addition of unpaid work.
It is being used virtually as a way of getting unpaid work in the community. It is being used as a reparations disposal, as opposed to an alternative to custody. What lies behind the issue is perhaps the fact that the sheriff wants to bring into being a reparations disposal and, for whatever reason, he or she ignores the fact that a community service order is an alternative to custody. Sheriffs are seeking to do something that is about reparations.
Do you want to develop that, Michael?
Yes. If a person does not get a custodial sentence when they break their community service order, what do they get instead?
More often than not, a request is made for the order to be continued, so the offender has a second bite at the cherry. They are required on a second occasion to undertake a community service order or to continue the original community service order.
So in effect there is no real penalty for breaching the order.
We are not seeing custody being used consistently for the breach of community service orders, in contrast to what one would expect if such an order was regarded as an alternative to custody.
I could argue the contrary view. From the point of view of alternatives to custody, are you suggesting one strike and you are out, so that if an order is breached, down comes the sword of Damocles and you are in prison?
No, we are not advocating that the person should then go immediately to prison—one strike and you are out. All that we are saying is that if a community service order is an alternative to custody, then at a high level one strike would probably operate. We are actually pleased that the person does get another chance and that other alternatives are looked at, because the business is one of making sure that it is not just a case of trying one community disposal and if it does not work they go to prison. That would be the wrong approach. We would not support that.
So you support the view that if somebody breaches an order—and I am not condoning that—for various reasons, because they have an unstructured life, they should get other opportunities.
Absolutely.
I want to be sure what a community service order would involve. The witnesses said that it was just a way of obtaining free work, for example painting fences. Is there nothing else?
The requirement for community service is that the person complies with the conditions of the order. The order of the court requires them first to inform the local authority of their address. They are not allowed to move address without the consent of the local authority. Secondly, they are required to undertake unpaid work within the community, up to a maximum of 300 hours, which has to be undertaken within one year. That work is significant to many local authorities. In my authority area, which is Scottish Borders Council, something in the region of 19,000 hours of unpaid work is carried out in the community each year. That work builds footpaths and bridle-ways and public amenities in forests. Where appropriate, work is also done with individuals who are in need, such as the elderly or those who have special needs.
Should that not be combined with programmes to address their offending behaviour?
It can be. A probation order can be part of a community service order, but it need not be. The two can stand alone. What we do know is that community service is most effective where the work that is undertaken is undertaken with people, not things. It is much more helpful when someone who is sentenced to a community service order is working alongside people and seeing the benefit of that and interacting with people, than if they are simply clearing a ditch, for example. The issue is how people are helped in a socially inclusive way.
It might be useful to see how specific the wording of community service orders is once information that is subject to data protection legislation is removed.
I had finished.
If you wished, you could reciprocate and ask one of Maureen Macmillan's questions.
I would not do that.
Which question did I pinch?
Number 8.
Oh, right.
I have distracted you from your thoughts.
Yes, you have.
That is often the response in some of the press. However, the people who are subject to community disposals do not think that they are a soft option. They think that the orders are much harder than simply being sent to prison for a comparatively short time. After all, the initial shock of prison wears off for people after their first time.
Are we winning the battle then? Do you think that the public can come to realise that a community service order is an appropriate punishment and is not a soft option?
We are further down that line than we were. Now that disposals are rolling out across the community, people are finding them more effective. However, it will be a continuing battle and we need to ensure that the disposals are tough and that people are required to comply with them. People will see and accept that.
Do you want to move on, Maureen?
Well, I hope that I am not about to pinch someone else's question.
I think that Michael Matheson is about to take his revenge.
We have mentioned restorative justice and so on. I just wanted to know what kind of community service orders would be most appropriate. What mechanism will most convince the public that orders are appropriate? You said that it helps if offenders work with people. However, how can communities feel that they have an input?
Ultimately, people will be satisfied with the disposals that courts have available only when they see a reduction in offending in their community. Further to my point about the evidence base, we also know that the services provided by local authorities are more effective than prisons at reducing recidivism. Our task is to convince the public that they should invest more in the service's provision. Actually, the service is still very cheap, given the number of offenders that are covered in any 12-month period.
You said that the service is cheap. Do you have any costs for it? We eventually found out the cost of a prisoner place.
For the current year, the cost of the criminal justice social work service in Scotland is £61 million. Some of that money has been retained, and we are aware that an allocation of £51.5 million is spread across the 32 authorities in Scotland. That compares with £221 million for the prison estate.
You are telling us that community disposals are considerably cheaper than prison. I know that this is a blunt measure, but what is the cost to the public purse of six months of a community service order, as compared with the cost of keeping someone in prison for that time?
The cost of a community service order, which runs for 12 months, is £1,300.
Is that the total cost?
Yes.
Does it include staff and supervision costs?
Yes.
The figure of £1,300 is the average cost of a community service order across Scotland. The figure varies from place to place. It is more expensive to provide orders in rural areas than in urban areas.
It would be useful if you could provide us with broken-down figures.
Perception plays an important part in overcoming public concern about the use of community disposals, which—as has already been mentioned—are often seen as a soft option. People perceive crime as being on the up, but the statistics suggest that it is not. The police are trying to tackle that by increasing their visible presence—by making themselves better known and by being seen around the community.
The member's point is well made. We do not advertise sufficiently the work that is done under community service. I can speak only for the authority for which I work. The criminal justice page on the Scottish Borders Council's website includes photographs of the work that our community service teams do. I accept that the website is not accessible to the mass of the community and that we need to do more to advertise a significant amount of voluntary, unpaid work that is done in communities every year. People should be aware of that work—it is our fault that they are not.
Publicising community service is a double-edged sword, because people may say that offenders are keeping folk out of jobs. I take the point that you make, but if community service is a substitute for jobs that other people might have done, the public may not react in the way that you expect.
Local authorities have always made it clear that community service should consist of work that would not be done by people in paid employment. A range of approaches has been developed to ensure that we do not expose ourselves to the real criticism that the convener has identified.
I am glad that you recognise the need to publicise more the work that individuals subject to community service orders do, but I am not sure how that should be done. Do you have ideas for tackling the problem?
Traditionally, we have reported to council committees, so that the information is made available in a local government setting. I blame Billy Connolly for saying that probation is a soft option—folk still have that idea in their mind. We need someone high profile to be up front about what is happening. We need people such as this committee to stand up and support community disposals and recognise that they are a tough option. The more that that message gets across, the better it will be, but I do not think that there is a simple answer.
I do not know whether we are at that stage yet. We are just looking at all the options at the moment. I will make Donald Gorrie the last to ask a question as we are running behind schedule and should move on.
On the background, the wee chart in your written evidence mentions high and low-risk cases and their results after minimal and intensive treatment. By intensive treatment, do you mean only sending the person to jail, or do you also mean intensive courses such as the Freagarrach project or the airborne initiative to try to turn the person around outside jail?
It is intensive treatment that is designed to address the person's offending behaviour as well as recognising the other problems that exist within an offender's life, such as drugs, alcohol, unemployment and a lack of accommodation. The intensity comes from delivering a programme intensively. The change programme, which is being used in some parts of Scotland, requires the offender to have 130 hours of programmed work. They come to a group-work environment and receive 130 hours that focus on addressing their offending behaviour and the other areas of dysfunction in their lives.
I am still not clear. Is that intensive treatment outwith jail?
It is outwith jail.
So there would be a separate column to say whether jail is effective or not.
Yes. We have seen from the American research that incarceration produces an increase in reoffending of between 3 and 7 per cent above the norm of what we would expect for reoffending. Prison had a worse outcome than normal, while intensive community-based programmes showed a 33 per cent improvement against the norm.
What I found most surprising about your evidence is that if the low-risk cases are hit by the proverbial ton of bricks, it does them more harm than if the case is dealt with more gently. Is that what you are saying?
That is what the research states.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is looking at me quizzically. I said that that would be the last question, but who am I to deny Lord James? He is so charming.
I want to come in with a brief question on social inquiry reports.
I think that we felt that the social inquiry reports had been dealt with in earlier evidence.
I just have one brief question. When the judge calls for a social inquiry report, is there any problem in social workers being able to provide those reports in time for when the court considers the case? Do you find circumstances in which social workers are so overworked that they cannot deliver what the court requires? Secondly, are social workers cross-examined in open court or are they sometimes asked questions in private in the judge's chambers? Do you have any comments to make about whether you consider the present system to be satisfactory?
On the second part—whether we are required to give evidence on oath and whether evidence is given in the privacy of the sheriff's chambers—the facility exists for us to give evidence on oath if any of the information in social inquiry reports is contested. However, that is not normal practice. Social inquiry reports are submitted as written documents to the court, and only occasionally would we be required to substantiate a point within one.
It would be highly irregular for anything to happen in chambers outwith the hearing of the defence.
I asked that question because I know that that happened a long time ago. From what you said, can I take it that it does not happen now?
It should not happen now.
Is it the case that the judge will not give his disposal until he has received a report?
If a judge has asked for a report, and there are certain statutory requirements, he or she cannot pass sentence without having seen it.
If the social worker is late in giving his report, it is a nuisance for the court, but it will not materially damage the outcome of the case.
It does not disadvantage the offender. As regards the timescale required, the court will routinely use three weeks for a person who is at liberty and two weeks where they are remanded in custody. However, in some of the busier courts, I believe that the practice is now four weeks for those in the community.
I know that members want to ask further questions, but we are now running some 25 minutes behind time. I suggest that members send their questions to the clerks. The answers will then be published in a public document.
Yes, that is fine.
Can you tell us about your background and why you were in prison? I will then ask a supplementary question to set it in context.
It was under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977. I was charged with being in possession with intent to supply. I was sentenced to 18 months.
How long did you serve?
I served a total of nine months—half the sentence.
The committee is aware that prison can have a damaging effect on a person's life. Was that the first time you were in prison?
Yes, it was.
First and last?
Yes, first and last.
Can you tell us about your experience and the impact that prison had on you?
At the time I was sentenced, I had been on bail for a year. In that year, I turned my entire life around. When I was charged, I realised that much of my life had been falling apart. I had split up with a partner. I had been trying to deal with things from my childhood, which I will not really go into. There had been a few things. I lost my job due to a back injury. I went back to college to retrain and got myself involved in a lot of things that I probably should not have.
In a way, it must have been worse when you were incarcerated after having, as you think, redeemed yourself. How did you react to being put in prison?
I found it very difficult at first, but my family and friends found it more difficult than I did. I accepted that I had made mistakes and that I would be punished for them. My friends and family were disconsolate and upset because they felt that I had done everything possible to prove that I would not reoffend. They felt that I had dealt with the problems that had placed me in the situations that caused me to offend. I had removed myself from those circles and tried to better myself. I also have two children but, when I went to court, none of those factors was taken into account.
May I play the hard man? Some people might suggest that you did those things only to prevent yourself from being sent to prison. I am sure that that was said to you at the time. Therefore, were you resentful when you were sent to prison?
At the beginning, I was not resentful. I felt slightly resentful after a while because although I tried to continue my education while in prison, that was not possible. Even though I had been accepted on an HND course, when I made the right moves to be placed in education in the prison system, it was not available. The prison did not have the hardware or the software to allow me to continue to study. I lost the ability to continue with my HND because the year in prison knocked me so far back that everything that I had learned in my HNC was no longer useful.
You are not obliged to answer this question. Were you a drug user?
Yes.
Therefore, that problem had to be dealt with in the prison system also.
That problem had been dealt with before I entered the prison system.
Were any aspects of your time in prison positive? Did it do you any good?
No.
Are you employed now?
I had a few difficulties when I was released in April. I already had a curriculum vitae but, so that I would know where I stood when applying for jobs, I went back to Apex and was given a lot of advice on issues such as disclosure. I continued to apply for jobs and eventually got one, but after five weeks my employment was terminated because of my criminal record. I applied and was invited to attend an interview for a job in the new infirmary. I took my disclosure letter with me, but it did not become an issue at the interview. It turned out that an engineer, a manageress and I all had things in our past that became a difficulty once the hospital trust vetted us. I had worked for four to five weeks when my record became an issue. Once it became an issue, I gave my employer a copy of my record and a copy of my disclosure letter. Two days later, they came back to me, terminated my contract and demanded that I be escorted off the premises.
What is a disclosure letter?
It discloses the nature of a person's offences, the amount of time served in prison, and what the person has done to rehabilitate him or herself. How much information there is in a disclosure letter will depend on the person.
Is it a legal requirement for you to produce a disclosure letter for employers?
I think that it is. Many application forms ask about previous convictions. I was told that rather than put down the convictions, it was best to state in the application form that a confidential letter was attached—which is the disclosure letter.
How did you become involved with the Apex project? Was Apex helpful?
I found it very helpful and still do. I continue to do a lot of work with Apex. I am in full employment—as a self-employed person—but I still do bits and pieces for Apex and keep in regular contact with it.
Can you specify how you got in touch with Apex and what it did—just to put some flesh on that?
I was treated as unemployed when I left college. I began to apply for jobs, but I knew that I was likely to get a prison sentence and that that would be an issue for me. Therefore, I started early to delve for information on how I would deal with that and what would happen when I later applied for jobs. In the year that I was out on bail I did a lot of work to find out how things would affect me. I felt that I knew what I had done wrong. Obviously, I still had to deal with the repercussions of that. However, I wanted to go into that with an open mind because I was trying to change my life round. I wanted to get as much information as I could to better my life and get back into work.
My understanding is that Apex tries to help ex-offenders to gain employment. You mentioned that Apex gave you assistance with a disclosure letter. Was it able to give you any other directions or information, or recommend other projects in which you could participate to help you to obtain employment?
Apex is very helpful with information, but particularly with advice about whether the kind of work that people want to do is a good idea. Obviously, people who have committed particular offences will not be able to get certain jobs or take on certain roles. Apex gives lots of information on that, but it also tries to bring people out of themselves, lift their confidence and let them see that there are jobs available to them, which they would be capable of doing if they put their mind to it.
How long does Apex continue to give people such support?
I do not think that it has a time limit. My official relationship with Apex was through a 13-week course, but afterwards it was open for Apex to contact me regularly to see how I was doing. That is done on a friendly, open basis. I have continued with that because I get on well with the staff and like the support that they give me. I like a lot of the work that they do and would like to get involved with some of it. That is probably why I keep myself more involved with Apex than other people might do.
What was involved in the 13-week course?
It had a lot to do with building up a curriculum vitae and working on what to put into the disclosure letter, which obviously included the basic facts of what I had been charged with and what I felt had led up to that. It was very difficult for some of the lads on the course to deal with that and work through all those things.
There are obviously many young offenders in total in Scotland, particularly in the 18-to-24 age group. The committee has a dilemma. Organisations such as Apex probably provide a higher quality of service because they are distant or separate from the prison regime: offenders have a bit of independence, and they are relatively comfortable. On the other hand, there is a desire for throughcare to be provided for everybody, and there is an expectation for us to aspire to something that is part of core service provision, whereby anybody—particularly any young person—has opportunities, particularly at the end of their prison experience. Do you have any thoughts to guide us on this? How do we give the best experience that we can to any young offender caught in the system, both during and after prison?
It probably involves having a lot more involvement with throughcare staff, with Apex or with SACRO. I found their involvement to be of great benefit. However, the environment within the jail system does not suggest that they are working together; it is as if they are continually working against each other. I found that very difficult. We might be told in writing that support and help was there for us, but when we went to try and get that help or support, it was made very difficult.
That is a bit worrying.
I did a lot of work with throughcare staff when I was in prison. Before I was imprisoned, I had a council house. After I was imprisoned, I was approached by a couple who told me that they would be buying a new house within a couple of weeks of my getting out of prison. As the rent for the rented apartment where they were living at the time was a lot dearer than mine was, they said that they would live in my house and pay full rent when I was in prison. That would mean that, once I came out of prison, I would still have somewhere to live, where I could get settled with my children again. I thought that that was a great idea. I approached the throughcare staff and at first was told that they had no problem with that arrangement. If full rent was going to be paid, they would be quite happy.
There is obviously work to be done in that area. When we spoke to people in prison, one of their biggest concerns was housing when they left prison. It is extremely important to deal with that.
As I said, I was very lucky. I have a very supportive network of family and friends. However, I feel really hurt and saddened for some of the other lads. They had nothing and they were coming out to nothing. No wonder people get back into the swing of reoffending and go back in through the revolving door.
What happened with your children?
There was a large effect on them. While I was in prison, it was very difficult for me to have access to them as I had always had before. Luckily, through support from family and friends, the children managed to get to me. Because I kept myself totally drug free the whole time I was in prison, I was eventually moved to an open prison, which meant that I had much better contact with the children. Because of SACRO, monetary help was made available for the children to travel from Edinburgh to Dundee to visit me.
As regards housing and family issues, do you feel that you more or less had to do things for yourself, or was there a good input from organisations such as SACRO?
I did get input and advice. It was really only because I pushed to get that input and advice that I got it but, even with that, it is still left very much to people's own devices as to how they sort things out.
We have no further questions. Thank you very much, Colin.
Let us have a very short break.
Is there coffee?
I am told that some new stuff is being brought in, but I am not sure how long that will take. In any case, we will have a 10-minute suspension. The witnesses who are waiting—they have been very patient—are welcome to have some coffee, when it turns up, to keep them going. We will have a leg-stretch for 10 minutes—I am sorry, but it has to be for just 10 minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—