Item 3 is our final evidence-taking session at stage 1 of the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill. We have the Cabinet Secretary for Justice back to respond to issues raised in the letter of 3 February and in the evidence that we heard in last week’s round-table session. I welcome Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and Neil Rennick, acting director, justice, at the Scottish Government. We can go straight to questions from members.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. In our evidence session on 24 February, misgivings were expressed about the evidence that the bill will improve public safety and public protection. Can you give the committee any additional evidence or supporting facts in relation to those concerns?
Are you asking about the approach of ending automatic early release?
Yes.
There is evidence that the committee and Mr Campbell might find useful. In 2012-13, 476 prisoners were subject to supervision in the community after parole release and 403 were subject to supervision in the community after non-parole release—they would have had automatic early release. The rate at which non-parole-released prisoners breached their licence conditions was 37 per cent, compared with 5.5 per cent for parole-released prisoners. Someone who has been released automatically is seven times more likely to breach their licence conditions than someone who has been released after the Parole Board for Scotland has made a decision. That is a significant gap, which I think adds significant weight to the reasons why we should end automatic early release.
Thank you for those figures. In your view, the bill will improve public protection. Can you say anything further about the use of extended sentences, which we did not touch on in our most recent session?
I have no doubt that ending automatic early release for long-term prisoners will help to improve public protection. A significant number of prisoners who receive a long-term sentence of four years or more already receive an extended sentence, which the court imposes when the sentence is handed down, based on the judgment that those prisoners require a period of extended community supervision after they have been released from prison. It is entirely down to the courts to determine that, but the number of prisoners who have received extended sentences has increased. I suspect that it would be for judges and sheriffs to determine the extent to which they continued to use those sentences and to what level.
In your view, the bill, together with the continued use of extended sentences, will improve public protection compared with where it is at present.
Yes—I believe so. Part of the reason for introducing extended sentences was to allow the courts to impose an extended period of community supervision post someone’s release from prison, which would allow them to be supervised and would allow any further measures to be taken once the person moved back into the community, for the purposes of protecting the public.
The second purpose of the bill is rehabilitation of offenders. Can you add anything further on programmes to assist rehabilitation in prison and in the community at large?
I know that the committee has had evidence from Colin McConnell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, who is reviewing the way in which the Prison Service delivers its rehabilitation programmes and courses in the prison estate. There has been a tendency in the past to deliver programmes en bloc and slot prisoners into them. I know that the Prison Service is keen to look at developing programmes that are much more aligned to the assessment of the prisoner’s needs to make sure that programmes are more tailored and reflect more what prisoners require. That is a significant undertaking for the Prison Service, but it wants to move in that direction, which it feels would be a more appropriate way to deliver rehabilitation programmes.
We are keen to support the SPS to move in that direction. I have no doubt that the SPS will start to take a much more bespoke approach to how rehabilitation programmes are developed for prisoners in order to improve the delivery of those programmes and the outcomes that can be gained from them.
We heard a lot at last week’s evidence session about what were described as option A and option B. It was suggested that your letter to the committee lacks clarity about what your proposals for stage 2 mean.
What are options A and B?
I think that option A is some form of supervision at the end of an offender’s sentence. Option B is supervision that forms part of the sentence. There seemed to be confusion among witnesses about what your letter meant. Will you clarify that?
When I previously appeared before the committee, it was clear that it had concerns about prisoners who do not qualify for early release through parole, who could be released at the end of their custodial sentence without any supervision being in place. I made it clear to the committee that I am open to exploring how that concern could be addressed.
Having considered that, I think that a guaranteed period of supervision would be the most appropriate way to ensure that the prisoner, when they are released, has a period of supervision in the community. That period could be three or six months towards the end of the prisoner’s sentence. However, I am open to the committee’s views, based on the evidence that it has heard, about the best timeframe to set.
As Roddy Campbell suggested, last week’s witnesses found it a bit difficult to comment because they had not been able to see precisely what you were suggesting. When might the amendments be available, so that people can see what the proposals are?
That will be at stage 2.
Clearly. Our problem with the bill is that originally its provisions would have been stage 2 amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, then they were introduced as a stand-alone bill, and now this bill will be significantly amended at stage 2. That makes it difficult to consult properly on the bill. Would you be amenable to an extension of stage 1 or an extended stage 2, so that the committee can take evidence on the proposals?
There are two aspects. First, the general principle of the bill, which is ending automatic early release for long-term prisoners, has not changed, but the timeframe is to change. The timeframes for the different groups were four years for sex offenders and 10 years for those serving long-term sentences for non-sexual crimes. For a consistent approach, that will be changed to four years and four years. If automatic early release for long-term prisoners is to be taken away, it is better to do that consistently. That is quite a straightforward and direct change.
The second aspect is the provision of a guaranteed period of supervision. That reflects the evidence that the committee received at stage 1 and the views that it expressed to me on the issue. I said that I was open to considering the provision of a guaranteed period of supervision. I would debate whether that is a significant change to the bill, but it is a change that it is appropriate for us to consider.
If the committee recommends in its stage 1 report a particular approach to implementing the guaranteed period of supervision, I will reflect on that and respond to it. If the committee wishes to have further time at stage 2 to take more evidence on that, it can suggest that to me.
The problem for some of the witnesses last week was that, if the compulsory post-early-release supervision is to be tagged on at the end of the sentence, rather than being part of the sentence, there could be human rights issues. There is the issue of option A and option B, and there has been no clarity yet on a minimum period of compulsory post-release supervision. Evidence needs to be taken on those changes, as I would argue—certainly after hearing what the witnesses said last week—that they are not insignificant.
That is the witnesses’ view, but I take a slightly different view, and I am conscious that some of the witnesses do not support the idea of ending automatic early release per se. If the committee wants to consider taking further evidence at stage 2, I am happy for it to pursue that course.
My view is that a period of six or three months at the end of a sentence could be created within the sentence period. I am more than happy to explore that with the committee. It is not for me to say to the committee that it should not take more time at stage 2—that is clearly in the committee’s gift. It would be inappropriate for me to say that I do not think that the committee should have sufficient time to do that.
Do you appreciate that it is important for us to see what the Government is proposing so that we can take evidence on it? We need to have the substance of the proposed changes.
I say with all due respect that you have been around this place for as long as I have and that you know that committees have had to deal with amendments that have been lodged at stage 2 at that point. I have seen even more significant changes made to bills at stage 2 without any extra evidence taking.
If the committee feels that it needs more time to consider the issue, given what we are proposing to do, it can decide on that. It is not for me to direct the committee.
I appreciate that such things have happened before—indeed, I have argued against my own Government when it tried to make changes at stage 2—but it is not ideal for consulting and getting views from stakeholders.
That is one point of view. I think that it is very reasonable that I have come along to the committee at stage 1 to respond to concerns. The committee has flagged up concerns about the idea of cold release and indicated that there should be some supervision towards the end of a prisoner’s sentence if we end automatic early release.
My response to the committee is that I am prepared to address that, and we are looking at whether the period should be within the existing sentence and how it would be managed. I have said to the committee that, if it feels that the guaranteed period should be a minimum of six or three months, I am content to listen to its views. I am responding to concerns that the committee has flagged up, which it is perfectly reasonable for me to do.
I presume that there will be a revised financial memorandum.
The effect of any changes will have to be considered. Whether any changes to the financial memorandum will be needed will depend on the approach that we take.
One of the issues concerns the use of the word “guaranteed” as opposed to “compulsory”. A technical difficulty is that, if someone is to fulfil the entire sentence, to say that you guarantee supervision at the end does not mean that you have to do it, because it is not compulsory. That is the issue that we are finding difficult. It would be more likely that that would have to be included in the timeframe of the sentence itself—for example, a 10-year sentence of nine-and-a-half years plus six months of compulsory supervision. That is the issue for us. Those two words cannot just be interchanged.
If the committee was to come back with a view that there should be a compulsory period of community supervision of three or six months towards the end of a sentence, I would be happy to consider that.
The problem would arise if you said that someone had completed their sentence, and then there was something compulsory, which would become the sentence as well. That is the difficulty that we are struggling with.
That would have to be—
I respect that you have taken a different tack from the previous cabinet secretary, as you are entitled to do.
12:00
Of course, but it is worth keeping in mind that the bill deals with a select group of prisoners. There are those who will be released on parole prior to the end of their sentence, and they are entitled to apply for such release after they have completed half of their sentence. There are also those who are serving an extended sentence, which will have been imposed when their original sentence was handed down. Finally, we are left with those prisoners who have not qualified for parole but who are coming to the end of their sentence, and the question is whether they are reintegrated into the community on either a compulsory or a guaranteed period of community supervision.
That is the issue. As we heard in evidence, people might serve their sentence, come out cold and say, “Well, you’re guaranteeing me supervision, but I dinnae want it and I don’t have to take it.”
I call Christian Allard.
I have a couple of questions—
Have you moved, Christian? You were over there before.
Indeed, convener.
Cabinet secretary, you have said that you were concerned about people objecting to the ending of automatic early release, but in last week’s evidence session, Victim Support Scotland made very clear its support for the ending of automatic early release. Indeed, when I asked all the panel members about this, they highlighted in their answers why they supported it. Can I perhaps push you on this? Who do you think does not support the ending of automatic early release?
I am sorry if I have misinterpreted this. The fact is that although everyone might support the ending of automatic early release, they might have different views on how that might be achieved and might not agree with our approach. Of course, they are entitled to their views on the matter.
With regard to the approach, can you reassure us that we will not end up with a situation such as we had with the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill? In that case, the principle was good—and, in this case, everyone agrees that the principle of ending automatic early release is good—but the fact is that the language that is used must be on a sound footing and the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Bill was flawed in its detail. Can you reassure us that there will be no more changes to the scope of the bill and that, at stage 2, we will focus on the detail of what has been debated so far?
When the committee publishes its stage 1 report, we will respond to the issues that have been flagged up and then consider how to amend the bill at stage 2. As I said to Elaine Murray, if there are specific aspects of our response that the committee feels it needs more time to consider, it will be up to the committee to decide whether to examine and take more evidence on that.
That said, anything that we take forward has to fit within the terms of the bill. The principle of ending automatic early release is not changing, but we have said that we will bring down the threshold for crimes of a non-sexual nature, and that we are minded to take an approach that reflects the concerns that have been expressed about cold releases and which the committee raised with me when I previously gave evidence on the matter.
I should point out that it is up to the committee to ask the Parliamentary Bureau to extend the time for considering the bill. For example, we can decide to produce a stage 1 report to flag up our concerns and then have a longer stage 2 with evidence-taking sessions, but we still have to approach the bureau ourselves. The committee’s members include bureau members; they will understand the situation and will be listening to these comments.
Cabinet secretary, one of the main criticisms of the bill concerns whether the Scottish Prison Service has the resources to cope with a situation in which more individuals require supervision and whether, if more resources are needed, they will be put in place.
The evidence that you received last week from the SPS was that there is a timeline for when the ending of automatic early release will start to impact on prisoner numbers. It will take several years before the change works through into the system.
I do not look at the issue of dealing with prisoner numbers in isolation. It is not the case that all we will do is something on ending automatic early release. We need to do more on short-term sentences, to ensure that they are delivered much more effectively. If we look at the churn of prisoners, we see that when they go through our prison estate on short-term sentences it takes up a massive amount of the service’s resource. The evidence also shows that short-term sentences are not very effective in addressing offending behaviour.
We need to look at how we can improve that approach. Measures have been taken over recent years on different types of disposals—for example, the presumption against sentences of less than three months—that are trying to address some of the issues. Within the Government, I am looking at how we can take some of those measures further, to ensure that we are not spending so much time with a churn of prisoners on short-term sentences, the outcomes of which are very poor. Of course, those who have to go to prison should do so, but we are continuing to send to prison individuals whose needs could be better addressed through community disposals.
We have several years in which to take forward some of those measures before the impact of any change to automatic early release feeds into overall prisoner numbers, and I want to look at prisoner numbers in the whole, rather than look in isolation at the effect of the removal of automatic early release.
I am a great supporter of various programmes. I was vice-convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on men’s violence against women and children, which looked at world-renowned work that was being done in Peterhead. I anticipate that there are people who are serving sentences for serious sexual offences who may well want to participate in programmes such as the one at Peterhead.
The SPS says that it will be able to cope with whatever is decided, but perhaps that is civil-service speak. Nevertheless, more people might volunteer—the Peterhead programme was voluntary. The right reason for people to volunteer is to address their behaviour, but even if they volunteer for the wrong reasons such programmes are so successful that people benefit from them. Can you assure me that resources will be available in those circumstances? Are you assured of that yourself? Like night follows day, there will be an increase in numbers. It might be minimal, but the Peterhead programme was a good programme and I would not like to see more people volunteer for such programmes but not be able to benefit from them.
You raise a good point about access to programmes, which we touched on earlier, and the review work that is being done in the Scottish Prison Service on how it can improve the delivery of its rehabilitation programmes. You referred to the STOP programme at Peterhead, which had a significant reputation for how it worked with sex offenders.
The evidence that you received from the chief executive of the SPS said that it believed that the current uptake of sex offender programmes, which is approximately 50 per cent, would increase to around 67 per cent with the ending of automatic early release. That is why it is important that the review programme of work that is being taken forward includes how the service can ensure that the way in which it delivers the programme, with increasing demand, is much more tailored to the individual prisoner’s needs, in order to address them much more effectively.
There is no doubt that that will be challenging. One part of that is that, within the prison system, a sizeable part of the resource is taken up by dealing with the churn of short-term prisoners, which draws resource away from tackling some of these issues. The challenge is to get that balance right.
Some of the things that we are considering concern ways in which we can much more effectively deal with short-term prisoners and have much more effective programmes for them, while ensuring that the programmes for long-term prisoners have the necessary resources that will enable them to be delivered in a much more individualised way.
A number of things have to be done in the system in order to achieve that. One of the important aspects, which was highlighted by Henry McLeish in his report, is that prisons should be used much more effectively for those for whom prison is the appropriate place to be. The bill, along with other policies that we are taking forward, will help us to achieve that balance much more effectively.
You mentioned that one of the reasons for changing the proposal in the bill was consistency. However, surely it would be consistent to include short-term sentences and abolish automatic early release for them as well.
In this bill, we have set out that we will do that for long-term prisoners—achieving that is within the confines of the bill. You will be aware that the independent prisons commission recommended that, before the ending of automatic early release for short-term prisoners, a range of other measures would need to be taken, such as dealing with the churn of short-term prisoners and providing more in the way of community disposals.
Some of that work has started and some of it needs to be accelerated. That is what I am looking at doing. Once we are in a position to take that forward, I am content for us to consider the issue of ending automatic early release for short-term prisoners, too. However, as was highlighted by the independent prisons commission, we are not yet at that point. When we are, we can revisit the issue of automatic early release for short-term prisoners.
In the interests of public safety, given that we know that the highest percentage of people who reoffend and end up back in the system are short-term sentence prisoners, would it not be better to end automatic early release while you are considering proposals, doing the evaluation of whether a community sentence is more appropriate and examining how short-term sentence prisoners are handled just now? Throughcare is not there at the moment. We hear about it all the time, but it is just not evident. Every day, people are released without having the throughcare that is necessary to help them not reoffend.
I do not think that that would be competent within the bill, because it will become
“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to end the right of certain long-term prisoners to automatic early release”.
I understand that. I am suggesting—and it was being suggested by the majority of the round-table panel members last week—that automatic early release of all prisoners should be scrapped, perhaps through the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and that we should start to get down to providing the rehabilitation programmes for which demand far outweighs supply in prison. We must start getting at the experience of prisoners in order to ensure that prison rehabilitates people. My proposal would deliver the stated aim of protecting the public and provide clarity and transparency in sentencing.
There is a range of issues to consider. First, it is wrong to say that there is no throughcare in prisons. There may be areas in which throughcare needs to improve, and I know that work is being progressed to achieve that, but it is simply wrong to make that statement. I have witnessed at first hand the delivery of throughcare in a range of areas. The Scottish Prison Service has committed to employing 42 throughcare officers who have that responsibility. The officers are working with the different agencies to support prisoners in moving from prison into the community.
12:15These things take time, but it is important to put on record that a significant amount of work is undertaken by our prison officers—sometimes in very difficult circumstances, such as working with prisoners who come from very difficult backgrounds—to deliver throughcare as effectively as possible. That is not always achieved as well as it could be, because the Scottish Prison Service cannot deliver on its own: it needs to work in partnership with other agencies. I am progressing work through the ministerial group on offender reintegration on housing, health and all the other areas that come into play in ensuring that throughcare for prisoners is delivered much more effectively.
The second issue concerns the ending of automatic early release for short-term prisoners. Notwithstanding the fact that it would not be competent to do that through the bill that is before us today, the independent commission on prisons—as I have mentioned—looked at the issue in detail and recommended a range of measures that would have to be put in place before that aim could be achieved. Some of that work has started and, as I have indicated, I want to look at how we can accelerate it further.
Margaret Mitchell raised the issue of rehabilitating people and protecting the public. There is no doubt that prisons have an important part to play in protecting the public, but we have to look at the evidence base on short-term prison sentences. It shows that, very often, short-term sentences are not effective in tackling offending behaviour. We need to ensure that we take an approach that takes account of that evidence base, which I am keen to do.
I made it very clear when I decided not to go ahead with the plans for Inverclyde prison that we need to ensure that the approach that we take and the model that we use is much more effective in tackling offending behaviour, rather than simply facilitating a revolving door with people going in and out of prison. Expecting a prison, in a short period of time, to be able to turn around an individual’s situation completely is entirely unrealistic.
If we want to address those issues, we have to look at the best ways in which we can deliver short-term sentences. Some sentences may be served in prison, while others may be dealt with through a community disposal. We need to ensure that we deliver in a consistent way that produces better outcomes and assists us in reducing reoffending.
Those are big issues in penal policy. It would be far too simplistic to think that, if we end automatic early release for all short-term prisoners and provide just a wee bit more rehabilitation—or even a significantly greater amount—in prisons, we will be able to deal with those things much more effectively. The evidence shows us that that is not the best way to go in dealing with the issue. We need to focus on disposals that are much more effective in tackling offending behaviour. That means using community disposals that deliver on our aims more effectively in a number of ways.
I ask the cabinet secretary for clarification on one point, because it was not clear in his evidence this morning. Does he intend to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to provide for a minimum period of guaranteed supervision, so that we can see what the Government is proposing?
I have listened to the views that committee members have expressed on the matter, and we will reflect on the recommendations in the committee’s stage 1 report. I recognise the concerns that the committee has raised with regard to the idea of cold release, and I am prepared to consider a period of supervision, whether it is guaranteed or compulsory, that must be provided at the end of a sentence.
I am prepared to lodge an amendment in order to achieve that, given the concerns that the committee has raised. The final detail of the proposal will reflect the concerns and issues that the committee raises in its stage 1 report.
We are having a debate about guaranteed and compulsory supervision. I presume that if the supervision happens within the sentence period, it is guaranteed and, if it happens post the sentence, it is not only guaranteed but compulsory because the person will have finished their sentence.
If the supervision was going to be provided over and above the sentence that was handed down by the courts, it would have to be an extended sentence.
That is right. However, it is compulsory if someone is still serving their sentence and it comes in the middle of it. I just wanted to get those two words clear in my head. You are looking at me as though I have not done that, John, but I have.
Cabinet secretary, I acknowledge that you have acted in good faith in responding to what the committee said earlier. However, if the period of compulsory supervision is itself part of the sentence rather than subsequent to it, how would you respond to the suggestion that it is only automatic early release by another name? Is it just a rebranding?
It is unfair to say that it is a rebranding in that sense. For a long-term prisoner, automatic early release occurs at the two-thirds point of their sentence no matter what the circumstances are. There is currently no control whatsoever over that period, and that will not be the case in the future. We are prepared to give the Parole Board the power to determine what the period of compulsory or guaranteed supervision should be on the basis of the individual’s circumstances. Right now, the Parole Board is absolutely powerless to prevent anybody who qualifies for automatic early release from getting it. We propose to give the Parole Board the power to determine that, which will give it more control over what is happening and over the supervision measures that are put in place for an individual. The data that I offered to Roddy Campbell earlier demonstrate the marked difference that that can make to whether a prisoner breaches their supervision. We are extending the Parole Board’s powers so that it will be able to determine what the supervision period should be towards the end of an individual’s sentence. We are removing the automatic element of it.
That is helpful. During the hypothetical compulsory supervision period, would there be a power of recall?
Yes, there would be.
Ms Murray pressed you on the financial memorandum, and you said that you might update it. Surely, in considering the issues, you must have considered what the financial resource implications would be. Have you had discussions with, say, Social Work Scotland about your revised proposals?
It is worth keeping in mind that we are talking about a very small number of prisoners and that it will be several years into the future before any of this will start to have an impact. There would be a danger in starting to put some limits on it now, thinking about what we may require in five or six years’ time. If there is a need for some additional resource going forward, we will be alive to that and will seek to address that. However, we must get the balance right. If there is a need for additional resource—as I say, that will be a number of years ahead—we will look at that, but, as I have mentioned, it is also about the balance in the system. Some of the resource that we have got tied up in dealing with the churn of short-term offenders may be better directed to dealing with issues around the end of a sentence. It may be a matter of reallocating existing resource in order to make the balance more effective.
It is clear from what we have heard this morning, that some of these topics are quite complex and interconnected. Would there be any benefit in waiting to hear from the Scottish sentencing council about the impact of the reforms on sentencing policy?
The Scottish sentencing council will be up and running from October or November, and it will develop its own programme of work. I am not entirely sure what the benefit would be of what you suggest, as it would only delay our taking the matter forward. The Government has made it clear that we are ending automatic early release for long-term prisoners. The Scottish sentencing council may want to look at things such as the use of extended sentences and so on, but I am not entirely persuaded that there would be any benefit in delaying the bill to allow the sentencing council to look at the issue. I suspect that many victims would find it difficult to understand why, when there is a bill before Parliament that could end automatic early release, we would decide to delay it for an indeterminate period of time.
I think everyone is agreed that transparency of sentencing is very important. I was trying to clarify whether there is an on-going interaction between the bill and the work of the sentencing council. I would like to hear your views on that.
There is not at the moment, on the basis that the Scottish sentencing council is not up and running as yet. The council can play an important part in sentencing policy in the years to come, and it will provide an invaluable insight. Once the council is operating, we will be engaging with it on an on-going basis.
I welcome your acknowledgement of the cold release aspect and your encouragement of greater use of non-custodial disposals, noting the resource that is tied up and the shift that can take place.
You have mentioned the independent commission on prisons on a number of occasions. As a number of colleagues have said, various issues overlap here. I note what you have said about awaiting receipt of the stage 1 report before formulating amendments. Would it be possible to get a copy of where things stand for the Scottish Government with regard to each of the proposals of the independent commission on prisons, just to see where that sits in relation to everything else?
Of course we can provide the committee with such a response.
Thank you very much.
I want to return to a particular point made by Margaret Mitchell. Some people asked in evidence last week for the bill to be scrapped. They all came back afterwards, at the end of the evidence session, when they heard from Victim Support. That is clear.
I would like you to tell us what your thinking is on stage 2 with a view to getting the balance right between the rights of the families of victims and the process that we must go through under the bill. I do not think that that point has been addressed very much this morning.
On the point about trying to get the balance right, I have already indicated to the committee that I want all automatic early release for long-term prisoners to come to an end, so that there is a consistent approach and transparency—so that there is no staged approach for crimes of a non-sexual nature with a long-term sentence. That consistency of approach is important from a victim’s perspective.
The other aspect is the evidence showing us that the supervised release of prisoners helps to reduce significantly the risk of those individuals breaching their supervision and thereby committing another offence that has a further impact on victims.
The point about having a guaranteed period of supervision at the end is to reduce the risk of the individual going back into the community and potentially committing further offences. It is about managing that in a way that allows the person to be recalled as and when necessary, and it is about helping to protect the public.
Ending automatic early release, the transparency that that creates, having an equalisation at four years across offences and the guaranteed period of supervision towards the end of the sentence help to provide victims with greater transparency as well as offering greater public protection.
You spoke about throughcare officers. The bill deals with long-term offenders serving sentences of four years or more. I believe that I am correct in saying that statutory throughcare applies to prisoners serving sentences of four years or more.
Yes.
We all know that.
Yes, but I wanted to get it on the record.
That has helpfully reminded me of another part of the bill that has not been explored in great detail—the Prison Service’s ability to vary release by two days.
We are all happy with that.
It is a good example of an area in which the Prison Service has flagged up difficulties with throughcare because of the system being so rigid. It reflects how we have tried to address some of the issues in legislation to help to improve throughcare.
The committee has known that for a long time, so we are happy with that, because it was a practical issue that we had come across. I thank the cabinet secretary for his evidence.