Item 2 is consideration of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill. This is the fifth and final evidence session that has been scheduled for the bill at stage 1. I welcome Graham Ross and Frazer McCallum from the Scottish Parliament information centre; Ian Gunn, the governor of HM Prison and Young Offenders Institution Cornton Vale, and Bill McKinlay, the governor of HM Prison Barlinnie. Good afternoon, gentlemen.
As the convener said, I am the governor of HMP and YOI Cornton Vale—I have been in that post for eight weeks and two days, so I ask members to bear with me, please. Any comments that I make about Cornton Vale are based only on that period.
At present, Barlinnie prison is overcrowded. It is above its design capacity by 46 per cent and 23 per cent over capacity in terms of the contracted number. Obviously, overcrowding is not to be condoned, but it is not for me to determine what happens in the courts. We have to deal with overcrowding, which impinges on every part of the establishment. We try to mitigate it as best we can in how we run the establishment.
We are not questioning either of you about policy; we are talking about what things are like on the ground as you try to manage the prisons for which you are responsible. How would you deal with the increased prison population that is predicted? I presume that you would both have to deal with a percentage of the increase.
That would not necessarily be the case. I do not know about the finances for additional prisoner places in new prisons, but two new prisons are planned. Barlinnie prison has a capacity beyond which my board and I would put up our hands and say that we could not take any more prisoners, because if we did so we would not be able to meet the required standards. I expect that the predicted increase will be taken account of and that consideration will be given to available spaces and what might be done to reduce or cope with demand.
Cornton Vale prison also has a contracted number of prisoners, and additional places that we make available. We can also increase the contracted number if we have to do so. If I was concerned that the prison population was reaching a number that was not manageable, I would approach the deputy director of prisons, who is my line manager. No doubt the population management group in the prisons directorate would take the matter on and consider how numbers might be distributed.
I hope that the witnesses can give me more expansive answers than they gave the convener. You both hold senior positions and I think that all committee members are keen to hear what you have to say. We are not asking you to expound on policy matters or to speculate wildly—as Mr Gunn suggested—outwith your experience; we are asking you to give us the benefit of your experience and judgment. We want to hear what you think and we hope that you can say what you think, because that is why we invited you to give evidence.
A number of programmes are going on in Cornton Vale, on cognitive skills and anger management. We are developing a violence programme for female offenders, but I do not know much about that programme yet. Many resources are directed into drug education and awareness, to try to get offenders off drugs or at least to keep them stable. We do a lot of work on mental health and much resource goes into trying to reduce self-harm in the prison. In addition, we run a full education programme and recreational regimes, to keep prisoners active during the day.
Similar programmes at Barlinnie teach cognitive, coping and anger management skills. The first steps initiative is for drug users and the lifeline programme tries to prevent relapse in drug-free prisoners. A new life-coaching initiative, which involves the Wise Group, prepares people for employment. We have partnership arrangements with Jobcentre Plus, the Benefits Agency and church groups. A significant number of initiatives for prisoners are on the go.
My newness at Cornton Vale means that I sometimes forget the work that Bill McKinlay described, such as our work with Phoenix House or the routes out of prison project. We also work with Jobcentre Plus and housing departments. There are a host of opportunities for women offenders, for example through Open Secret and Cruse Bereavement Care, to try to reduce reoffending or deal with issues that might have contributed to their offending.
I am grateful to both witnesses for delineating and being expansive on the number of programmes that aid the rehabilitation of offenders. What are the difficulties in providing such programmes for offenders when prison numbers are high and many prisoners serve very short sentences?
The committee already knows about our assessment process, which is called community integration planning. Every prisoner who comes through the door is assessed on a needs basis. Their needs can cover anything—housing, drugs or mental health, for example—and we try to facilitate work on those areas.
The population of Cornton Vale runs from prisoners on remand through to prisoners on life sentences, so we have just about every type of offender. We structure the prison on the basis that specific parts of the prison deal with specific types of prisoner. This morning, we had 338 prisoners in custody, 102 of whom were on remand.
I have a breakdown of assessment referrals, which may give an indication of the situation. Of the prisoners assessed on one day, 17 per cent required no action. Of the rest, 7 per cent had needs relating to homelessness; 9 per cent had needs relating to education; 10 per cent had benefits and housing benefits needs; and 17 per cent needed chaplaincy support. Chaplaincy support has what we call a poor box that gives immediate access to funds. It does a good job in that respect; some of the work can be done very quickly—looking after a prisoner's dog, for example. Those are the main needs. The other figures are smaller and cover issues such as careers advice, alcohol counselling, voluntary throughcare, specialist assessment and pre-release problems.
I understand all of that, but what about those who serve very short sentences? Mr McKinlay used the term "signpost" when talking about prisoners who serve sentences of under 31 days. Does that mean being able to do only a little in a short time?
Yes. Signposting means referring a prisoner to the particular agency that covers the need that has arisen.
So it is not a coherent programme—you would need a lot longer for that.
Yes—unless there was a mental health issue or something similar that required almost immediate attention.
I am grateful for that information.
I would be obliged if Mr McKinlay would pass his statistics to the clerks at the end of the meeting.
In answer to Bill Butler, Mr McKinlay, you spoke about the integrated case management system. Against the background of the rising prison population that Bill Butler and the convener mentioned, the Prison Officers Association Scotland highlighted in evidence to us that there had been a reduction in staff numbers of about 600 or 700 throughout the estate in the past five or 10 years. Given the current pressures on the integrated case management system, how realistic is it that the Prison Service will be able to cope with the increased demand for assessment of prisoners who are in for 15 days or more?
I do not agree that we are under that pressure. The integrated case management system is in its infancy. As well as putting in the system at Barlinnie, we took on another three administrative staff to cope with it. Bearing in mind my colleagues' predictions, if any new system for assessment or dealing with needs were to be decided on for the future, I would expect there to be commensurate discussion with me about the resources, financial and otherwise, that I would need to deliver the desired outcome. However, I will not speculate.
Okay, let us talk about predictions and resources. We have heard evidence that there might be an increase in the number of people who will need assessment from 3,000 to as many as 9,000 under the bill. It has been suggested to us that for every extra 1,000 offenders—we could be talking about 6,000 extra—we will need 18 or 19 staff to implement the ICM system properly. Are those estimates wildly right or wrong?
Convener, I cannot comment on that. The people who look after the integrated case management system are the ones who determine the figures. You would have to tell me whether ICM will continue to be the means by which we carry out everyone's assessments.
Let us assume that it will be.
I have no idea at this stage. I cannot give a personal view on the matter because I have to go on the work undertaken by my colleagues, and what you quoted is their estimate. I cannot say yea or nay, or give an estimate that is above or below those figures.
I want to reiterate what Bill McKinlay said. When ICM came into being, we were given an assessment of the additional resources that we might require; those resources were put in place, which allowed ICM to function. ICM has been going since June; I have seen it working effectively in Peterhead, which is a long-term establishment, and in Cornton Vale. Whatever process is agreed in future, should the bill become law and should more assessments be required, we would expect, as Bill McKinlay said, to be informed about any additional resources that we were likely to need, and there would be a discussion about that at the time. We do not know whether ICM will still be the tool if a new process is put in place.
Reductions and increases in staff take place in all organisations. For example, after we acknowledged that there was a mental health issue, we increased the number of our mental health nursing staff. We have increased the number of administration staff to allow us to put front-line staff into counselling and other roles. Like any organisation, we reconfigure. I need to know what the figures that Colin Fox quoted were based on. For example, are front-line staff what the union would term "white shirts"? I am not sure.
Let me come at this from a different angle. I appreciate your reluctance to make predictions or forecasts, but the prison officers told us that there has been a reduction in overall staff numbers of 700, so we are not talking about an increase in resource.
I need to think about that. Sentence management staff took over the integrated case management system, which is based on an information technology system called prisoner record 2. Training was given on the new applications for the joint approach that would allow everyone to input information into the PR2 system. I cannot specify the date of that training.
Instead of talking round an issue, if you would like to give the committee further information in writing, we would be happy to receive that. Please feel free to do that.
As Bill McKinlay said, training depends on a person's role in the process. I can talk with more authority about Peterhead, where, because all the prisoners have long-term sentences, some staff had a significant training requirement, including prison-based social workers and the person who co-ordinated the system. The personal officers of the prisoners involved required less training.
Those two angles are interesting. You said that significant training was required for staff at Peterhead and Cornton Vale. How long did it take to train them so that you were comfortable with their skills?
As Bill McKinlay said, ICM became another factor in our sentence management procedures. We had staff who were trained in and operated a sentence management process, and integrated case management was an add-on to that. For the first time, external social workers and others were involved in case conferences. Awareness already existed and the training was done as part of our normal training plan. Some officers had only a couple of hours' awareness training, which they undertook during their normal shift.
I am not sure of the time that is required to train and skill up staff in cognitive skills programmes, the STOP programme and the rolling STOP programme. If the committee wants that information, I can send it.
I ask you to respond in writing as quickly as possible to all the questions that you feel that you have not fully answered today.
Colin Fox asked the question that I planned to ask, so I will ask another, brief question. What is the point of doing a risk assessment of the 80 per cent of prisoners who serve very short sentences when they pose no real risk to the public?
We do not undertake risk assessment of short-sentence prisoners unless the risk management group notifies us of a reason to do so. We identify not the risk of reoffending but the risks that are associated with the needs that have been highlighted. An assessment is not made of dangerousness or the risk of serious harm unless a flag shows that an individual poses a significant problem or that a difficulty exists. If that happened, the case would be referred to the risk management group—each prison has one—and that group would forward on the information to deal with the risk.
Does that achieve the right balance and use resources properly?
Yes.
The bill will mean that 9,241 admissions will require risk assessment through the ICM process. That seems at odds with the basis on which you said that you operate.
I do not know what process will be used.
The ICM process will be used.
Yes, but within that, I do not know what process will be used for risk assessment. I have just explained what we do for risk assessment of short-term prisoners.
I am forming a picture of the situation. The requirement in the bill for joint risk assessment by you and the local authority in the area that an offender came from or intends to go to on release is new and will apply to everyone who receives a custody and community sentence—a sentence of more than 15 days. That will be a big change to your process. At the moment, you decide whether to undertake risk assessment case by case.
We do a risk needs assessment on everyone who comes into the prison at induction, and we will continue to do that.
Forgive me, but there is a difference between the needs assessment, which you have outlined clearly, and the risk of harm assessment that will be required under the bill.
I cannot answer that because I do not know what is involved and how we would assess that risk, or even who would assess it.
At what stage will you find out what is in the bill?
The SPS directorates deal with those matters for us, and we deal with operational matters. We have a superficial knowledge of the bill, but the directorates would be able to answer your questions about how we predict the bill will be implemented. I have no crystal ball. I should not make an assumption that the process will be ICM, although that looks like a good process. I cannot make those predictions.
I am trying to be proportionate about this. I do not blame the two people sitting in front of us today, but I record my absolute disappointment that they cannot talk about the future and have no or limited knowledge of the bill. To set the context for our discussion, I must say that I find the correspondence that the committee has received from the SPS chief executive, Tony Cameron, to be a most unfortunate letter. I do not believe that these guys are telling us that they do no forward planning, have no two-way dialogue with policy colleagues and are somehow the passive recipients of information that is handed down to them. However, I do not blame either of the witnesses. They have been placed in an impossible position.
In response to that, I repeat what I said at the beginning, on which the deputy convener agreed with me. We are not asking questions of policy. We are asking simply about the service's capacity to manage the chores that it will be given. We are not trying to tease out any comment about policy. I believe that we will take evidence from Mr Cameron later on.
I look forward to that.
Forgive me for asking my question again. However, when the committee scrutinised the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, we took evidence from David Croft, Sue Brookes and Bill Millar, all of whom were in a position to give us evidence. David Croft told us:
We will be able to do that when our colleagues in headquarters and the directorates who deal directly with the issue feel that they have something that they need to tell us. If they need our input into the process, we will be involved, as we were with, for instance, the introduction of ICM. I feel—I am sure that Bill McKinlay will agree—that we have a contract to deliver, we are extremely busy and we have a lot to do. Yes, we take an interest in what is going on around us, but our main focus is on delivering that contract at the moment.
For me, the issue will be decided in my negotiations with the director of prisons. You asked about the effect and impact on the establishment. We will deliver whatever is required to be delivered and we will do that to the best of our ability. We will do so in a way that is consistent with the discussions that take place each year on the key performance indicators that we are set. We are not being difficult, but we are unable to predict the impact of the bill. I will not know that until my colleagues come back to me.
On the question of what happens currently, I turn to Bill Butler.
I hope that I can reassure you, Mr McKinlay and Mr Gunn, that we know that you are not trying to be difficult. I will leave it at that; you know what I am saying.
Let me just get my glasses so that I can look at my paperwork.
I can understand and sympathise with that.
It is just age.
Same here.
Let me give you an interesting current statistic. Barlinnie has had 126 home detention curfew releases since the June initiation of the policy and only 12 recalls: three were for offending, two of which were for breach of the peace and one was for domestic violence. There are statutory exclusions from HDCs. Rather than read them out, I can give you the relevant written information.
If you could relay that information to the convener in the usual way, that would be helpful.
Basically, we use the statutory exclusions and SPS risk assessments to ensure consistency in our approach to HDC releases. The risk assessment will recommend high or medium supervision—in other words, it assesses whether there is a security risk—and will involve consideration of whether a prisoner has a history of sexual offending or domestic abuse or violence. We have a set format and take a consistent approach to HDC when assessing somebody for release.
Is that perfectly manageable? Would you say that the assessment process for HDC releases is working well?
It is in its infancy.
So far so good, though?
So far so good. However, as we said, resources were applied to the implementation of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005, and we were involved in the loop and in deciding how best to apply the resources to achieve what was required.
I understand that. However, that seems rather contradictory, given my colleague Mr Purvis's comments on what your colleagues were able to say at a much earlier stage in the passage of the 2005 act. Nevertheless, I am grateful for your comments.
Exactly the same process is followed at Barlinnie and at Cornton Vale. I have come from a long-term establishment where HDC did not apply, so not only is it the case that HDC is in its infancy, but I am also in my infancy in applying it, so I am thankful for Bill McKinlay's greater knowledge of the process. There is a consistent approach, which seems to be working, in that we are releasing the right type of offender on home detention curfew.
Could you supply the figures for Cornton Vale in writing? That would be handy.
Yes.
Just as a point of information, one of our colleagues, a governor, sat on the Sentencing Commission.
I would like to ask about licence conditions, which the SPS sets when somebody is released into the community after serving part of their sentence. What are the most common causes that result in a licence being breached and the offender being returned to custody? What sort of things would cause somebody to be recalled?
A minor breach, domestic violence, a report of disturbance, relationship breakdown, entering licensed premises, if that was not permitted—it depends on what is on the licence for each individual.
I would like to ask Ian Gunn to talk about, if he has not already done so, the needs that women prisoners might have. Do they have any specific needs in the context of the bill that might not have been mentioned?
As I have already mentioned, we find that women offenders can have self-harm issues and mental health concerns. They also seem to have more family issues, in that women who come to prison may have a direct responsibility for children, which is not always the case with male offenders. For example, if someone who has taken their children to school in the morning is then put into prison, there might be no one to pick up the children. Such issues have to be dealt with, as well as issues around accommodation.
What sort of breach of licence conditions would be likely to require the return to prison of a woman who has been released on licence?
In my relatively limited experience, I have seen very few breaches. In fact, the only one that I have seen was for alcohol abuse—the offender ended up not turning up for an appointment. I think that I am right in saying that female offenders are less likely to breach their licence conditions than male offenders, but I have still to learn about that.
So something as minor as not turning up for an appointment could result in someone being brought back to jail.
If it was the first time that such a thing happened, it would not result in a return to jail, but if someone turns up clearly the worse for drink or if they have taken drugs, that would be a different matter.
Yes. We are concerned about the revolving-door principle: people are brought back to jail for something that would not seem to pose a risk to the community and then the Parole Board for Scotland lets them out right away because there is no risk.
The other day, I spoke to 12 short-term prisoners and told them about the bill's intentions for prisoners who go out on licence. Their view is that no one goes out with the intention of breaching their licence conditions. They had mixed views on the proposals and whether they would benefit from them, but the issue that they brought up was who would police the licence in the short term. Basically, however, they said that they do not leave prison intending to breach their licence conditions.
Thank you both for coming along. I appreciate the position that you are in, although I tried to make it clear that we do not expect you to be accountable for policy. I look forward to receiving the written evidence that you have offered to send to the clerks. The committee will be pleased to have that because it will help us with general background information. The bill is still at an early stage and, as you will appreciate, several issues have arisen since we started on the process. I wish Mr Gunn good fortune in his new position.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting. A decision has been made, in agreement with the minister, to defer consideration of the affirmative Scottish statutory instrument until next week's meeting. There will also be a slight change in the running order. I am grateful to the community justice authority witnesses for allowing their evidence to be moved to after the minister's evidence to enable her to attend to a personal matter.
Thank you for your welcome, convener. I genuinely look forward to working with the committee over the next period. I have a record of recognising the critical role of committees in helping to shape legislation, and I am happy to be as co-operative as possible with the committee. I acknowledge that you have reordered your agenda in order to take evidence from me, and I would be happy to respond in writing to any questions that are raised after my departure this afternoon.
That is a generous comment, minister. Thank you.
I now turn to the bill. Will it do what it says it is going to do? As with all legislation, it is not that somebody somewhere has decided that it is the solution and therefore the Executive is determined that it is going to work, regardless of what anybody says. We will work closely with all those concerned as the bill progresses and after it is enacted to ensure that it does what it is intended to do. In considering any legislation, we are always mindful of the law of unintended consequences, and we will keep anything that we do under review.
On the issue of people's confidence in the system, I have little doubt that, during this session, you will be asked questions by the committee about the clarity of the sentencing process. If you had a simple message to send to the public, to give them confidence in the proposed new sentencing procedures, what would it be?
When a sentence is decided in court, an explanation will be given of how that sentence will work, so that people will know what to expect. We recognise the role of victims in the justice system, but we also recognise the challenge for all of us if we do not address and seek to deter offending behaviour. In attempting to do that, we recognise the pressures and tensions in the judicial system. We propose a planned, secure process. What we say is what we intend to do. At an early stage, when the court decides what the sentence will be, people will understand what that sentence will mean both for the offender and for the community.
The Sentencing Commission has suggested that the financial viability and procedural fairness of its proposals possibly require a downward recalibration of sentencing to take account of the additional burdens that compulsory post-release supervision places on offenders. Such a recalibration is not proposed in the bill. Will you explain why?
There are a lot of technical issues there. I will ask officials to respond to them.
The reference to recalibration takes the committee back to provisions recommended in the Sentencing Commission report that sought to apply parts of the existing sentencing regime under the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 while at the same time importing the new policy. Those quite complicated provisions would have required the sentencer, in considering the sentence that they were going to impose under the new regime, somehow to have regard to the previous one. In considering how best to move forward, ministers took the view that it would not assist clarity in sentencing if the future legislation tried somehow to merge the two regimes. That important factor was taken into account when ministers decided not to follow the Sentencing Commission's precise recommendations on recalibration.
How will the Executive and its advisory groups come up with a clear answer to the Sentencing Commission's question? Presumably, the commission is talking about the expected capacity of the system to be able to provide what is indicated in the bill. Are you saying to the committee that there will be no need for recalibration in any form, because the capacity to do what is being suggested will exist? If that is the case, when will it exist?
The minister may want to come back on some of the more strategic points. The detailed information set out in the financial memorandum takes each element of the policy in the bill, costs it and shows how it will be resourced. When the Sentencing Commission made its recommendations, it was not to know what would be in ministers' minds on the various elements, how they would be costed and how the costs would be set out in the bill. I cannot get into the mind of the Sentencing Commission, but in its report it tried to provide answers on sentencing, whereas ministers have taken the view that the sentencing regime should be left as it is for the time being. There have been further recommendations on consistency in sentencing, which ministers are still considering.
I welcome the minister to her new position. I have a brief question on terminology in the bill. In deciding the custody part of a sentence, the judge will have to
The intention behind the framing of the bill in that regard is dealt with in the three paragraphs in section 6(4). Section 6(4)(a) mentions the seriousness of the offence or of other relevant offences. Section 6(4)(b) refers to previous convictions. Section 6(4)(c) relates to a provision of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which is on the timing of a guilty plea. The Executive's understanding is that those three paragraphs constitute the main elements of retribution and deterrence.
So the seriousness of the offence is part of retribution. Surely that is not correct.
The intention is that those three paragraphs make up the retribution and deterrence package.
Are you saying that deterring criminals is the same as exacting retribution?
I would not say that they are necessarily the same thing.
Where in section 6(4) are they separated?
I simply aimed to make the point that the factors that are mentioned in section 6(4) constitute the main elements of retribution and deterrence. It is not stated which factors relate to retribution and which relate to deterrence.
The same appears to be true of the way in which the bill deals with retribution in relation to life sentences, which have different characteristics. When the punishment part of a life sentence is set, will retribution be defined in the same way as it is for non-life sentences?
The terminology for life sentences is slightly different, in that retribution and deterrence are labelled as the punishment part of the sentence. The punishment part must satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence, leaving aside any requirements for the protection of the public. To some extent, for life sentences retribution and deterrence essentially constitute punishment.
Are you talking about deterring the public or deterring the individual concerned from reoffending?
Both are covered.
Where in section 6(4) is that stated?
There is no explicit mention of that. The court must consider—
So it is not necessarily the case that both interpretations are covered.
The courts will interpret the provision as they see fit. On occasion, they will pass a sentence with a view to deterring other people from committing the crime and in some cases—
That is precisely what the sheriffs said in their evidence to us—they said that they consider matters on a case-by-case basis. They may decide that the purpose of a sentence is to prevent the person from reoffending or that it is to provide a signal to the community. However, although section 6(2) makes it clear that the custody part is
We can have a look at that. The punishment part of lifers' sentences is intended to be comparable to the custody part of custody and community prisoners' sentences in that both must
We will have a look at your review of that section.
I would be happy to dig into the matter further. Rather than sit back until stage 2 to find out whether we complete a review, you may wish to have an active dialogue about the concerns. It sounds as if they are technical, but they may not be. I think I know instinctively what retribution, punishment and deterrence are, but I might be entirely wrong about that. We can discuss the matter further.
It would be helpful to have clarity on that point at the earliest possible convenience.
The convener is in danger of straying into my question.
There are two separate issues: there is the stage at which the sentence is announced and there is the process by which it can be shifted. There is a separate discussion about the extent to which the general public should be engaged and involved in the movement of individual sentences and how that is dealt with.
I understand the process that you have outlined, which is helpful. I will explore the minimum period of custody later, but what will happen to home detention curfew? Ministers will be able to reduce the custody period, so the minimum period could be reduced by ministers at a later stage.
I think that all members of the committee understand the positive role that home detention curfew can play—and has played—for low-risk offenders. We want to consider that in the new process, but we are clear that we will not commence home detention curfew in the custody part until we are confident that the system has bedded in, so that will be done at a later stage. The power will be available, but it will not be used until the system has bedded in.
Then why do we have the option at all, given the desire for clarity, transparency and confidence in the system?
To have confidence in the system you must have confidence that it works. There is some evidence—others here know more about it than I do—that home detention curfew works for certain offenders. However, in order to give people confidence, we are committing to not exercise that provision until the process is bedded in. Whole areas of the bill require people to have confidence. People can sign up to the notion that a sentence should reflect the need to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate—we all accept that—but if any part of that is seen as meaningless or weak, people will lose confidence in the system as a whole.
Given that it will be the law that home detention curfew is an option, could not a prisoner ask for it? Perhaps Mr Cameron could comment on that. The proposal will end a procedure that is already under way: we heard from the previous panel that there have been 126 home detention releases. Will that now be halted?
There have been 700.
We heard that there had been 126 from Barlinnie. Is the total 700 across the whole estate?
There are 308 people on home detention curfew at the moment.
Given that every prisoner will have a custody and community part for sentences of more than 15 days, does that mean that there will now be an end to that process?
Eventually, because a new system of a custody part and a discretionary part will supersede the current automaticity that attends sentences of less than four years.
Then I wonder whether it would be better just to take chapter 4 out of the bill, because that would make matters quite clear. I shall return to that issue.
As has been made clear, the intention of the bill is to alter nothing to do with the setting of the overall, or headline, sentence. That will continue as at present, and there are well-established appeal procedures for sentences that are either too lenient or too stiff. As regards overall sentencing, it is expected that that will carry on. What is being introduced is the requirement to set a custody part for all determinate sentences of more than 15 days. As you point out, all the factors that we identify in section 6(4) as being relevant to the length of the custody part will also contribute to the length of the overall sentence. To put it simply, the intention has been to try to leave the overall sentence as it is at the moment, but to strip out any elements of that sentence that the sentencer may have in mind for the purposes of protecting the public, and then to take whatever is left—provided that it is between 50 and 75 per cent of the overall sentence—as the custody part.
If the offence has the same characteristics as those set out in section 6(4), with regard to the seriousness of the offence and so on, why have a 75 per cent limit? If the headline sentence and the custody sentence determinants are the same, and both satisfy the requirements for retribution and deterrence, why have that 75 per cent limit?
The assumption is that some element of every custody and community sentence will be served in the community. The custody limit has been set at 75 per cent. However, it is also recognised that it is likely that some of a sentence will be referable to the need to protect the public. The bill aims to get the sentencer to strip that out in deciding what the appropriate custody part will be.
If the Scottish ministers decide that the public are at risk, and therefore ask the Parole Board to refuse someone's release into the community after the custody part, why will that person not serve the whole sentence in prison?
Shortly before expiry of the custody part, ministers will have the power to refer the matter to the Parole Board, which will be obliged to direct release or to refuse to direct release, provided that three quarters of the sentence have not been served. As I said, after three quarters of the sentence have been served, the intention is that the offender will proceed automatically to serve a period—the minimum is 25 per cent of the sentence—on licence in the community, subject to recall to custody should that be deemed appropriate.
That would mean recall for the remainder of the sentence.
Indeed.
The minister said at the beginning and the policy memorandum clearly states that one policy intention is to reduce reoffending. However, section 6(5) debars sentencers from considering the risk of reoffending in setting the custody part. Does the bill really intend to remove sentencers' consideration of public protection as a significant factor in determining the period in custody?
That factor determines what happens at the end of the custody part.
A major objective of the policy is to have real-time consideration of the risk to the public and not a decision that is based on the ticking of the clock. We have discussed separating the two elements. A minimum custody part will be set. I will not say that the punishment part is an equivalent, but the custody part has that effect and it is not to protect the public, except to the extent that if someone is in prison they are clearly not in direct contact with the public.
Why cannot the sheriff make the decision? Why should the Prison Service do it? When the Prison Service does it, it is not on the public record or transparent. That follows from Jackie Baillie's questions. A sheriff could state clearly that part of the custody part is to protect the public, but the bill debars them from considering protection of the public.
I can say only what I have said already. In ministers' view, the opportunity to consider the public risk in real time is a significant advance on the current arrangements, under which the ticking of the clock determines when the public reconnect with a prisoner.
Surely the elements are not mutually exclusive. A sheriff could take into account public protection when determining the custody part. If a person's behaviour in custody is not appropriate, the Prison Service will be able to refer them to the Parole Board.
I will bring in Mr Cameron, who wants to comment.
I want to correct something that Jeremy Purvis said about who will refer a prisoner to the Parole Board. It has not been decided that the SPS will do any such thing; the Scottish ministers will do it. The SPS does not currently make such determinations and the bill does not provide for us to do so. The issue has yet to be considered, and no one should jump to the conclusion that the SPS will make the decision.
Who does the Executive intend to make the decision, if not the SPS? What other options are there?
I suspect that I should take advice and come back to the committee on that.
How will the Scottish ministers determine the conditions of community licences in cases in which the Parole Board has not been involved? The bill does not specify what the standard community licence conditions will be. What conditions do you envisage will be typical and what additional conditions might be added in particular cases? Will there always be a condition that requires the person to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace?
We are keen that licence conditions should reflect decisions that are made after the individual who is to serve the community part of their sentence has been assessed. If the sentence is less than six months, we would expect relatively straightforward conditions, such as you described, but in some circumstances further conditions might need to be attached. In other cases, I would expect stricter conditions, which would reflect the assessment of the individual, as I said.
There is likely to be a similarity between the minimum community licence conditions and the current standard conditions of licence that are set out, which apply when people who are serving longer sentences go before the Parole Board for a determination of release—the current processes are quite similar to the process envisaged in the bill. As the minister said, there will be a build-up of conditions from that minimum. That relates to the point about real-time assessment of circumstances.
Where are the conditions set out? Nothing in the bill tells us what the standard conditions will be.
Community licence conditions are not set out in the bill. I was referring to the current standard conditions in the parole system.
Will the standard community licence conditions be the same as the current standard conditions?
The area can be developed, but the basic concept is that minimum conditions on good order and good behaviour will be the starting point, after which consideration will be given to the offender's circumstances and public protection, which is crucial.
The committee thinks that there has been some vagueness about community licence conditions. We are not terribly sure what the standard conditions will be and how they will be added to, depending on the seriousness of the offence.
I will be happy to consider the matter further. When I first considered the evidence I was struck by the suggestion that, perversely, we might be creating a revolving door. However, I do not think that we have done that.
I will draw some parallels with the current arrangements for community-based sentences. Similar points apply when someone is on a probation order and is under the supervision of a community justice social worker. National standards on how community sentences operate are kept under review. The underlying intention is to have a proportionate response. Parts of the regime are relevant to the situation that we envisage, in which we will deal with many more people coming out of custody under supervision than we do now. There is scope for knowledge transfer.
I am content with what you have said. There is a lot of room for further discussion on the criteria for recall and on the Parole Board's role in relation to the possibility of re-release. We look forward to further discussions.
Before we move to the next question, can I press the minister to clarify why the standard conditions do not appear in the bill and to indicate whether they are likely to do so? Making clear in the bill the basic conditions, as opposed to variations or conditions related to the assessment of individual cases, is a matter of public confidence.
I do not know whether knowledge about the history of the drafting of the bill might help us.
As I said, there are de facto standard conditions, which include one about good behaviour and another about not quitting the country. Those are important and, in the interests of transparency, the suggestion that the standard conditions be imported into the bill could probably be considered further, subject to anything that might be said about the difficulty of doing so.
We would be grateful for a note on that.
I welcome the minister formally to her new position.
That will be a challenge. We all recognise that short-term sentences reflect a different level of offending and presumably, therefore, a different level of risk. The work that is done with such offenders should be proportionate and will not be the same as the work done with people who are in prison for a great deal longer.
I take that on board and I understand that. In practical, day-to-day terms how will the proposals in the bill contribute to the assessment and management of offenders throughout both the custody and community parts of the sentence?
We seek to clarify that risk assessment should be done during the custody process rather than when the offender reaches the halfway point, when a decision must be made. An integral part of the work during the custody part will be to prepare the person for the community part. That important work will be at the heart of the sentence. In practical terms, the bill sets out how people should work their way through the system rather than setting out a process that is driven simply by time. I hope that I am making sense.
For very short-term prisoners, I recall that one of our witnesses last week suggested that it is inappropriate to use terms such as "assessment and management". We were told that only the most basic screening can be carried out of such prisoners. How would the minister respond to that?
That is the case for very short-term prisoners. Given that 98 per cent of prisoners arriving at Cornton Vale and about two thirds to three quarters of male prisoners test positive for illegal drugs in their systems—the figures for the men vary according to whether the sentence is short or long term—medical issues are paramount in the first short period of a sentence. If the person is in prison for only 21 days, that gives us no time. As members heard me say when the issue arose during my previous appearance at the joint meeting of the justice committees on 31 October, given current resources and a prison's knowledge of the prisoner who comes in, the amount that a prison can do with people on short-term sentences is extremely limited. At the moment, we have no system of integrated case management for offenders who have been sentenced to less than four years, because we have concentrated on the most difficult and dangerous, or problematic, prisoners. For the vast majority of prisoners on very short-term sentences, there is a limit to what any prison system can do. It is not a social service.
I did not have the pleasure of hearing you on 31 October, as I was elsewhere. I apologise for that, Mr Cameron.
I could not be certain about the distinction that is being drawn in the language that you have used, so I would not concur with you on that. However, I recognise the obvious fact that, if someone is on a very short-term sentence, the capacity to understand the complexities of that person during the custody part will be less than if the person was due to be in prison for a longer period.
I want to add three points to that. First, the advice that was available to ministers when they formulated the policy was that a period of 15 days in the community—which you might think would be the balance in many cases in which there was a 50:50 split—was the minimum amount of time in which we could begin to engage practically with a person. Anything less than 15 days would be too short a time to engage, although we would still be able to signpost people in some direction. In 15 days we could begin to help people to reduce the risk of their reoffending through practical measures.
Paragraph 163 of the explanatory notes to the bill, which develops the point about the minimum time needed for supervision to be effective, states:
A great deal might turn on the term "supervision", which has a distinct meaning in the section to which you referred. I have been talking about helping people integrate back into the community. A range of measures are available for that, from helping people to access joined-up services to providing supervision by a fully qualified community justice social worker and addressing people's offending behaviour in a much more intensive way.
That has not answered my question. Where in the bill does it state that anyone who is sentenced to under six months can have legal conditions set for them other than the basic licence conditions when they serve the community part of the sentence?
I was answering your question in terms of the support for offenders rather than the statutory conditions.
Yes, but those conditions do not exist for offenders who serve less than six months.
A distinction is made between the two periods.
When you review the Official Report of today's meeting, it would be helpful if you would drop us a note to clarify that point.
You will appreciate that much of the evidence on the bill that we have heard so far has placed central importance on effective and accurate risk assessment. That is the line of inquiry that we are following today—how to accurately assess the risk to the public and the problem of reoffending and how to address public confidence.
As the law stands, we do not make such assessments. Halfway through the sentence, the offender is released, not on licence but unconditionally. We do not make assessments of the risk of harm or apply any other test at that point. The law is clear at the moment, but the bill proposes to change it. Therefore, we have no basis on which to be sure about how such assessments will be made. We are in uncharted waters.
Guide us, if you will, towards what you believe SPS staff will do following implementation of the bill. What will SPS staff look for in order to assess the relative risk that a prisoner poses when they have to make a judgment about whether to release a prisoner after they have served either 50 per cent or 75 per cent of their custodial sentence?
As I pointed out, it has not been decided that SPS staff will make such decisions. Scottish ministers will make them. It has simply not been decided that SPS staff, governors or I will make them.
Okay. Let us leave aside what uniform people wear and whether they are ministers or—
I do not know the answer to your question.
Given your experience in the Prison Service, surely you have an idea of how you assess the risk that a prisoner presents and the likelihood of their reoffending when they are released.
No. Legally, we are not required to make such judgments at the moment.
At what stage does the SPS suggest the referral of an offender to the Parole Board, in relation to whether they are likely to be considered a greater or lesser risk, for the Parole Board to consider what licence terms or what release would be—
We do not have that function. We give an opinion about a person's behaviour in prison, but we make no judgment about the likelihood of their reoffending.
What opinion do you give the Parole Board in relation to the offender's circumstances in prison to allow the board to make its own assessment?
Various assessments are done by staff, particularly the psychologists whom we employ, who give a professional opinion on how dangerous the person is. That applies to prisoners who are serving life sentences and to certain other categories of prisoners such as serious sex offenders. However, the number of people in respect of whom those judgments are made is very small.
I turn to the role that the SPS will play in preparing offenders for the community part of their sentences. At present, offenders who serve long sentences with the SPS are prepared quite intensively for their release and efforts are made to consider their housing and support services. As I understand it, that is done for prisoners who have been with the SPS for a long time, but there is not the same level of intervention in planning for the release of short-term prisoners. Do you expect that to continue? Will planned intervention continue to be directed at those who serve long sentences?
It is a matter of degree. It is still our view that we should spend more time and energy on serious and violent offenders. That is expensive, but the work needs to be concentrated on prisoners who serve long sentences. However, as Valerie Macniven said, the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005 introduced community justice authorities—we are not part of those, but we are a partner to them—in an attempt to ensure that all prisoners are more integrated, except those who serve extremely short sentences. It was intended that work on people's employability, housing, benefits, drug addiction and so on should start before they get to prison.
Indeed we will.
Irrespective of the bill, we have for some time been improving our service—we hope to continue to improve it—to all the prisoners who are sent to us in order that we can make them slightly better when they leave than they were when they came to us. That includes improvements in the health care that we give. Prisoners are not eligible for the national health service, so we try to ensure that our health care is as good as, if not better than, what they would get in the community.
I appreciate that—
Before we go on, members should ask brief questions and the witnesses should give brief answers. Our time with the minister is limited and we have to deal with other sections of the bill. Make your last question short, Mr Fox.
I was simply going to say that the throughcare and work with the community justice authorities is clearly something that the Prison Service is doing now and will do whether or not the bill is passed.
It is true; we can do more.
I have a point to make about risk management. It is important to understand that risk management is a challenge—we are not in the business of misrepresenting something as an exact science when it is clearly not. The Risk Management Authority is on the custodial sentence planning group that is considering with a range of partners how the bill will be implemented. There are too many bodies for me to rattle out just now, but they include the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, social work, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and the Scottish Prison Service. There is an appreciation of the need to work closely with the people who really know about risk management so that we neither misrepresent it nor allow it to be a block to the things that we are doing. We will want to explore that further.
In evidence to the committee, two specific concerns relating to structure and process have been expressed about the Parole Board. First, the proposal to reduce the Parole Board to two members in a tribunal might result in less breadth of experience on the tribunal. Secondly, the bill requires that a tribunal decision to release a prisoner must be unanimous. It has been suggested that that could be challenged under the European convention on human rights, largely on the basis that the requirement for unanimity is at odds with tribunal members reaching independent and impartial decisions. How do you respond to those two concerns?
I will deal first with the second concern. My understanding is that our advice is that the bill is ECHR compliant and that to require a unanimous decision would not conflict with ECHR.
I have a supplementary point to make. At present, one member of a tribunal must be legally qualified. When the number of tribunal members is reduced to two, that will remain the case, so there will still be legal expertise on tribunals.
Is it fair to say that you would still be open to the possibility of tribunals continuing to have three members, if the Parole Board was keen on that? That said, I am conscious that the bill will have resource implications for the board. If tribunals were to continue to have three members, consideration would have to be given to whether the number of people on the Parole Board overall would have to be increased.
I have not been involved in the argument from the beginning and I am always open to persuasion. However, cost is an issue, given the work that the Parole Board will do under the bill. If we want to achieve greater efficiency without losing any of the board's expertise and competencies, we must acknowledge the logic of tribunals having two members rather than three. We must continue to discuss that proposal.
I want to pursue that slightly further. It is acknowledged that the Parole Board's resources will be stretched, not least because it will have to deal with short-term prisoners and those on recall, as well as long-term prisoners. Have you costed the additional impact and, if so, what is that cost? Can you give us an estimate of the number of oral hearings that the board is likely to have to oversee?
I will deal with the generalities—the convener asked me to give short answers, which is always helpful—and I will ask my officials to give you the detailed costings.
In view of the time, it might be useful just to signpost to the committee various parts of the financial memorandum. Paragraph 176 includes a table on recalls, and a significant amount of information is given before that. Paragraph 147 contains figures for assumptions of numbers and explains how the costings have been worked up. There are estimates of the number of recalls and suggestions for the number of those that would need oral hearings, as well as a certain amount of matrix showing X times Y equals Z.
The Parole Board expressed in its written submission concern about provision of information to it about the offence or offences that have resulted in an individual's being sentenced to imprisonment. Can you clarify whether sentencing sheriffs are to be asked to provide post-sentencing reports in respect of all offenders who receive a sentence of 15 days or more?
I want to make two points. First, we recognise that the responsibilities of the Parole Board will change, which will have consequences for any information that it may have. Secondly, as I said, a planning group is considering how such information will be delivered. Valerie Macniven will take you through the detail.
If judges had to make a report in every case, that would be a significant change. However, there is a question about how big a report that would be—some streamlining might be possible. I am pleased to say that we have the benefit of a sheriff assisting with the work of the planning group, which is only just starting—obviously, the matter depends on outcomes here in Parliament. It is a case of assembling the right people so that they can help when the time comes. The questions concern what is right for the system and what is proportionate.
So, that work is going on. From what you have said, however, I assume that it is unlikely that such reports will be required for people who receive very short sentences.
We would not rule anything out. The answer would depend on what was proportionate in each case. The requirement for a report is not always determined by the length of the sentence, but by what is appropriate.
The Parole Board has stated that, given the short timescale and if the sentencing sheriffs are forced to provide a post-sentencing report for every case, a sentence may expire before they can consider the case. Have you taken that on board?
I might have to turn to my legal colleague. The bill will not allow such loopholes. If there are any issues around that, we will have to consider whether that should be addressed at a later stage.
I am obliged, but I hope that we can get a bit more clarification—that response was a wee bit general.
Some of the timings will be found in the new Parole Board rules, which are yet to be drafted. It is expected that they will be drafted in parallel with the bill. As the committee will be aware, the current Parole Board rules lay down time limits for various—
When will a draft of the new rules be available to the committee?
I cannot give an undertaking as to when a draft will be available. However, the Parole Board rules will need to be in operation around the time the bill is implemented.
I understand that, but I would be grateful if you could say approximately when draft rules will be available for us all to look at.
Jackie Baillie has a brief question on licensing.
No—it is fine.
My question follows on from Bill Butler's questions. Under section 9, if Scottish ministers determine that they want to keep a person in custody for longer than was set by the judge, they must refer the matter to the Parole Board before the end of the custody part of the sentence. However, there is no requirement on the ministers to do that in good time, although it would be unfair on the Parole Board if such matters were to be referred to it a day before the end of custody. The Parole Board is required by section 10 to determine whether section 8(2) applies to the individual before the expiration of the custody part, although it could have only half a day in which to do that.
That difficulty exists at the moment. Under the current Parole Board rules, various processes need to happen before the Parole Board can determine a matter. For example, the prisoner needs to be sent a copy of the dossier and must be allowed to make representations. There is then a period for consideration by the Parole Board. It is intended that time limits will be put in the new rules, which will make it plain that ministers must initiate the process by making the referral at a suitable point, so that there is enough time for all that to happen.
This is an issue about—we always talk about it, but it is genuinely important—working in partnership and not asking other people to do the impossible. The general efficiency of the system depends on people taking responsibility and making decisions at the appropriate time in order for the next stage to kick in. I would like reassurance about that in whatever way the matters are expressed. I presume that the planning group will consider what could reasonably be expected of the various partners at each stage.
We have heard evidence that the provisions in the bill could increase the prison population by 1,100 or more—some witnesses have suggested that the number could be a lot bigger. You said earlier that the bill deals with sentences as handed down rather than different kinds of sentencing. However, I wonder whether the Executive is considering replacing short custodial sentences with conditional sentences or sentences that are served entirely in the community. Those could perhaps include fast-track recall.
I repeat the point that the bill deals with the management of sentences once they have been issued. Good examples of community disposals and so on have already been developed. However, the bill is also about the management of sentences and understanding that there are custody and community parts to them. The notion of community disposals will be given more authority where such disposals are seen to be working effectively. The issue is broader and goes beyond the bill.
Do you accept that the number of prisoners will increase significantly?
The financial memorandum estimates that the number will go up.
That information comes from us.
Our aim, in the longer term, is not just to manage what is inevitable, but to change behaviour through our action. If we are effective in providing rehabilitation, in dealing with reoffending and in giving out messages about the consequences of certain offending behaviours, there ought to be a shift in behaviour over time. I am optimistic that there will be such a shift. Nevertheless, the financial memorandum is explicit in saying that we expect there to be extra prisoners as a consequence of the bill.
Michael Matheson will ask the last question on sentences.
The committee is conscious that the impending spending review means that the financial situation for some policies is a little bit fluid. To what extent will negotiations be required to secure the funding that is necessary for the bill?
Whenever we decide on a policy or a legislative approach, resource consequences accompany it and we must argue for them to be met. As I have said, there is no point in having an aspiration to take a policy approach if we do not have the means to deliver it. I am not saying that that is not challenging—any set of budgets will have competing priorities—but that is part of the process. We have said in the financial memorandum that resource consequences will have to be met.
So the overall funding that is required for the bill has still to be secured.
The financial memorandum identifies the expected cost, but that must be kept under review.
Concern has been expressed in evidence that the bill does not contain a definition that clarifies the difference between domestic and non-domestic knives. Future court cases might provide clarification, but what additional guidance will the Executive provide in advance to assist retailers and trading standards officers in approaching the bill?
I acknowledge that the bill does not use the term "non-domestic knife"; it says that a licence will be needed to sell
I am sure that the minister is aware of evidence that we have received from interest groups other than retailers. Based on that evidence, the committee's plea is that it would help us to have definitions early of all types of knives and equipment that could be classified in that category. Are we likely to see such definitions early?
Several of the details that will clarify some of those points will be included in regulations, which are not yet available to the committee. Below that, local discretion will exist. The arrangements will have two elements. The subordinate legislation that will be produced in due course will leave latitude in some cases to allow local authorities that apply the measures to take into account local circumstances. The regulations have not yet been drafted.
How will the bill discourage people from buying non-domestic knives when they have no legitimate reason for doing so? For example, is there evidence that a significant number of the current problems arise from retailers that market and sell such knives irresponsibly?
A broader issue than the question that the bill tackles is that we must challenge the culture that makes people feel that they need to carry knives, which will make a difference. Members will be aware of the campaign that the Minister for Justice launched on the consequences of knife crime, which I hope will have an impact.
Do you not think that the problem stems from a significant proportion of—how can I term them—rogue retailers?
The licensing scheme, like any licensing scheme, seeks to drive out those retailers who are uncomfortable with any regulation of their business or with trading visibly. Because licensing manages the process, it deals with those who may fall into the category that you have identified.
We have been considering whether there is a danger that, when we introduce licences, somebody who does not want to buy a knife from a licensed shop would get one on the internet or by mail order and that we would drive the purchase of knives underground. Do you have any concerns in that regard?
That could lead to the counsel of despair that we cannot do anything about anything because we cannot do everything about everything. I recognise the problem that you raise—it is obvious in every area of life that we license—but licensing seeks to bring the trade out into the open, challenges legitimate retailers about the way in which they do business, raises the question of why people carry knives and confronts some of the reasons for carrying them. It has been alleged that the trade will be driven underground but, although we offer no absolute guarantees about the way in which knives move around the system, licensing seeks to manage and control a significant part of the trade and therefore adds significantly to our capacity to confront knife crime, even though it does not necessarily deal with it all.
We are all keen to defeat the knife culture that blights our society, but how would you prevent people from getting knives from abroad, by mail order or from unlicensed traders? Is it even possible to do that? Have you considered whether that is a consequence of introducing a licensing scheme?
People will still be held to account for carrying knives without due reason; other parts of the system deal with that. We are trying to deal with both supply and demand—that is, why people want to carry knives in the first place. We will enforce the legislation that says that people ought not to carry knives and that there are grave consequences to carrying and using them. We have already underlined the significance of that offence.
Colin Fox has mentioned the use of the internet a couple of times. There is clearly a difference between organisations that are based in Scotland and those that are based in other countries, but businesses that sell over the internet will be caught by the bill if they are based in Scotland.
The bill allows the Scottish ministers to set minimum conditions for any knife dealer's licence, with individual local authorities being able to impose additional licence conditions. Some witnesses have argued that local variations will make it more difficult and costly for retailers to comply. Is there a case for having standard conditions throughout Scotland?
Now we are revisiting issues that were discussed in connection with the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill: the tension between the central authority and local flexibility and the question of where it is sensible for decisions to be taken. My instinct is that the Scottish Executive and the local authorities are at one on the need for a licensing scheme. It is possible to clarify reasonable standard conditions that should apply while recognising that it is also reasonable for local authorities to have flexibility because the knife culture is expressed differently in different parts of the country and knives that are used for legitimate purposes in some places are not used in the same way throughout Scotland. It is very much about partnership, not about confusing people—why would we want to confuse those who are seeking a licence? However, we recognise that there are specific issues in different parts of the country and that, as local authorities have said, those differences require specific conditions.
I would like to ask about swords. The policy memorandum sets out some examples of what the Executive considers to be the legitimate use of swords, but some of the people who have submitted evidence to the committee have expressed concern that the planned secondary legislation will not recognise their particular use of swords as legitimate. For example, it would not allow the collection of modern high-quality reproduction swords. Will there be any further consultation on that area?
We have already acknowledged that there is a need for exceptions in certain circumstances and that there are people who have a legitimate use for swords. Of course, that must be tested against the consequences of swords being available in a local community in entirely illegitimate ways, which is the huge challenge that nobody gainsays. We will consult further on secondary legislation. We do not wish the legislation unnecessarily to capture people who have an entirely legitimate purpose in using swords. People should be reassured on that point.
I am aware that you have to leave us, minister, but I wonder whether I can prevail upon Mr Cameron to stay for a couple of seconds to answer a specific question.
As long as it is just a couple of seconds.
We appreciate that you have time difficulties as well.
Thank you very much. As I said at the beginning, I am more than happy to ensure that you have sufficient information in front of you to draw up your report as timeously as possible following today's meeting.
Thank you, minister.
It is less a question than a comment, but I would prefer Mr Cameron to be here to hear what I have to say.
Mr Cameron, I am obliged to give you an opportunity to comment at this time, if you wish to do so.
If the committee chooses to ask the wrong people on my staff, it gets what it has got. I am unmoved.
Thank you.
The chief officers have been in post for between four months and—in Mr Hawkes's case—a matter of days. Nevertheless, we have all now presented to the Executive draft plans to reduce reoffending in our local areas and to operationalise some of the broader aspirations in the 2005 act. In doing that, we have had a considerable amount of support. Parts of my plan were written by both the Northern constabulary and Grampian police. Also, we were helped with a significant part of it by the Scottish Prison Service liaison officer who is attached to the northern community justice authority.
In my area, the most significant development has been the creation of the community justice authority. It has five political members and a convener and it has a public meeting every two months. Those meetings are attended by a broad range of agencies that are involved in dealing with offenders. Also, in that relatively short period of time, each of the authorities in Scotland has managed to put in place the infrastructure that is required for an authority to be effective. That is no small achievement because, as you will all be aware, the legislation did little to put in place the necessary infrastructure that would be required to run a public body.
I think that it is fair to say that the very reason why we wanted you here is that we did not see much in the way of comment in the bill and we felt that you both had a useful view to offer on behalf or your respective organisations and your collective body.
What lines of communication and joint-working arrangements are in place between, for instance, the SPS and the other key stakeholders? Mr Hodgkinson, you said that you have been liaising well with the police and the SPS, but it would be useful if you could go into that in more detail.
I will struggle to give you much in the way of specific detail. That is not because I do not want to but because the project is still in development. We are still developing a range of working groups to support the CJA and to devise, for example, the means of reporting on the performance of not only the SPS and the local authorities' criminal justice social work services but the other key players, such as the statutory partners—the health service, police, courts and so on—and voluntary organisations. We are still at quite an early stage. What will be particularly challenging is ensuring that the links are right with respect to key parts of health services, substance misuse services and forensic services. That will be particularly challenging for community justice authorities such as the northern CJA that cover a very large area with massive problems of transport and geography. Therefore, significant challenges remain. The signs are that people are willing to take part, but we are still working out the best ways of doing that.
While recognising the incipient nature of CJAs, I ask Mr Hawkes whether he would like to add to his colleague's words.
I recently ran a Lothian and Borders community justice authority workshop that was attended by 30 representatives from the multitude of agencies that, along with the local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service, are covered by the legislation. Every person who attended that workshop could identify something that they could do to contribute towards the achievement of the reducing reoffending strategy. That shows the broad range of commitment that exists among all the players to make the legislation work.
So stakeholders have not shown reluctance—quite the opposite.
Absolutely.
That is correct. I echo the comments that Mr Hawkes has made. We organised two seminars that were attended by a wide range of people. Because of the nature of the geography of our area, many of them had to catch an aeroplane to attend the seminar.
The fact that the bill will require risk assessment and risk management to be provided for all prisoners who serve a sentence of more than 15 days will clearly create a significant level of additional work for, apparently, some people within the SPS and for criminal justice social work services. I am conscious that you have been in post for only a limited time, but can you give us some idea of how prepared those different parts of the workforce are for the increase in their workload that will result from the bill?
As we heard clearly from Mr Cameron when he gave evidence earlier this afternoon, the Scottish Prison Service does not currently undertake risk assessment of offenders who serve less than four years. A significant implication of that aspect of the bill is that the Scottish Prison Service will need to put in place a mechanism for undertaking a risk assessment—we are talking about risk of reoffending and risk of harm—and a needs assessment for a huge number of short-term offenders. Such a mechanism does not currently exist.
Where is the best location for that risk assessment to be undertaken? Is it within the community?
We need to recognise that some significant work is already undertaken at some expense by local authorities. Approximately 50,000 social inquiry reports are undertaken by local authority social workers in preparation for the sentencing process in the sheriff court or High Court. Every one of those reports is required to include an assessment of the person's risk of reoffending and risk of harm and an assessment of need. As I say, that work is already undertaken, and it is normally available to our colleagues in the Scottish Prison Service. Although some offenders who receive a custodial sentence do not attract a social inquiry report—although I believe that a majority of them do—we could develop a clear, interchangeable model of risk assessment that works in the community, in custody and back out in the community again.
I concur with everything that Mr Hawkes has just said. It would be advisable, almost as a prerequisite to the bill, for one single model of risk assessment, both in and outwith prisons, to be agreed to, settled on and issued. Having listened to the contributions at this meeting so far, I note that people use the word "risk" in a variety of ways. It is important that, when people talk about high risk or low risk, everybody else clearly understands what they are talking about. Until that is made clear, there will be problems with the bill.
You seem to be offering various models. The committee would welcome it if you could send in some of the options and your ideas about definitions. One committee member raised that point earlier this afternoon.
I come now to the second part of my question, which is about risk management. Responsibility will fall on criminal justice social work services. How prepared are they for the potential increases in workload that they will have to undertake as a result of the bill?
I started working as a criminal justice manager around 1998, right at the start of a transformation in the relationships between criminal justice social work services, the police and the management of high-risk offenders. I think that local authorities and the police generally work extremely well together now when it comes to jointly managing the risks that are posed by potentially dangerous offenders. Sadly, that is not well understood by the general public.
I put it to the minister earlier that, as the bill is framed, the assessment that is undertaken for all those who are sentenced to more than 15 days in custody is to do with whether or not the person is likely to cause serious harm to members of the public. That is quite a high threshold. There is nothing in the bill to provide for an assessment that is wider than what the Scottish Prison Service does at the moment, which is to signpost or refer people to services or to schemes such as the link scheme; nor is there any ability to include conditions according to which the individual will be supervised in the community to some degree. That means that 80 per cent of the prison population will not benefit from any of the risk management measures. Those measures will make no difference to them. Could you expand a bit on what you said about spending money better? If the proposals will incur annual revenue costs to the Prison Service of nearly £6 million—plus nearly £1 million to local authorities in addition—can Mr Hodgkinson and Mr Hawkes indicate how the resources could be differently targeted?
Lothian and Borders community justice authority welcomes the intention of the bill, the concentration on the importance of transparency in sentencing and the commitment to reduce reoffending. Our concern is that it is significantly mistargeted, which goes right to the heart of the issue that Jeremy Purvis raised. The majority of short-term prisoners will not have a risk assessment or supervision plan; we would delude the public if we pretended that the bill would assist those offenders. They would be much better placed if they were left in the community, subject to supervision through probation orders, drug treatment and testing orders, supervised attendance orders or community service orders. They would receive a much better service, appropriate to the level of risk that they presented.
Mr Hodgkinson, you came up with a figure.
I quoted the figure from the financial memorandum, which is a considerable sum. You asked for a shopping list, but before I suggest how money might be better spent, I have to say that, given Scotland's limited resources for addressing crime, prioritisation is extremely important. I concur with Mr Hawkes's remarks, especially in relation to finance. Some local authorities in some community justice authority areas have developed and are funded to provide effective programmes to deal with men who have been sentenced to probation or are on licence, having committed serious offences of domestic abuse. However, the provision of such services is exceptionally patchy, despite considerable evidence of their effectiveness. Rather than pouring resources into increasing the prison population with short-term offenders who are persistent but relatively minor offenders, putting money into services that we know are effective would be hugely beneficial by comparison.
I ask Bill Butler whether that answered all the questions that he was going to ask.
That answered all the supplementaries that I had in my mind.
My questions are by and large answered, but let me ask some just to round up the session. Part 1 of the bill has three high-level objectives: first, that we should have a clearer and more understandable system for managing offenders while they are in custody and in the community; secondly, that we should take account of public safety; and thirdly, that we should have victims' interests at heart. How well will the bill achieve those three aims?
One measure in the bill that I support is the notion that, when a sentencer passes sentence, there should be some explanation of what it actually means. However, when I listened in the anteroom to the explanation of the Executive official who was with the minister, the provision became less clear to me and I am now not sure that the bill will achieve clarity of sentencing procedures.
I do not believe that the bill is wholly negative. What is wrong with the bill is that the thresholds are wrong and the proportionality is wrong. It would be a significant advance if we could get offenders who serve periods of less than four years back into the community and into a community in which there are services that address needs around literacy, alcohol, drugs, employment and mental health services—the list goes on. That range of normative services should be available to everyone in the community.
In the absence of further questions, I thank you both for the clarity of your evidence and for the direction in which you have sent the committee, which is an inquiring one. I thank you also for your forbearance in relation to the delay before we asked you to come.