Female Offenders in the Criminal Justice System Inquiry
Agenda item 2 is oral evidence in our inquiry into female offenders in the criminal justice system. The remit of the inquiry is to
"assess the prison experience for, and background of, female offenders, particularly the extent to which prison helps to prevent women from re-offending."
Today, we are taking evidence on community justice authorities. It is my pleasure to welcome our witnesses: Anne Pinkman is chief officer with the Fife and Forth valley community justice authority, and Chris Hawkes is chief officer with the Lothian and Borders community justice authority.
I invite the witnesses to explain in a little more detail exactly what the powers of the community justice authorities are. In particular, how do they fit in and connect with the work of other key stakeholders such as the Scottish Prison Service, local authorities, social work and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice?
Chris Hawkes (Lothian and Borders Community Justice Authority):
Good morning. The community justice authorities came out of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005. The purpose underpinning that act was to achieve a reduction in reoffending, and the principles underpinning the act and the national strategy that flowed from it are very much based on the concept that no single agency can be responsible for achieving a reduction in reoffending. Previously, it had been considered that the police, the Scottish Prison Service or the local authority was responsible in isolation for reducing reoffending. The 2005 act was important in making the statement that no single agency can achieve that.
Section 1 of the 2005 act established a very important principle—the duty to co-operate—which was placed upon the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities. Sections 10 and 11 are on the management of high-risk and sex offenders, with the duty extended to the national health service and to police forces.
The community justice authority is made up of locally elected politicians. In my example of Lothian and Borders, there are five local authorities in the region, and five elected members—one from each local authority—sit together as the community justice authority. That captures local accountability; it captures people who have access into each local authority, and they are required to exhibit the duty to co-operate.
In the first instance, the community justice authority was required to establish an area plan, which had to demonstrate how the outcomes that had been set by Government would be delivered. It is a three-year area plan, and we are now one year into it. The plan stemmed from a requirement among all the duty-to-co-operate agencies to work together and to say how they would deliver, individually, on the prescribed outcomes. Plans are submitted to Government for scrutiny, and they are eventually signed off by the cabinet secretary. The CJA is then required to ensure that the resources that are paid to local authorities for the provision of criminal justice social work services—known as section 27 payments—are aligned against the priorities that are set out in the area plan that has been signed off by Government.
All agencies are required to deliver against the plan. Failure to comply with elements of the plan could ultimately mean referral back to the cabinet secretary. Sections 6 and 7 of the 2005 act contain a description of the powers that the cabinet secretary has should any individual agency fail to comply with the work that it has agreed to undertake under the plan.
Like local authorities, the Scottish Prison Service has a duty to co-operate. Meetings of the board and the CJA conveners have now commenced. On a regular basis, the conveners of the eight community justice authorities in Scotland meet the board of the Scottish Prison Service. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service has created the role of a liaison officer, which means that an SPS employee is located in each community justice authority.
I hope that that gives you a good enough preamble regarding where the CJAs fit into the agenda.
Yes—that was helpful. Does Anne Pinkman have anything to add?
Anne Pinkman (Fife and Forth Valley Community Justice Authority):
Chris Hawkes mentioned the duty-to-co-operate agencies in relation to the CJAs. He mentioned local authorities, the Scottish Prison Service, health services and the police. However, we have several other statutory partners that are required to work with us—the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Court Service and Victim Support Scotland. Any other voluntary organisation that receives a sum in excess of £100,000 per annum from a CJA is also regarded as a statutory partner.
That gives us a clear picture of where the CJAs fit in. All committee members found the written submission from the Lothian and Borders CJA helpful.
What progress have the CJAs made on implementing the national strategy? Given the focus on females and women offenders, what progress has been made in improving services for female offenders?
I speak for the Lothian and Borders CJA, but that does not mean that I speak for all eight CJAs, each of which is an independent public authority.
I understand that.
However, because I meet my colleagues from the other authorities regularly, I can give an impression of the work that is being developed. It is important to realise that we are 12 months into the first three-year area plans. I can say pretty fairly that, in each of the eight CJA areas, services for women were not developed adequately prior to the formation of the CJAs. I will demonstrate that by speaking about the local authorities in the Lothian and Borders area. The preponderance of offenders in the area are men. I have worked in Scotland for 17 years, so I know that, over the years, services have been developed for men. Whether we talk about pre-sentence assessments or probation, community service or supervised attendance programmes, they were designed originally for men.
One early piece of work that the Lothian and Borders community justice authority did was to recognise that fact. The next step was to put in place a women offenders group, which is a group of professionals from all the agencies—the Scottish Prison Service, the five local authorities, the health boards, third sector providers and the police. Those professionals were required to consider how women's issues could be taken forward. The consequence of that work is the publication of our document "Chaotic Lives—A Profile of Women in the Criminal Justice System in Lothian and Borders", which is based on research that was undertaken by Professor Gill McIvor and Dr Monica Barry. The report confirms the basis on which we established the women offenders group, as it says clearly that the needs of women in the Lothian and Borders area are not being met adequately by the partnership of agencies and the current delivery of services.
One specific consequence of the report, which was published on 1 December 2008, was the establishment of the willow project, which is run by the national health service in partnership with the community justice authority and the third sector provider Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending. The project meets the needs of women who come out of custody and those who are arrested for street prostitution. The service is designed around working with a group of women and is as much about meeting their underlying health needs as it is about dealing with their offending behaviour.
To respond to your question about how work on the agenda is progressing, I can say that the profile of women has been raised significantly. That has resulted in a publication that was published and launched nationally, which then resulted in the development of a specific service for women in Edinburgh and Midlothian. The next step—for which the CJA has realigned some of its section 27 budget—is to put in place a specialist worker whose task in the next 12 months will be to work in each of the five local authorities on new models of intervention that can be applied equally in each of those areas. That is as far as the work has progressed in Lothian and Borders.
The short synopsis that we had of "Chaotic Lives" and its findings was certainly helpful. When was the willow project established? Our information was that the report was published on 30 January 2009, but you say that it was actually in December 2008.
I might be at fault with my dates. A few things happened around the turn of the year, so it could have been in December or January. I will get back to you with a specific date.
You say that the willow project was established on the back of that report.
Yes. I mentioned the women offenders group, which is a group of agencies working together with a particular focus on women's needs. The willow project emerged as the work of that group developed. The report and the project were the two products from the women's group.
When was that group established, roughly?
November.
Does Anne Pinkman have anything to add? One reason why we wanted to have a representative from the Fife and Forth valley CJA was that Cornton Vale is in your area. What progress have you made?
Each CJA has been encouraged to work with partners to develop services for a range of priority groups of offenders, including women offenders. However, as Chris Hawkes mentioned, we have only just completed the first year of our three-year area plans. The CJAs have taken different approaches to the priority list of offenders. Not all of them have considered women offenders to be the number 1 priority in developing services. However, the south-west Scotland CJA has considered women offenders to be its first priority and it, too, has developed a specific service. The CJA recognised that, proportionately, south-west Scotland had the highest number of women imprisoned of any area in Scotland.
One of the main causes for short sentences being imposed on women from the area was breach of community disposals—either probation or community service. The south-west Scotland CJA therefore established a project that involves working with a voluntary sector provider to provide a mentoring service that supports women who are on community sentences. That is done in conjunction with supervising officers from criminal justice social work services. The project has been extremely successful in its first year, as breach rates have been reduced from more than 30 per cent to about 14 per cent and the number of women going to prison has fallen as a result.
The convener is correct in saying that Cornton Vale is in the geographical area of Fife and Forth valley CJA. However, it is important to note that only 8 per cent of the women in Cornton Vale, which is a national facility, are from the Fife and Forth valley area. We work closely with Cornton Vale. In some respects, that is much easier for us because the prison is in our area. Other CJAs and criminal justice social work departments—in Aberdeen, for example—have to provide services at a distance. We have worked closely with NHS Fife, NHS Forth Valley and housing services from the four local authorities to develop throughcare services for women from our area who are in Cornton Vale.
Lothian and Borders CJA's priority has been women offenders. What priority has Fife and Forth valley CJA had?
In recognition of the fact that there are three prisons in our area—Polmont young offenders institution, Cornton Vale prison and Glenochil prison—our priority has been to improve the position in relation to the rehabilitation and reintegration of all prisoners from our area on their release to Fife and Forth valley. As I said, that has involved bringing together partners from housing, health, voluntary agencies and local authorities.
You have put the emphasis on throughcare.
Yes, absolutely.
We have heard about problems to do with ensuring that there is throughcare, for example in relation to housing. I was interested when you said that that is easier for Fife and Forth valley CJA because you are closer to prisons. Can you give specific examples of the issues that make it difficult to organise some of the services?
Often the issue is simply the physical distance. There are women from all over Scotland and further afield in Cornton Vale. As the committee has heard, many of them are serving very short sentences. It can be difficult for the housing service from a local authority area that is some distance from Cornton Vale to provide a regular service to the small number of women from its area who are resident in the prison for a short period.
In Fife and Forth valley we have attempted to ensure that a worker goes into Cornton Vale regularly to engage with the women from our area and to help with simple things such as submitting housing application forms and housing benefit claims. The voluntary organisation Four Square (Scotland), which is based in Edinburgh, goes into Cornton Vale regularly to help with such matters, as do housing officers from Glasgow City Council. However, there are problems for women from other local authority areas.
Is it the distance between the local authority area and the prison that makes the difference?
Yes.
If we acknowledge that women offenders have specific needs, many of which result from problems to do with mental health, dual diagnosis and relationships, we must ensure that there is smooth continuity between the community and the prison so that they get the support that they need, in particular if they are suffering from victimisation or are at risk of self harm.
Three quarters of the women from Lothian and Borders CJA's area who go to Cornton Vale are sentenced to less than six months, which equates to 12 weeks in prison—or less. No specialist service can supply the amount of input that is needed in that time, although it has been argued that on occasions prison provides sanctuary.
Women go from the community into custody and then return to the community, so their ability to access community-based services with a degree of continuity and consistency is important. That is made incredibly difficult by the distance between the place where services are delivered and the locality of the offender. It is understandable that the resources are not available to ensure that housing colleagues in Scottish Borders Council, East Lothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council can provide an adequate housing service to women who are in Cornton Vale.
We are trying to address such issues—although we are not addressing housing in particular at this point. We are sponsoring local organisations and using section 27 moneys to pay local third sector providers to provide a service for offenders from Lothian and Borders who are in some of the more far-flung prisons. That approach is not a solution; it is expensive and bad value for money. Instead, we need to be able to meet the needs of women offenders as near to their communities as possible.
There must also be a recognition that the specialist needs of some women who are serving extended sentences probably cannot be met in small community prisons and must be met from a national resource. We must make that distinction. I read the evidence that the Scottish Prison Service gave to the committee and noted that the service doubts whether community prisons could develop resources for women that were sufficiently sophisticated to meet their needs.
We will come on to that issue.
Anne Pinkman said that only 8 per cent of women in Cornton Vale are from Fife and Forth valley. What percentage of men in Glenochil prison and Polmont YOI are from the area?
About 27 per cent of adult male prisoners in Glenochil who are serving a combination of short sentences—that is, sentences of up to four years—and long-term sentences are from our area. I am afraid that I do not know the percentage of young offenders in Polmont who are from Fife and Forth valley, but I can provide that information later.
That would be helpful. In effect, your plan covers all prisoners, so it would be interesting to know what proportion of the plan applies to men and not to women.
It absolutely would. Fife and Forth valley CJA is fortunate in comparison with other CJAs in that all our women offenders are in Cornton Vale and almost all our young offenders are in Polmont—a small number might be in Friarton prison. The number of short and long-term adult male prisoners from Fife and Forth valley who are accommodated in Glenochil is increasing, but it is not as high as we would like it to be and it has not met the target that the SPS set itself. That is primarily due to increasing and record prisoner numbers.
More than 50 per cent of our offenders are in prison in our geographical area, but that means that almost half of our prisoners are located elsewhere in the prison estate. We must provide a service to males in Peterhead prison and to the proportion of our male prisoners who are in the open estate and down in Dumfries prison. We also have a remand population of male prisoners in Barlinnie prison and Edinburgh prison. That presents particular challenges for our partners in the provision of services to all our prisoners.
We have talked a great deal about the number of women who serve short-term sentences, which is an important issue. However, in "Chaotic Lives", the researchers said that women are suffering from "harsher sentencing practices". Baroness Corston made the same point when she gave evidence to the committee a few weeks ago. How has such a situation come about? Have the implications of the research been discussed with sentencers?
It is recognised in the research that women appear to be sentenced to custody disproportionately compared with men for the same offences, and it appears that financial penalties are used less. The cause of that is a complex issue that we need to address. Work has not yet been done with sentencers because that is a complex task. I will come back to that.
The stage before sentencing is prosecution, and before prosecution procurators fiscal have the opportunity to make decisions about how an individual offender will be treated. Under the Equality Act 2006, the requirement on the procurator fiscal service is straightforward—it is to recognise that the offence, rather than anything else, must determine due process. I respect that and believe that fiscals comply wholly with the legislation in making their decisions, but there is some confusion about what equality means. I understand equality as equating to fairness, but it is also the recognition of difference, and some fundamental issues pertain to women offenders but not to male offenders.
From my experience, I do not believe that Scotland has taken the opportunity to develop women-focused programmes of intervention. When a woman appears before a court, two things have not happened. First, women's specific needs have not been recognised at the pre-prosecution stage. Secondly, courts have not been provided with the range of women-focused programmes that sheriffs need to give them any confidence in using community-based disposals. As a consequence of those two things, custody is used.
There is also evidence—anecdotal, to an extent, but now fairly well shared—that prison is used as a sanctuary for women. That is particularly true in the case of remand. The research found that a significant proportion of women who are remanded to custody do not subsequently receive a custodial sentence. During their period of remand, they receive the sanctuary, care, support, health provision and nurturing that they need so that, when they go back to court for sentencing, they are very different individuals from the people who originally appeared before the sheriff. That may lead sheriffs to remand women to custody.
We are talking about a complex issue that is to do with diversionary policy, prosecution policy and sheriffs not being satisfied that there are sufficient women-focused disposals in the community.
Do you think that some sentencers, for the best reasons, might think about removing a woman from the circumstances that have contributed to her problems?
Like other public agencies, sheriffs recognise that they have a duty of care. That may be uppermost in their mind when they remand a person to custody. I would not wish to comment on whether that would ultimately influence the sentencing, but with regard to remand it appears, from anecdotal evidence, that Cornton Vale is used as a sanctuary.
I echo that. From conversations with sheriffs, I know that they continue to be impressed by the success that Cornton Vale has in caring for women who are on remand. Sheriffs often initially see before them damaged young women who look dreadful. The women are remanded—often for reports—and, when they reappear before the sheriffs two or three weeks later, the physical difference in their appearance is remarkable and cannot fail to impact on sentencers. That difference is due not only to the sanctuary that Cornton Vale can provide for those women but to the access to treatment services that they get in that two to three-week period.
My only other comment relates to reports. As Chris Hawkes has said, many women are remanded to custody for the preparation of reports. Social inquiry reports play a valuable role, and I know that the committee has heard evidence on the benefits of family impact assessments. I support the inclusion of family impact assessments in social inquiry reports, to be taken into account before sentences are imposed on women.
I think that you said at the beginning that one of your aims, if not your main aim, is to reduce reoffending. I am interested in hearing what progress is being made towards that. However, if offences are still occurring—which, obviously, they are—is one of your roles to reduce the number of custodial sentences, given what we have been talking about? If so, how does that tie in with the independence of sentencers?
There are three bits to that. I will start with the second bit—sorry, but I have immediately forgotten what the second bit was.
You are addressing reoffending, but are you trying to reduce the use of custodial sentences for those who continue to offend? If so, how does that tie in with sentencers' independence?
There is a presumption that custody is, in some way, influential in reducing reoffending, but all the evidence suggests that that is not the case. Our starting point is the position that the inappropriate use of custody does not lead to a reduction in reoffending.
On your first point, the national strategy on which CJAs were founded was based on the assumption that offenders have a range of health, housing, employment, literacy, addiction and learning disability needs. The idea was that if adequate services were provided when required, that would address the needs that lead to offending. The argument—it is almost a hypothesis—is that what sets offenders apart, broadly, is the fact that they are a group of people who are excluded from opportunities within their communities for a variety of complex reasons, which we understand. Offenders are hallmarked by the oversignificance of that list of needs. The hypothesis says that if we address that range of needs, we will, in turn, address offending behaviour.
I think that we are in the middle of testing that. We will need to wait and see whether there is a 2 per cent reduction in reoffending by 2011, which is what the national strategy requires. We also know that offending is very much related to the economy. When there is a dip in the economy, there is an increase in crime, and vice versa.
At this point, I would not begin to say that the strategies that we have put in place will ultimately reduce reoffending. However, in the two years in which I have done this work, I have seen a significant change in the range of authorities that recognise that they have a role in dealing with offenders. Just two years ago, it was unusual to have health care providers working with offenders as a specific group, but that has been a significant development.
One key aspect of your submission, which leads on from what Bill Kidd asked about, is the suggestion that
"If a risk assessment … were to be conducted at the point of referral to the procurator fiscal rather than at the point of disposal, arguably such input could aid in the marking process of whether to prosecute, divert or take no further action."
Given that we are taking evidence from you because we are inquiring into the situation of women offenders, should that key change be proposed?
The Equality Act 2006 is critical. In no way do I wish my evidence to undermine the role of our partners in the Procurator Fiscal Service, who recognise the fundamental point that in applying the 2006 act will base decisions on offence type. I have spent a lot of time thinking through the issue. The only instance in which it can be argued that a woman should be treated differently from a man is when the woman is pregnant when the fiscal makes a decision, because the fiscal must think about the impact not only on the woman but on the child. That is an exception.
Perhaps the committee can help us all with the complex issue of understanding whether, in acknowledging the 2006 act and the responsibilities that flow to local authorities and all authorities from it, a distinction can be made on the basis of need. It could be argued—I am sure that it would be and that it would make an interesting test case—that women's needs are not significantly different from those of men when a prosecution decision is made, but I argue that women's circumstances appear to be different. That relates largely to victimisation, abuse and self-harm, which seem to characterise that group of offenders. However, a group of male offenders could make an equal claim.
We need help with the question. We do not understand clearly enough whether the prosecutory process could be used to address need earlier. That goes to your question. I said in our submission that an assessment appears to be required pre-prosecution to assist the fiscal in determining which route is appropriate. However, that might fall foul of the 2006 act.
Your submission raises the question
"whether … prosecution policy is ‘gender blind'",
to women's disadvantage. It is clear that the committee must consider and explore the issue further.
I cannot offer evidence today that provides an answer. However, I can raise the issue, which sits in the middle of the room and is critical to how women offenders are treated.
The analytical approach that you have taken is welcome. It will give us food for thought when we consider the issue in producing our report.
Chris Hawkes has already touched on dispersal from Cornton Vale, which I would like to deal with in a bit more detail.
Lothian and Borders CJA's submission refers to the greater use of community-based women's prison units, which I have touched on before. I think that you also referred to the Scottish Prison Service's evidence. Sue Brookes of the SPS has flagged up the possibility that there might be equal opportunities issues in not providing the kind of specialist support that exists at Cornton Vale. Obviously, there is a bit of a dilemma. What discussions have you had with the SPS about women prisoners not being sent to Cornton Vale? Are you convinced that any concerns that it has expressed can be overcome?
That matter has been continuously discussed with the SPS, which has understood one of our other key priorities: to increase the number of community-facing prisons, which is a shorthand description of prisons that are close to communities and families. The SPS's ability to meet that criterion has markedly improved across the whole population in Lothian and the Borders. At the outset of the CJA plan, 64 per cent of Lothian and Borders prisoners were held locally. We have just finished our annual report for the first year, and the figure has now increased to 74 per cent, which I think is largely due to the opening of HMP Addiewell. The majority of those from West Lothian who go into custody are at HMP Addiewell. The main collection area for Addiewell prisoners is Lanarkshire, but the capacity in Lanarkshire prisons has been taken up by West Lothian prisoners.
However, that takes us away from women. The SPS has not been able to progress the community-facing prisons agenda for women, because doing so would require significant investment in the development of local community-based prisons, which has not happened.
What percentages do you have in mind? You have said that some women still ought to be in a specialist centre. What percentage of the current women prison population should be in a Cornton Vale-type prison? What percentage might be in women's prison units? I presume that you think that a large number of women should not be in prison units at all.
Anne Pinkman and I will share a response to that question.
Three quarters of the women from Lothian and the Borders whom we are talking about receive sentences of less than six months, which equates to 12 weeks. I think that the chief inspector of prisons made the point in evidence that it is plain that the 12-week experience is not sufficient to deal with the broad range of complex needs that those women have. Using the argument that a specialist resource is needed to deal with those needs and then not dealing with them in three quarters of cases does not stand up.
I am heartened that, in announcing the development of HMP Grampian, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the chief executive of the SPS specifically referred to the fact that it would have a separate unit designed to meet the needs of women and a separate unit designed to meet the needs of young offenders. I see some progress on thinking and on recognition, but I do not think that the SPS has yet adopted a community-facing prisons policy at board level.
I echo those comments. We have already heard that, typically, 25 per cent of the prison population at Cornton Vale consists of remanded women and that many women who are remanded to custody go on to receive non-custodial sentences. In fact, many more women than men who are remanded to custody go on to receive non-custodial sentences. For women who are remanded and women who serve short-term prison sentences of up to six months—which is the majority of the prison population at Cornton Vale—there would be significant benefit in holding them in community-facing prisons closer to home, primarily to maintain contact with families, particularly children, and address health needs and accommodation.
The evidence that I have heard today and in previous sessions is clear in telling us that we should do something different for women who are sentenced to six months or less. As Chris Hawkes said, we are talking about 12-week sentences.
Anne Pinkman mentioned a south-west Scotland CJA women's project that seems to be having some success in reducing reoffending rates and breaches. Is that the way in which we should go? Are we doing more damage than good by putting women into prison for short periods of time? Ultimately, how do we ensure that, once evaluated, projects such as the south-west Scotland CJA project are recommended as the way forward? How can they become a model for the future?
I agree whole-heartedly that we are damaging women by imposing short-term sentences on them. Sentencers have said that, often, those sentences are imposed for no reason other than to offer respite to communities and/or sanctuary for the women. The damage that the sentences do can be greater than the good done by the respite for communities—which is very short term—and the sanctuary for the women.
The south-west Scotland CJA project that I mentioned is a new project. It will be evaluated, but the preliminary results are extremely encouraging.
One requirement on community justice authorities is to promote and share best practice within and across CJAs. The chief officers and conveners of the CJAs meet on a regular basis. We share best practice, an example of which is the protocol for homeless offenders that Tayside CJA has developed and which it is running with the respective local authorities, Tayside prisons and Shelter Scotland. The protocol is being customised for use across the other CJAs in their respective prisons. There is also Chris Hawkes's willow project in Edinburgh, which the other CJAs will look at. We await with interest the outcomes, as we do the outcomes of the south-west Scotland CJA project.
Given women offenders' extremely complex needs, we are not about promoting a uniform or single approach to working with them. At the moment, the resources that are available to us differ across local authority areas. We are about taking the best from what has been developed and implemented and then customising it for use in areas where there are no such resources.
We heard earlier about damage to the individual woman offender and to society. Is there clear evidence that the rate of reoffending is higher for women who come out of prison who have not had access to training or intervention programmes?
If the underlying causes of offending are based around unmet need—I refer to the range of complex needs that we have described—it is pretty self-evident that there is no reason why the prison experience will stop further offending. The prison experience, especially in the case of very short-term sentences, causes disruption to lives, removal from family and children, and a range of complex issues within the community in order to meet the needs of the family. There is nothing positive about the experience, other than the short-term health provision that Anne Pinkman referred to earlier, which seems to have a marked impact.
From an equality perspective, I suggest that that range of services should be available within the community. Services delivered by NHS boards should directly address the needs of that excluded group of women. Part of the reason why the women go into Cornton Vale is that they are excluded from accessing normal provision. I wonder to what extent those normative community-based services are compliant with the Equality Act 2006.
Is that an example of differences between men and women? You seem to be saying that sentences of less than six months are never really appropriate for women, but for a man who has been violent to his wife or children, for example, might a sentence of six months or less be appropriate? Are there differences between men and women that mean you cannot have a blanket policy?
I would not support the imposition of a six-month sentence on a man convicted of domestic abuse; I would much rather impose a lengthy probation order with a condition that the offender attends a domestic abuse programme. That is far more effective at reducing the likelihood of that man reoffending than is serving a 12-week custodial sentence, whereby he will have no access to interventions to address his offending behaviour. Indeed, if that same man is placed on a programme for perpetrators of domestic abuse, not only will he be challenged about his offending behaviour but his partner will be provided with support. If that individual serves a custodial sentence, the partner might receive no support.
But why can such interventions not happen in prison? I am trying to work out whether things should be different for men and women. Prison would perhaps provide respite for the family. There is the argument that if women go to prison they will be provided with services, although we know that that does not happen in practice. Are you suggesting that it is better to leave the man in the home, and to try to address the issue that way?
Not necessarily. An assessment of the risks would be undertaken. There are opportunities to add conditions to probation orders, such as electronic monitoring, which can restrict the offender to staying away from the home. There are opportunities to work in ways that address the offending behaviour and minimise the risk to the victim at the same time.
No gender difference, then. In the opinion of both of you, sentences of six months are not appropriate for anyone.
The level of reoffending that results from short sentences is so high that they cannot be justified in terms of reducing reoffending. There might be other sheriff requirements in relation to punishment and restitution, but short sentences do not meet the criteria for reducing reoffending.
As you know, the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill is at stage 1. In "Chaotic Lives—A Profile of Women in the Criminal Justice System in Lothian and Borders", of which we have edited copies, you mention the alternatives to custody that are available. Have you made any submissions on the bill or engaged with its progress in relation to the recommendations that you have made?
Yes. The Government has put in place a management of offenders framework, which has five specific work streams that deal with young offenders, pre-sentence and sentenced prisoners, and social inclusion. We are involved with each of the work streams. The Government has ensured that not only the CJAs but our partner agencies are involved, so the Scottish Prison Service, health, the police, local authorities and CJAs are reflected in each of the work streams.
In developing community payback orders, which are at the heart of the bill, we would like additional requirements to be tailored to meet the needs of all offenders. Specifically, we would like local authorities to develop models of intervention and supervision for women that can be used as additional requirements to community payback orders.
The conveners and chief officers of the CJAs submitted written evidence on the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill and gave evidence at a meeting of the Justice Committee.
That completes our questions. Are there any other points that you would like to make in summation? They would have to be brief.
No.
No.
If you think in retrospect that there is something that you would like to add, please do not hesitate to submit it to the committee. Thank you for appearing. That was a very worthwhile evidence session.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—