 Good morning. Can I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's third meeting of 2015? Can I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices as they interfere with broadcasting even when they're switched to silent? No apologies have been received. Item 1. The committee is inviting to agree to consider item 4 on our approach to stage 1 scrutiny of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Scotland Bill and then item 5 consideration of our work programme in private. Are you agreed? Thank you. Item 2. Prisoner control release Scotland Bill. This is our second day of evidence taking at stage 1 of the Prisoner control bill. I welcome to the meeting of our first panel witnesses, Professor Cyrus Tata, Professor of Law and Criminal Justice University of Strathclyde and Peter Johnson, convener of the Risk Management Authority. Professor McNeill has sent his apologies. He's unwell but he's given us a written submission. I think you'll appreciate why it came in late because it was unexpected. You have his written submission before you. As we have written submissions for others, I thank you very much. I'll go straight to questions. Margaret, Christian, Elaine, Alison. I want to ask you about your submission, where you mentioned that the bill's provision or question of the bill's provision actually distorts sentences. The example being if you have a nine-year sentence then automatic air release automatically kicks in, ten-year sentence then it doesn't. Could you expand a little further on that? The bill purports to do is to increase public safety. Now, it does this on the basis of the length of time that someone has been sentenced for, not on the basis of any assessed actual risk. And in fact, someone may be more likely to commit an offence who's convicted, say, of a non-sexual crime sentence for, say, nine years, and someone may be actually less likely to re-offend who's sentenced for ten years. And yet it may very well be that the person with the slightly longer sentence over this arbitrary cut-off point at ten years actually ends up in prison for even longer, and you could end up with a quadrupling that I mentioned in the evidence there. And I think it, far from making sentencing clearer, it only makes sentencing less clear. I mean, I have, you know, shared some of the criticisms that are made widely about release. It is a thorny and difficult issue. But what this bill does, really, is to actually attack the very part of the release system, which is most justifiable, rather than going at the lower end, where it's less justifiable, I would say. So it will lead to incoherence and less clarity and less proportionality. So is there a need for more wide-ranging reform of the system of early release? And if so, where would you start? We're looking here at backdoor release, if we can call it, or backdoor sentencing. You have to look at that together with what you'd like, if you like, front door sentencing, judicial sentencing. By backdoor, I mean the release of prisoners by the executive branch of the state. We have to also look at that in relation to, if you like, front door sentencing, i.e., judicial sentencing as well, you have to put the two things together. We can't pretend as if one works in isolation from the other. That would be the best way of having a proper root and branch review of this issue, which has been going on for decades. It is a difficult issue. I have great sympathy with successive Governments who have tried to tackle this issue. We had the attempt in the 2007 act, the custodial sentences and weapons act. It had some merit in it, but it had a lot of serious problems with it. This, in some ways, is even worse. I'm afraid. I'm sorry. Mr Johnson, do you have anything to say? You said nominate, if you wish, if you indicate to me if you want to respond or otherwise. Do you want to come in, Mr Johnson, on that or not? Unless it's felt that I can help further, I think it's been well covered. Is your position then that there has to be a review of sentencing policy in parallel with those proposed reforms? You can't do one without the other? Yes, you have to look at both sentencing and release policy. In reality, and this is the reason why many people are cynical about release, it has been used as a form of backdoor resentencing, particularly at the lower end, to cut the prison population. We have to look at that in the round together with sentencing policy. That's why people are cynical about it. I understand that cynicism because it is a surreptitious form of resentencing. At the top end, those kinds of cases, long-term prisoners, is where the system actually works best, where there's most need to have some sort of managed process of release under supervision. The very part of the system that is most coherent, most defensible, best in terms of public safety, the idea is, well, let's abolish that, supposedly, because keeping people in for longer will make the public more safe, but, of course, they have to come out. Once you explain to members of the public, well, once you release someone cold, they're more likely to re-offend. I don't think it's difficult for people to understand that. You make that difference between cold release, which would be the outcome, and the present release on licence? Yes, absolutely. Once we, if you like, the public debate is informed that, look, when people are institutionalised, no matter the great work that the SPS has been doing, and I do applaud the work they've been doing in recent years, it's excellent, but you can never prepare someone in prison while they're in prison. There isn't for release as well as you can by supervising their release and helping them upon release. There has to be supervision on release, otherwise, this is just irresponsible. We're playing fast and loose with public safety just to release people cold because they're deemed to be the most likely to re-offend. It makes them even more likely to be re-offend by releasing them cold. Will you wish to comment on that, Mr Johnson, from the risk management authority? Yes, thank you. We are very clear, and I suppose we would have to be, because our focus is largely upon effective assessment of risk, followed by effective management of risk. So, from our standpoint, the rationale, which underpins early release on licence, is that the whole process of risk management, support and supervision in the community is vital to rehabilitation, successful return to the community, and a reduction in the likelihood of re-offending. Anything that produces a cold release, as the professor has described, is a matter for concern from our standpoint. I think really this is the nub of the challenge from our point of view. It goes against what we believe government has done very well tackling a very, very difficult challenge. We're concerned that cold release, which is perhaps an unintended consequence of this legislation, could actually constitute a retrograde step. And if, as is well documented and I think universally accepted, effective supervision is vital, then to remove the possibility of that assistance is very worrying. It's interesting. A lot of research establishes that offenders who are successful in returning to the community typically thank those who have been involved in the supervision and support. And their attitude is, we could not have achieved this without that support and supervision. And this is the reason why we are concerned about this particular aspect. Another aspect which gives us some concern is that we believe that there is a misunderstanding, which says that sex offenders are more risky, more dangerous than violent offenders or other offenders in the round. Interestingly, statistics from the parole board, albeit a few years back now, do actually support the proposition that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend and that if they do reoffend quite often it is in a way that has nothing to do with sexual offences. And that is another aspect because we think that this differential saying four years plus for sexual offenders, ten years plus for violent offenders has actually got it wrong and threatens to perpetuate this misunderstanding. It's very easy to understand where the misunderstanding arises because the public is quite properly terrified of sexual offending, quite properly, though the consequences of violent offending, if you speak to the victims concerned, can be pretty drastic as well. It is a difficult issue from public perception and also from the point of view quite rightly of the victims. Indeed. Rodi, you want to supplemention this? Mr Johnson, the policy memorandum of the government paragraph 40 makes it clear that while data about reoffending rates does not generally show a higher risk of reoffending by sex offenders, it's the very specific devastating impact that sex offending and reoffending behaviour has on victims, their families and wider communities. Which led to the development of those special arrangements in order to help protect the public and reduce the levels of fear and alarm. So the government is aware that it's not statistically based on the risk from sex offenders. So that's quite clear in the policy memorandum. I would say though that that indeed is true, but that's actually a sentencing matter. That's about denunciation. It's about marking the gravity of the offence, the harm, the culpability and so on. That is not therefore about assessing likelihood of reoffending. It's a sentencing matter. So while the policy memo says elsewhere this will not interfere with sentencing, in fact it will. And indeed it also, I think, sort of encourages the use of extended sentences, which is something that can come on to you. I'll take Christian, who is next on the list, please. You go ahead and good morning. I wanted to concentrate on Mr Johnston's submission and particularly the positive comment at the start saying that James of the Bill's provisions were sounds or some of them were sounds anyway. And particularly the recommendation. I've got two of them I would like to develop. It's one of them will be about the remit, which often does it visibly target. You sang on the answer 19 limiting the scope of the current bill to prisoners serving extended sentences memory consideration. And you recognize that government wanted a stage approach. Is it would you like to see the bill to be introduced with targeting fewer offenses? Maybe as the bill introduced is targeting to be a scope of offenders. The point we were making at 19 was that if the legislation is to proceed at all, we think it would be more logical to confine it to those who are on extended sentence. Because this limits the occurrence of release without the conditional post release supervision where it's appropriate. And underlying this is a strong feeling we have that there should be a focus, not necessarily on the offences such but on the risk of real harm to the public. And that this is what should drive the process. But it's really because those on extended sentences are going to have the opportunity of post release supervision. That's my second point. You talk about post release supervision. We could maybe extend the scope by introducing maybe an amendment to the bill on pre release supervision. If you had mandatory pre release supervision two or three months before the end of sentencing, which will maybe remove some of your concerns. I think the professor made the point which I think is a good one that a lot of valuable work is done by Scottish Prison Service. But you cannot, in my view, replicate the challenge for a long term prisoner in returning to the community. It's a very, very challenging business indeed. There are anxieties about accommodation. Will I get employment? Will I have any money? How will I survive? Will I have any friends? Will society accept me back? If you then apply that to the sex offender, the challenge is seriously heightened because they can be hounded by the media. They can be hounded by neighbours. As soon as it's known that a sex offender is in a given location, there's a chance that they're going to be hounded. So this is about two aspects. Critically it's about public safety, but it's also about rehabilitation of offenders. There has to come a point when society, the seriousness of the offender has been recognised, the punishment has been served. And now the challenge is rehabilitate this offender, return this person to the community, effectively reduce the risk that he presents to the public. It's like having a mock trial. A mock trial is quite useful to teach law students, but there's no substitute for an actual trial. Yes, it might help, but I think what has to be understood is that the system as it stands, although it may have failings and has challenges with resourcing as everything does, it actually works very well a lot of the time. The thought that goes into this is multi-agency involvement. The parole board, for example, which has huge expertise looking at the risk that the released offender will present. There's a whole body of effort goes into this process, and I believe it, by and large, works very well. Of course there will be re-offending. Of course there will. There always will be. But actually the system does work, and there is, in colloquial terms, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's a failure to explain how well the system works, because public perception out there and victims and families of victims strongly feel that the system is not working. I think there is scope for education. I think more should be said by politicians, by government, just to extol the virtues of what we currently have. There is huge effort across the board, by police, by social workers, by prisons, by the parole board and by other agencies in this system. I think a lot could be done actually to reassure the public by explaining that early release does not mean that somebody's got away with it. I think that point is made by one of the respondents that actually it's quite a weighty business being subject to supervision. It's not an easy road. In fact, in a sense it's an additional burden when you're trying to get back to normality. But it's a burden that actually is very, very helpful as well. I think there are problems with the system. I think at the higher end, the long-term prisoners, I agree with Mr Johnson, I think it's the lower end, which, of course, this bill has chosen to completely ignore, where it's much more difficult to justify the system as it is, the halftime release and so on. That's where I think there is understandable public cynicism and judicial cynicism, and I share some of those concerns. At the higher end, we probably need to do more. I think the key point is to say, look, rehabilitation isn't simply a matter of being nice to a convicted sex offender or a violent criminal. I'm not interested in particularly in trying to do that. What we're interested in is public safety. And effective reintegration is the prerequisite for public safety. And if the Government decides it doesn't want to bother with the people most likely to reoffend, who are most dangerous and are going to just release them cold, surely that's irresponsible. You agree with the aims of the bill, but you think again that it's not targeting the right offenders? Depends on what you mean by the aims of the bill, I suppose. I mean, if the aim of the bill is simply to increase public safety, I mean, yes, of course, I agree with that. First, there are arbitrary problems with this bill. It's picking on the 10 years and the four years. You've got to ask the question why in terms of the evidence. I can't see it seems to me to be incoherent, really. You're saying that the people that are most likely to reoffend and pose the greatest risk, they say repeatedly in the policy memorandum, people that cause the greatest risk, the greatest fear among the public are going to be the very people that you're going to keep in prison and then let them out cold and then let them reoffend. Now, who's going to get the blame for this? It seems to me there's an issue about blame shifting also potentially going on here in order that someone could put a tick in a box to say we've started abolishing automatic early release. Who's going to get the blame? It's going to be the parole board who potentially being sold a real dilemma here under the guise of empowering them, and secondly, it's going to be community supervision more generally. And reputationally, they're being set up for failure, I think, because if someone is, of course, if someone's released early and they reoffend seriously while on supervised release, we know about that, and that's the situation. But if someone is released cold, like a sex offender, and soon after they've been released, they then reoffend seriously, and it's the sort of thing that you know will be right all over the media, and then it emerges, this person was released cold, they had no support network. Why were they released cold? That will be the question. Why were they not given any proper supervision? Why were they not assisted with that? What's going on here? That's just irresponsible. So, what's it got that you mean to stop the increase of cold release? Well, you have to have a period of time, particularly for the most dangerous individuals who are given determinant sentences, then you have to have a period of supervised release. You can call that what you want. You can call that extended sentences as the policy memorandum seems to be suggesting, ah well, let's have more extended sentences, or indeed more orders of lifelong restriction. That seems to me just to be reinventing the same problem again, because someone can reoffend while they're on the release part of the extended sentence. That doesn't get us anywhere. The extended sentence suggestion simply reinvents the same problem again. We're back to the same difficulty. I want to just tell who I've got, but Elaine, then Alison, then Roderick, then Gill, Elaine. Thank you, convener. Unfortunately, Professor McNeill isn't able to be with us today, but I'm going to read you something from his submission this morning, where he says, I would support the view of other witnesses that the current bill should be abandoned and that the complex question of how to best manage early release should be referred to the Scottish Sentencing Council when it becomes established. Until then, our current arrangements seem likely to me to better protect the public and support reintegration than what is proposed in the bill. Can I ask if you would agree with Professor McNeill on that, whether you think, in your view, that the Justice Committee should be suggesting to the Government that this bill be abandoned or whether you believe it could be amended to be improved? Just a minute. I think that that was emailed to you this morning, but in any event you've now got a copy of the text in front of you so you can thank me. I'll just base on my response on what you've said. I would agree with Professor McNeill on that. The bill would have to be amended out of all recognition, if I was to support it. There is a central contradiction and incoherence at the heart of the bill. It claims to be increasing public safety, whereas in fact it is playing fast and loose with public safety so that someone somewhere can put a tick in the box to say, we've taken steps to start abolishing automatic release. The Sentencing Council is the sort of body which should look at these issues. I hope that it's minded to do so. It is the sort of thing which we should look at in the round, by looking both at judicial sentencing and release policy. In many ways, in fact, the provisions in terms of the sex offender's four years plus and the ten year plus violent offenders are a form of resentencing because what they're actually saying is, we think these are such serious offences that these people, under certain circumstances, should not be getting early release. Now that's really a matter, as I said, of denunciation and sentencing policy. It's not fundamentally a matter for the executive. So yes, I think the Sentencing Council has a role to play. One of the beauties of a body like the Sentencing Council is it can be a buffer between the judiciary, the parole board, SPS, social work and other parts of the system, which are trying to do their job, and if you like, penal populism. It can take the heat out of the situation, give it to the Sentencing Council, let it take a look at it, and it means that it's taken away immediately from the control of ministers and all the political pressures they're under, so I think a body like the Sentencing Council can make a contribution there, definitely. Yes, if I could add, you will have seen in our written response that we think that the bill would benefit from refocusing its inclusion categories on risk of serious harm rather than the offence type. Coupled with the point that I've already made about the misunderstanding as we see it about sexual offenders. We've also recommended, finally, that further scoping should be undertaken, which basically means we think more thought needs to go into this to quantify the risks and benefits that would be created by the provisions of the bill as presently drafted. So, yes, we did recommend that further thought be given to this rather than proceeding with the bill as it stands. Parliament has had a sort of a stab at this in the past in terms of, more really, as one of the other witnesses I think has said, in terms of ending unconditional release in the Custodial Sentencing and Weapons Act, which I think the McLeish commission pointed out would be extremely expensive and difficult to implement, and that was then amended through the Criminal Justice and Licensing Act in 2010. I was wondering if you had any views on that approach, as opposed to the sort of approach that is being proposed in this bill. There's no doubt that it would be expensive, and obviously there would need to be very careful consideration given to provision of appropriate resource, just how much it would cost. Of course, one also has to bear in mind, always in these circumstances, how much does re-offending cost one way or another? The cost is colossal, and it's often quite hidden, but if you start working out just what re-offending costs society both psychologically and in hard cash, it's actually quite frightening. I thought that that act was in many ways very thoughtful, and yes, of course it would have meant that there would be a vast increase in the incidence of post-release supervision. But sitting as we do and putting great store by effective risk assessment and management and rehabilitation of offenders, all in the interest of public safety, I think we would have to take that view. The 2007 act, I think, was described by a very senior civil servant as unworkable. Having said that, and I was highly critical in a previous incarnation of this committee a couple of times about that bill, there are a lot of problems with it, particularly at the lower end. That said, I can see the attempt to try to label sentences as kind of combined sentences was some attempt to say, look, when someone's given a period of imprisonment of, say, two years, part of that will be supervised release and just be quite upfront about that, rather than the sense that people have, oh, well, he only served a year, he got away with it. So I can see that, but the bill in its details, there were so many fundamental problems and contradictions within a serious problem. I just come back to the point, and the fundamental difficulty with the bill was that it only was going to look at the release end. If you like the back door release, rather than what goes in as well, you have to look at the two things together, and that's at the end of the day where the incoherence comes from. We have to look at these things together. Now, if the sentencing council was willing and really wanted to look at that, I think that would be very good. The question in that, I think, enabled ministers not to bring it in for the very short sentences and so on, so I think it was obviously an attempt to try and address some of the issues about the overload that would occur if the 2007 act had come in, as it would. That's a bit ungracious of me, if you finish. Alison, fall by Rodrick, fall by Gill, fall by John. Mr Johnson, in writing submission from your authority, you say that you're aware that the Scottish Government is currently considering the feasibility of extending the scope of MAPA to establish arrangements for non-sexual offenders. Does that not suggest that some part of the Government understands this issue, and therefore this is contradictory to bringing this forward at the same time? Yes, I would certainly hesitate to suggest that the Government doesn't understand. What we have pointed to is what we think is an unintentional consequence, which we regard as unfortunate. The extension of MAPA certainly is something that we are working on, as I'm sure you know, and we think that it could be most valuable to extend it to other offences beyond sex offences. Legislative framework is needed to extend MAPA? I'm not sure that I'm qualified to answer that. I mean, it would need certainly some form of at least an order, or possibly primary legislation. I assume. Mr Johnson's better qualified to talk about this, but just to make the point, I think, that whatever you do in terms of MAPA is not going to fill the gap. That these proposals to abolish supervised release to nil for people who are most likely to re-offend, it's simply not going to do that job, the kind of tailored individualised job that those release arrangements put in place. So we can talk about it. It would be helpful rather than a panacea. Just to clarify for me, because it doesn't mention in the bill about abolishing, you know, if you abolish automatically release your abolish supervision, just to make it plain for anyone listening, why is that a consequence of doing this? The sentence has been served. Correct. So that, when we get to the MAPA thing then, which I've seen in operation of my own constituency, are you saying that if we could in some way bring in provision, provisions of MAPA, whether it's within this or whether it's by the existing means by doing it, and I don't know what they are, we'll get a note on that, that that would be of assistance in your concerns of cold release? I think there's a problem with doing that, though, as I think the implication in your question you were inviting is to say, look, these are determinate sentence prisoners. The judge has said there is an end to the question. Yes, I appreciate some nice, but is there a way, I don't know if you re-label it or whatever, but if in some way, which I think we probably appreciate in this committee your concerns, that if you do cold release it's not a better, it's not an improvement, but if we bring something in which together with that, particularly with the sex and violent offenders, that there's some statutory support for them if there's an end-automatic early release, that will alleviate some of your concerns. But then the question, I suppose, is, aren't we just reinventing parole by another name? Your answer is no, then. I think my answer is no, and the only benefit that I can see of doing that, apart from, you know, is just to be able to, for someone somewhere, to be able to say, yes, we've abolished something which is called automatic release, but then we've got something similar. Any way, which you had to then reinvent. Sorry, Alison, I was just trying to follow, chewing that over. Roderick, followed by Gil. Just for the record, can I just take you to something that's in the policy memorandum, which is the incentive to prisoners if there is no automatic early release at the two-thirds point, that there will be an incentive to them to engage with efforts to change their behaviour if they don't engage, then they will be doing full sentence. Any thoughts on that? Well, I suppose, you know, for some prisoners it may be a helpful nudge, yes. Others can answer this better than I can, and Mr Johnston may be able to answer this better, but I think that there's a fundamental problem here, and that is, it's not so much a lack of, for the most part, a lack of interest in wanting to get on the programmes. I mean, there's, there's, there will be litigation around this, because prisoners will say, you're saying to me that I have to demonstrate now that I'm not an unacceptable risk. So you've got to show that. The best way of you showing that is by going on the programme, or one of the ways of showing that is by going on the programme. But then you can't get access to the programme, and I think you may be aware that there can be, and this is not a criticism at all of SPS, but there may be issues and difficulties, resource issues about get a places for these programmes. And there will be litigation because you'll say, a prisoner will say, look, that's not fair, I'm not being given fair opportunity to demonstrate that I'm not a risk. I believe I'm not a risk, but I'm not allowed to show that because I can't get on the programme. So expect more headlines about outrageous human rights cases brought by prisoners, complaining that they couldn't be, and so on, a criticism of prisoner human rights that has the red tops forminating, frothing at the mouth. Expect more of that if this goes through, unless there's a huge investment. Or a major increased investment in programme. But Mr Johnson may be able to say more on that point or others. I think one can speculate on this. I think the people who can best advise you on this are probably experienced prison governors, who obviously on a day and daily basis see prisoners how they react, how they cooperate or do not, if the case may be. I was interested in this assertion and I have actually spoken with one such experienced prison governor, whose attitude was, well, I think in the round there are those prisoners who do cooperate. Funnily enough, sex offenders tend to be in the round cooperative, in prison and in post release supervision, much more so than the violent offenders for example. So he said, though some will respond to that, others will not. So I'm not able to give you a firm answer on that, but I've spoken to a person who I thought should know, and that's his attitude. Is there any international experience we can draw on? I'm not aware of any, sir. There may be, but I'm not aware of it. If it's at all helpful, I have colleagues in the RMA who could probably answer that very swiftly, and I could get a note passed to you, convener, if that would be helpful. I can do that in a matter of a day or so, I would hope. In terms of the use of extended sentences, is there anything further, we've obviously touched on that earlier, anything further that could be said about the use of extended sentences? How feasible would be a significant expansion of that? No, I think anything that we're able to say about that is said in our submission, in the written submission. Clearly it is a very useful disposal in appropriate circumstances. But we do really feel that the focus should be, as I've said before, the focus should be on risk of real harm. This is what it goes back to. And it's horses for courses. Sentences, there is a variety of sentence available, and there are very good reasons for this. I think at the moment we do have quite a comprehensive and largely satisfactory situation in terms of available sentences. Thank you. My question is the same line as Rory's in regards to rehabilitation and programmes within the present, so those have been adequately covered for me, thanks. Thank you, convener, in morning panel. You'll have read Professor Fergus McNeill's earlier evidence to us, and he makes a plea to the committee to raise the level of public debate, which I thought was very interesting and perhaps very challenging, given terms like sex offender, violence and things like that. He also, early on, talks about definitions and clarifications about those, and says that, if I may, the question of conditionality is much more complex, in my view it's not helpful to refer to early release of short sentence prisoners as unconditional. I certainly would subscribe to that view. The terminology, can you point the committee in ways of raising the public debate around this? I also read that, and enjoyed it in the same way that he did. I suppose that there are two issues. One is to reclaim or claim the tough ground by saying that this is not a matter of opposing the possible abolition of automatic release. For the most dangerous individuals, it's not a matter of being nice or soft or kind to dangerous people. It is a matter of being tough, so I would turn that around, as it were, and say that this is a matter about public safety, and to make sure that that ground is claimed. On the contrary, it's those who are making the proposals or the idea behind those proposals that, in a sense, is soft and irresponsible and weak. The other thing is just to follow up on what Professor MacNeill has sent you in this morning, which is raising the public tone. I think that the best way of doing that is to give it to a body like the Sentencing Council or some other, which is relatively insulated from the sort of populism that surrounds issues such as violent offenders and sex offenders. However, I don't think that it's that difficult to say to people that you may not like violent offenders or sex offenders, neither do I or what they've done, but this is about public safety. The best way of ensuring that the public is safe is through managed, controlled, supervised release that addresses someone's needs and monitors their behaviour. Professor MacNeill, I don't think that he's capable of putting anything crudely, but he talks about storing the risk in that passage. He says to put it crudely, simply storing the risk for a little bit longer doesn't, in fact, serve to reduce it. He goes on to say, the key issue for public safety is the condition in and conditions under which people are detained and then released, not how long they serve. Would you subscribe to that view? I think that one has to come to that view. The question is, what good is it actually doing in terms of the prospect of rehabilitation, return to the community, to have a person sitting for another, one on the other, on the four-year sentence, not that long, but hanging around in prison to be released into the community at the end of that period? You can certainly say, well, we're keeping the public safe for as long as that person is in prison, the public is safe, absolutely. But then the risk has to be heightened if there is no supervision, no support. It has to be heightened, at least I can't see how it would not be heightened. It's part of this debate and we know that a lot of really good work takes place in prison, the Scottish Prison Service, and some very, very dedicated people doing a lot of work. An opportunity to enhance what's there already and set this proposal aside. If the proposal, as we are being told, is about enhancing public protection, then if we beef up what's already there within the system? Well, I suppose there's two things there. One is, of course, the good work that is being done within the limits of resources, that's great, the work that SPS is doing, the kind of imagination that it's been showing. That's good, but I come back to the point that no matter how good your work in prison is with people, no matter how much you help them and encourage them and all the rest of it, it can never be a substitute for managed supervision on release. You cannot replicate the outside world inside. I have to agree with that. I think that there's more to it than risk management. It's the public wanting punishment and that, I think, is your nodding. I think that has also to do with making the sentence that is served. And then we're back to the sentencing council, I think, but you haven't mentioned that because it may be, if I use the term liberal in the nicest possible way to talk about rehabilitation, you can understand why many of the public want punishment. They don't give tuppants whether, frankly, the prison is rehabilitating the person that trashed their house or the sex offender. They want them punished. You're right, you absolutely hit the nail on the head. That's a sentencing matter, though. I come back to the point. The policy memo says somewhere, oh, this has got nothing to do with sentencing, it won't affect sentencing. In fact, when you look at it, you realise what this is, is a form of trying to change sentencing in a way, by suggesting it then extended sentencing, trying to up the period of time these people said. That's a matter of sentencing. The other point is, I think, in terms of the public discourse, one has to just make the point then, look, this isn't about being nice to sex offenders and nice to people that have, yes, they're entitled to a certain level of punishment. But this is about public safety, this is hard headed, this is tough. Arguing that supervised release should just go for the most dangerous, that's not tough at all, that's weak. I wouldn't say that was tough at all, so I would turn that around. It's a hard sell. Yes, it is a hard sell, but I think the message should be along the lines of rehabilitation. Yes, of course it benefits the offender, but more importantly, if you rehabilitate the offender and the offender does not re-offend, the benefit to the victim is, well, he won't do it again. And the benefit to society in the round is that he won't do it again. So successful rehabilitation isn't, as has been said, it's not about being nice. No, it's not my viewpoint. I'm just making the point check and understand why people say it's all very right, that chap or that woman's get out of prison and look at all the stuff that's in place to help them and it's costing. And you know, there's an argument there. Absolutely, and I appreciate it all very well. You know, you have to face those kinds of points. I suppose that's where— Everybody has to face them. Indeed, and that's where a body like the Sentencing Council or similar can kind of take the heat out of the situation a little bit and you can kind of give it to them to try to deal with and then come back. Thanks. I'm not speaking on behalf of the Red Tops, by the way, I just thought I needed the points. Thanks, convener. Morning. I'm going to move on to another aspect of the bill and that's the point about early release for community reintegration. We've talked a lot this morning about transitions and the need for support and the need for prisoners to be supported as you move back into community living. And the bill allows for the Scottish Prison Service to release sentence prisoners up to two days early where this would help that reintegration. I've been interested in your views on what has brought—what's provoked a need for that and whether that will actually make a difference. Is that going to add any value or what's it all about? I think I'm right in saying that in the earlier incarnation of these proposals in the earlier bill, that particular proposal wasn't in, so that seems to be— and, of course, one has to welcome that in the sense that there's some tiny chink of doing the sort of work that we've been talking about, which is absolutely necessary. All the evidence that I'm aware of says, look, the most risky time in terms of reoffending for long-term prisoners is a year or two. It's the first year or two and certainly a day or two, others will know a lot more about the specific practicalities of getting housing, family. But you've got to think, this is not just about getting benefits and housing and so on. It's also about family relationships. It's about, will the person meet up with an old, perhaps offender acquaintance? Will they be drawn back into that circle again? How will that go? How will they be treated by the community and so on? So it's about social relationships that you can't deal with that in a day or two, even if you could deal with the other things in a day or two, which possibly might be a little over-optimistic. But it's interesting that that proposal came in because it's kind of a tacit recognition that you can't just release people cold. And in supporting that point, I noticed that the explanatory notes in the policy memorandum actually make the point that supervised release can cut reoffending. I think it says somewhere, this is government work, I think it says this by up to 20%. Of course it's not referring to a day or two, we're talking about a much longer period. So in a way it's a tacit admission that cold release is not a sensible thing. Of course it's to be welcomed compared with the earlier version, but really it's not much. I see it as a very practical and welcome provision. It's dealing with a real problem, which is that if you are unfortunate enough to get out on the long day, it's a bit like buying a Friday car. It's never going to work as well. And you simply can't get to the people who you need to do the immediate things to make the first days of your release from prison bearable. So I entirely welcome the provision. Just good common sense. I think that's true. I'll just come back to the point. If you've spent eight years in prison, nine years, ten years in prison, a day or two, it's better than nothing, of course it is. But that period of institutionalisation, you need more support than that, and you need more monitoring than that as well. So there is merit in it. I'm not saying that there's none, but we have to put it in its context. That's fine. Thank you very much. That concludes this evidence session. Thank you very much for your evidence. I'm going to just suspend for a couple of minutes to change witnesses, but stay put. I welcome to the meeting our second panel of witnesses. I appreciate your sitting through the previous evidence session. Collin McConnel, chief executive of the SPS, John Mawr, chair of the Pro-Board for Scotland, and Philip Thomas, Scottish National Committee, Prison Offices Association Scotland. Thank you all for coming. I think it's very useful to hear from you about practicalities and rehabilitation and so on, within prison, the role of the Pro-Board, after the evidence that we've just had. So we've got your written submissions, and I'll go straight to questions. Elaine, I'll look to my left so that people don't like a chance for John. Alison, you've missed it, so you didn't put your hand up. Roddy, right. Okay, that's just started. Thank you, Elaine. Thank you, convener. Both at the session which you've just heard, and indeed the session last week, there was a lot of praise for the work that the Scottish Prison Service does with the offenders while they are in prison. But some of the concerns around this bill is that those prisoners who are high-risk and don't engage particularly well with rehabilitation within the prison would go straight out into the community without any sort of supervision. Professor Tata said that you cannot replicate the outside world in prison. Is there more that could be done in prison to prepare people for going into the outside world, or do you think that that period of supervision in the community is necessary to rehabilitate those offenders? Thank you. Thanks very much, convener. I mean, a lot of common sense has been spoken, I think, in responding directly to that. Of course, there are serious limitations to what can be done within the context of custody, particularly when viewed as a process towards reintegration. But I think that what's also usedfully been said is that a lot can be done and is being done. But we make no pretence, of course, that what happens in prisons is in any way like what happens when someone returns to the community. It's seen as part of an integrated process. I think that there's a need to look in the round here, in a sense, of course, it's absolutely necessary that those who pass into our care have on-going contact with the community and some high-value, high-quality preparation for that movement back into the community when the sentence is over. But I think that there's also a challenge to us as well, both in custody and in the community, for more in-reach. I think that there are real opportunities, notwithstanding some of the comments that have been made about the bill, to look further at how we in custody integrate more and provide more opportunities for the community to come in to the context of custody and make those two elements less, in a sense, distinct and more seamless and more integrated. I think that looking at what happens inside is that independent living units that we have at some prisons, which is probably the closest that they're going to get to learning how to get housing and stuff, but they're quite positive and seen by our members as a good, meaningful work within the prisons, which is closest that we can get really to the community. I understand what the chief exec says, I agree. From the call-up board's point of view, it's extremely useful to have information about how a prisoner has progressed through the system, but equally or more so to know how they've behaved when, on community release from the prison, ultimately, whether a prisoner succeeds is down to the prisoner. He can have as much support as he wants, the more the better probably, but it has to come from within him or her. On the left of their own devices in the community, that's when they're able to establish best that they can cope with freedom in a way that isn't likely to harm others. I mean, I expect all of you have considerable experience of offenders who actually don't engage with programmes and who don't address their behaviour. I mean, do you agree that there's a particular danger about those people being released into the community without some form of supervision afterwards? Generally, I would agree that the periods at the end of any custodial sentence is highly risky, Professor Tata said. One to two years, my own experience is that it can be short as the first six to twelve weeks, can be extremely risky as people try to re-establish links and support moving back into, as I say, into that community space. However, there are other things that can be developed and are under development that I think can run parallel to the current proposals, which would go some way to enhance the transition from a period of custody back into the community. Again, my emphasis is in making custody in itself less distinct, less disconnected from the community. You've heard me talk in this forum on many occasions about the way forward, which is also moving our resources, prison officers, much more into the community to work alongside citizens who are transforming from that period of custody back into the community, working alongside other agencies, be it in the public sector or in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector, to make sure that families and those who have been in a period of custody are best connected and best supported. There's no doubt that going out unsupported is hugely risky and probably leads to higher rates of failure than those who are supported. I take John Watt's comments entirely on board, which is ultimately that the drive to succeed, that personal ambition, has to come from within, but it has to be connected to other things and other supports and a willingness from the community to accept that person back. Professor Tata raised the possibility that there could be human rights challenges if a prisoner hadn't been able to get onto a sex offender programme because there weren't sufficient places that there could be human rights implications when that person could not then be released because they couldn't prove that they tried to reform their behaviour. Is this a major problem within the Scottish Prison Service that prisoners are wanting to be on programmes, being unable to get onto them because there are not enough places? Sorry, I don't want to talk it here and others might want to comment, but I think that there's a wee bit of myth-busting that has to be done here in the sense that I think that we need to be clear about needs and wants. Of course, I understand my fellow citizens coming into our care would want to get access to programmes or opportunities, which they link to their earliest point of release. My goodness, it would be crazy not to understand that, but there's also an issue of needs and appropriateness and timing. Certainly in so far as SPS's approach, and I think that we probably mirror an international approach, is through working with that individual and the appropriate level of assessments, is matching the resources that we have, and some of them have to be highly specialised at resources, particularly in dealing with those who have been sent for sex offences, to try and programme those interventions or those programmes at the time at which they are most likely to have a beneficial effect. The consequence of that, of course, is that we do get challenges and pressure from those in our care because they feel that they are being kept waiting longer than they would want to wait in order to get access to those services. In general, however, my viewers, and of course this is being tested out in courts all the time, my view is that we, as sensitively as we can, prioritise and sensitise the opportunities that best match the needs of the individual, but I recognise that we don't always match the wants. You wouldn't recognise a description that there were prisoners waiting to get on to programmes or who needed to get on to programmes but weren't able to get there because there was insufficient resource, there was insufficient programmes available for them. It's an absolute fact that if you want to call it a waiting list, that wouldn't be inappropriate. So there are people waiting to get programmes. Some may want to get access to those programmes quicker than we think is appropriate and they challenge our approach and they challenge our decision. But what we try to do within the context of the resources and the highly specialised skills that are necessary that we have is to try to prioritise those programmes and opportunities as we judge fits the needs, maybe not the wants. I appreciate the difference between needs and wants. It reminds me of being a girl gag and getting lots of badges on your arm. Of course it looked good. I've been on all those courses but it's not necessarily appropriate that a prisoner goes into certain courses just to say I've got all these under my belt. I appreciate them being appropriate. But the evidence last week said here, given that only around 25 or 30 per cent of people who go for parole actually get it, there's not much incentive there. Prisoners don't, it's unlikely, depending on the friends that they will get parole. That's the first thing. But we also heard evidence that a lot of people weren't in education courses and couldn't get on them. I would have thought that that's a need period. So I don't know if it's quite the way, Mr McConnell, that you portray across the prison estate. Would somebody else... Sorry, I was... No, no, somebody... You're saying you've come in. I've challenged you, Mr McConnell. Again, I certainly wouldn't accept that in a sort of monochrome way. I don't think that that properly represents the situation in custody. I'd go back to that distinction between needs and wants. Ideally, we would want to have such a rich environment in prison custody where we could encourage people to grow, to have ambition, legitimate ambition and for us to help them with colleagues in the community to prepare for that. But the reality is, with a population of seven and a half thousand in custody, there have to be balances and checks. I would be the first to admit that we would not be always in the position to meet all the demands, the wants of... I'll talk about needs. Keep to needs. I'm glad you went back there. I was always there. I wasn't for just collecting a whole lot of courses to go to the roads. I've done all these things. I appreciate that distinction, but we're being told that where I would have thought becoming literate is a need, not a want. And there are cues for education courses. And there are. And I think also that that brings into sharp relief. I don't want to get to the fundamental principle of what prisons are for, but people who pass into custody who, by and large, have not been able to develop the attainment levels that we would normally expect or aspire for our citizens. Depending on the length of sentence they have in the first place that they're willingness or their capacity to engage, I think that we just have to be realistic that, whilst we would accept that some criticism would absolutely be appropriate, by and large, I think that the resources that we have, I think that the relationships with other professional providers that we have, by and large, have in place the appropriate capacity to respond to most of the needs. In particular cases I would accept. I don't know what the individuals might be, but we would fall short in some way, but generally I think that we have the resources and the capacity to address most needs. I'll support that with the organisational review, which is probably in its infancy at the moment, just coming in structures. They do focus on education and meaningful and purposeful activities, so as a trade union our members are looking forward to the change and doing something more constructive in line with that. We're never ever going to, as an organisation, for a union looking in, achieve the ultimate goal of getting everybody in to do everything that they're required to do from the professionals, but, obviously, as a union, we see what we do with the best efforts as a union-formed service. The first developing body of law in relation to availability of courses and the significance of that, an SGLD will be able to advise the committee, I'm sure. I'll just find out who the SGLD is. Scottish Government Legal Department, or division, or director, or whatever. The board occasionally has to consider cases where a programme is outstanding, identified and not yet delivered, but the courts recognise that resources are not infinite and that there will be delays. John, followed by Roderick. Good morning, panel. We have a lengthy written submission from Scottish Women's Aid and a lengthy section on post-release supervision of prisoners released early into the community, and you would understand that they would want reassurance for women, children and young people affected by domestic violence and appropriate conditions. So, with existing arrangements, they make a very clear statement here. Breach of licence conditions must be regarded as a crime punishable in its own right, resulting in the imposition of further penalties and not just solely a recall to custody to serve the unexpired term of the original custodial sentence. Is that a challenge at the moment, and what would the further challenge be if it were made a specific crime? From an SPS perspective, it's probably not appropriate for me to offer a view on that. In terms of those who breach licence conditions and are returned to custody, that is a fact, and we deal with those individuals as they come back into custody and serve the rest of their sentence. How is that dealt with, Mr McConnell? Well, depending on the nature of the individual, a further assessment takes place in terms of trying to help that individual to understand what it was that led to, or the factors that led to the breach. And then continuing to work with them for the remaining period of the sentence to try and make sure that they're appropriately as best we can with them to prepare for their eventual release. Mr Watt, would you have a view on that at all, please? Well, criminalising breaches would be a matter for legislators, of course, and then it would be for the crime office to make a judgment. As far as the board is concerned, it treats alleged breaches of licence conditions very seriously and looks at all of the circumstances surrounding a breach. It may be criminal in the sense that it could be an assault, for example, in which case it's for the crime to decide what to do, but whatever the crime does, the board can still look at it because the onus of proof is different. For the board, it's balance of probabilities for the prosecutor that's beyond reasonable doubt. He needs corroboration and the board doesn't. The board will look at circumstances surrounding the allegation. For example, had the prisoner returned to alcohol abuse, drugs abuse, was he mixing in bad company, was he somebody who shouldn't have been, was he doing something which increased his risk level to a point where it was no longer manageable. Recall to custody in these circumstances means that SPS, social work, will look again at the risk posed, will reassess the risk, and a recall to custody may last two years. That's likely to be longer in the sentence that a sheriff would impose for what he or she may see as a relatively minor breach of the law. The additional complication, of course, is that the board is then faced with what some may think is a dilemma in the sense that there's a feeling that if there's not a conviction, somehow the prisoner ought to be re-released, which is wrong, it's just wrong, because there are so many factors surrounding, leading up to the behaviour that results in the conviction, much of which could be a ground for recall. There could then be created, I suppose, confusion about what the board ought to be doing, but in the public and perhaps the legal profession, my client's been acquitted. He must let him out. No. Well, let's put off the hearing until the prosecution is complete. Well, that could be quite a long way down the line. So there is potential for confusion and delay if you go down the line of criminalising breaches per se. That's not to say, of course, that a crime committed, which is a breach of the licence, ought not to be pursued. That would be the board's position. The rules in place just now, it seems to me, work pretty well. Is there a supplementary on that? So those who have breached the conditions of release and are recalled, do you have discrete data on the rate of re-offending of that group? No. We have lots and lots of statistics and many, many figures. I am happy enough to try to get those figures if you can let the board know exactly what's needed. We don't have. All I can say is that it's clear that those who are released on non-parole licence, that is two thirds without an assessment of risk, tend to be recalled significantly greater numbers than those who are released on parole licence where there is an assessment of risk. I think that you probably heard the previous session where I was talking about the impact of the proposed changes. The proposed changes in incentivising prisoners to engage with rehabilitation programmes. Perhaps you'd all like to give us your view on what those provisions in the bill would do to that. I think that it would incentivise some prisoners who at the moment are happy to wait till the two thirds point of their sentence knowing they'll get out. If there is a significant period after that, it has to incentivise some. How many? I think that's probably how it is. I think that some will be motivated towards engagement for the purpose of being released early. Some others won't. However, what I'm more interested in is engaging for the purpose of not coming back to prison and how we as a system and as a society gear up to helping people to make that transition. In relation to MAPA, we touched on that in the previous session, have your own views about the role of MAPA and how that might be enhanced? I know about MAPA. MAPA is an umbrella under which various agencies co-operate to try to mitigate the risk posed by individuals in the community. Some will be unlicensed, some will not. If an individual is released cold at the end of a sentence, they may be drawn into the MAPA net. I'm not quite sure what the criteria are for that, but they'd be drawn into the net as potential offenders, not as released prisoners. Their history, of course, would be significant, but it would not be connected to the sentence. We'll get a note for the committee, because I thought that we had been licensed to have MAPA in place, but I'm not sure whether there are other discrete circumstances, so I think that we'll have to have a note about that to the committee if I can say that to us. Thank you. That's it? Thank you. Margaret. Good morning, Jen. I can also witness this now, and the common theme seems to be that the bill is fundamentally flawed in that it concentrates on a sentence rather than risk assessment. Therefore, to concentrate on a 10-year sentence or a sexual offence sentence is the wrong approach. Do you agree? It's not for me to comment on the Government's proposals in that sense. Well, if you can't comment on the policies, then can I take you back to the assertion you made this morning that you think some of these community sentences could be just as easily carried out in prison? We've already heard from Mr Paterson this morning. It's a bit like having a mock trial and an actual trial that's no substitute for the real thing. And also, can I put it to you? I don't know how many years now we've been talking about through care in prison and the lack of adequate through care. You're coming before us this morning, Mr Connell, saying, I think we can deliver this in prison. Why, on the basis of experience in the past? What's changed? Two particular issues. I certainly didn't, not where any of the panel members did either, say that community sentences could be adequately carried out in prison. Certainly something I said. In terms of the second point you made, this isn't at all me saying that you can replicate the community in prison. Actually, what I said was quite the opposite. I agreed with the previous panel members that you cannot create the community in prison. The challenge we face and the direction we're going in is to connect community and prison in a more integrated and systematic way. One of the challenges we face, and it's long-standing, and it's not just unique to Scotland, is... I just don't understand that distinction you've just made. And my explanation is that it's long-standing that there is too much of a disconnect between the period of custody and community. That's something which, some might say from a philosophical basis, is wholly intended and necessary as a mark of the wrong done and the retribution being had. I think generally the direction of travel and certainly in Scotland is setting out to integrate more clearly what happens in custody with the resources and the connectivity that's required in the community. Not just for the individual in question, but for the benefit of family and the other social circumstances that affect the individual and his or her community. So, just to be clear, I am not at all trying to make the case that prison can do everything for everyone. It can't. Prison works best when it's integrated with the resources and the relationships of the community in the context of the individual being cared for. From the POA perspective initiative, our burning desire came from our members a couple of years ago, along with the Scottish Prison Service and Colin McConnell. There's been an initiative where we have now a through-care support officer investment from the Scottish Government for 32 additional members of staff. Our members recognise that we do a great professional role within the prisons and we now want to go out into the community. We called it beyond the walls of helping that transition. There's a recognition from our members and the POA that we do have a role into that. Having that support, getting them into community way, they don't have family support. We're going to have many roles in there, looking at housing, looking at... This is people that have built up a rapport with over the years while they've been in community. For us, as a union, we have recognised that how can we help that process? We now have a role which doesn't stop at that prison gate. It actually goes out in the community. Hopefully, that's again in its infancy, hopefully that will be a success. We can jointly look at... Can a return then to short-term prison sentences? Is any of that available for prisoners in short-term who we've heard pose the greatest risk, and this bill is supposed to be about public safety? I mean, our ambition, picking up what Phil has said, is to make that service as widely available as we can, but that would probably have to be on a targeted needs basis. It's fair to say that many people who pass through our custody actually have caring family relationships and good contacts with families and communities, so it's not everyone who passes into our care who has chaotic and disconnected lives, but many have, and it's certainly for them in particular. We're trying to develop a service that reaches out beyond the prison walls and encourages the communities to reach back in. I think that's the way that we work together to get a more integrated service. Perhaps I could ask Mr Wat something different. It's been suggested that perhaps the provisions could almost be setting up the parole board for failure. The parole board is always happy to account for its decisions. It's so deciding factor as risk. It's not as though cold release is new to the board. For example, where a prisoner is released, at his earliest liberation date, two thirds of the way into his sentence, on licence and is recalled, it may be that we will get to a point where the board has to consider whether to release him, despite the fact that he's a risk, so that he can have some supervision in the community, or say that the risk is too great, he will not get out until the end of his sentence with all that goes with that. Those are decisions made by the board already on the basis of the evidence before it. I can see where Professor Tata is coming from. I'm pretty sure that the board can cope with that. Is it not more the public expectation might be greater if this is passed? It's supposed to be for public safety. You've made the decision more. The focus is more on you. That's what we're there for. We fulfil a judicial function, the same as a sheriff or a high court judge. They get it right most of the time, occasionally they get it wrong. We may be more on the public eye, yes, I suppose, but that's something we would need to live with, and it's not something that causes me great concerns. We'll always be in a position where we can make a perfectly good decision based on the information before it's and something changes after a prisoner is out and he offends. You'll never get away from that. We'll not get it right 100 per cent of the time. We will get it right and it might yet fail in the community. I think we'd have to wait and see how that panned out. Suitable explanation, although I know that it's not easy when the press have a particular angle on something and they're coming at it in a particular direction. This committee will know better than I, what that means. And sometimes it's driven by inappropriate coverage or coverage, which isn't entirely accurate. And I suppose we have to find some way to get that message across. The earlier evidence session spoke about this, trying to explain that when you release somebody, there is always an element of risk. And it has to be balanced against the management plan in place, which is something that hasn't yet been considered in any great detail, I don't think. There's always a risk. There's a level of harm which may crystallise if the risk isn't properly managed. And then there's how you manage the risk. And these three factors are taken into a balance, if you like, when you decide whether a risk is manageable in the community. How far you can explain that in a one minute sound bite, I don't know, but that would be a challenge. Does it muddle the water between sentencing and risk assessment? No. It need not, at the moment, that the argument from Professor Tata's argument, I suppose, is that a sentence imposed on the basis that, if it's a 12-year sentence, the judge knows that that, in fact, is eight years. If that were to change, then the 12-year sentence would mean a 12-year sentence. But then everybody would know that because the law would not kick in, I imagine, retrospectively. It would be for sentences imposed in the future. So there would be no doubt that 12 years were this past would mean 12 years. So I don't think that it need muddy the waters. There would be some clarification required when you're talking to victims and you had to explain that the sentence was imposed at a time when 12 years meant eight years. That's just a challenge that you have to overcome. Thank you. You were asking me how long we would take. So you're in with a supplementary, then I've got Alison, then I've got Christian, so I went no... Alison's out now, thank you. So no complaints. Just putting that marker down, right? Go. I just want to, my colleague was talking about through care. I wonder if you just clarify what the statutory through care provisions are, Mr McDonnell? Over four years I have a statutory supervision currently. But that's not in a sense for the prison service to provide, for the statutory resources that essentially provide that. But community and custody resources come together to plan for what that service provision might look like. So those serving less than four years do not have a statutory provision, but there's a general expectation that resources will be made available where they wanted to access them. Jane, no, sorry, it's Christian, right? Oh, people are being deleted even now. Thank you very much, convener. Just to add in the point that Mr John White made talking about some cases of cold release happening now, is there a case that this morning we're talking about generally the principle of there being a lack of a way for every prisoner? But it's very, very limited. The numbers are very limited. This bill will affect only very few prisoners. So how would you cope with it? How would the service cope with it? Do we welcome the fact that it's only going to target a few numbers? And what do you think about the Scottish Government wanting to extend that stopping at early release for other prisoners? The numbers that may be affected whether the bill is presently framed will be relatively small and will not increase to what might be a problematic level for a number of years, and who knows what the future might hold. If the numbers were to increase, if sentences were to be reduced and more prisoners drawn into the net, then yes, there would be resource implications. What they would be would depend very much on how much more widely the net was thrown. I think from a custodial point of view, the impact would be scaled depending on what the eventual solution is. But from our perspective, by and large, SPS could be expected to address the issues that that would throw up. Thank you. From a trade union perspective, the current estimate of 120 can be easily absorbed with a lot more numbers than we're covering at the moment. It's 7,500, the chief is like we were saying last week. But if it did become a dramatic increase, then we're obviously at a different discussions because we would have the infrastructure where we have enough staff. We've got processes and policies in place that we can go with the employer and say, right, we need to address these issues. At the moment, there's no immediate concern for the union. Thank you very much for your evidence. I'll suspend for two minutes. Stay put. Move on to next item of business. Next item of business is an evidence session on a supplementary, legitimately legislative consent memorandum on the Serious Crime Bill. I welcome to meeting Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs and the officials, Craig MacGuffey, directorate of our legal services, Scottish Government and Jim O'Neill, senior legal services manager, SPS. I also welcome Nigel Dawn, convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I understand that they actually considered this at its meeting earlier this morning. Minister, I'm going to invite you to make a brief opening statement. Then we're going to invite the convener of DPLR to tell us what's happened at that committee this morning before the committee discusses matters. So I think that's a way of proceeding. Thank you very much. I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the Government's further legislative consent memorandum in relation to the amendments to the UK Serious Crime Bill. I would like to address the purpose and effect of the amendments to the bill first. The Serious Crime Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 6 June 2014, and the relevant amendments to the bill were announced by the UK Government during the bill's second reading in the Commons on 5 January 2015 and were tabled at Westminster on 8 January. The amendments provide a regulation making power for the Scottish ministers to make provision conferring power on a court to order a communications provider to take action to prevent or restrict the use of communications devices by persons detained in prisons or young offenders institutions. Such action could include disconnecting unauthorised handsets and SIM cards which are held and used in prisons. The unauthorised use of mobile phones in prisons presents a range of serious risks to the security of prisons and to the safety of the public. They can be used to plan, escape or to discipline or to conduct serious organised crime, including drug imports and serious violence from behind bars. The powers in this bill will further help to deal with the challenging problem of illicit mobile phone use within prisons. They will support our commitment to tackling serious and organised crime as part of the letting our communities flourish strategy for tackling serious organised crime published in 2009 on behalf of the Serious and Organised Crime Task Force. The mobile network operators support this legislation. They have told us that they welcome a clear legal instrument which compels them to act and the new power provides that clarity. The amendments to the bill will allow Scottish ministers to make provision by regulations which will allow a court to make what will be known as telecommunications restriction orders or TROs. A TRO is an order requiring a communications provider to take the action specified in the order for the purpose of preventing or restricting communications devices by those detained in prisons or young offenders institutions. There are a number of matters which the regulations must address in relation to applications for a TRO, rights to make representations in response to an application, the granting of a TRO, the duration, variation and discharge of a TRO and appeals against decisions made on an application for a TRO. Regulations made under this new power may make provision among other things in relation to the cost of applying with a TRO, legal expenses of the application process and may also make exceptions from compliance with a TRO. The regulations may also make incidental, consequential, supplementary or transitional provisions and the regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure. I will now set out what I believe to be the rationale for the LCM. Wireless telegraphy is a reserve matter under paragraph C10 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. However, the management of prisons is devolved. As the bill confers functions on Scottish ministers, the bill is a relevant bill as defined in standing orders. As the UK bill has already been introduced, the LCM route offers a more resource efficient and timely legislative vehicle by which to confer the required powers. We are committed to minimising the number of phones entering prisons, to find phones that have got in, to block those phones that we have yet to find and to remove them from the networks, thus rendering them easier to engage in further criminal activities from prisons. This will help both the police and prison authorities to maintain the security of our prisons and the safety of our communities. This Parliament has previously considered and agreed an LCM in this policy area in regard to the Prisons Interference with Wireless Telegraphy Act 2012. This allowed the Scottish Prison Service to procure and install mobile signal denial technology in two pilot sites, HMP Shots and HMP Glynocal. The technology was installed and operational by the end of the financial year 2013-14. The amendments covered by this LCM will help to bolster the policy previously agreed by the Scottish Parliament via the previous LCM. The Justice Committee has already considered an LCM for the bill. It did so on 2 September when I gave evidence. The Justice Committee published its report on 10 December 2014 stating that it was content to support that LCM. The Scottish Parliament agreed the LCM on 6 January 2015. We recognise that this legislation is only the first step and that we will need to bring forward regulations for the Parliament to consider further how we will exercise the powers that have been amended into the bill. The evolving technology, the location of the equipment, the type of equipment to be deployed, the opening up of further parts of the wireless spectrum are just some of the factors that need to be kept under consideration. However, these provisions and the ensuing regulations are another important key in tackling illicit mobile phone use in prisons and keeping our ability to respond up-to-date. We will continue to work with colleagues in NOMS, OFCOM and the mobile network operators to ensure that these powers are not only exercised effectively but responsibly. I therefore ask the committee to support the legislative consent motion that has been laid before it and I'm happy to answer questions. Of course, we're not having a motion today. Thank you, convener, and good morning, convener, good morning minister and everyone else. Delegated powers and order form committee considered this bill only this morning and because of the time constraints that we're all working on, we're unable to write to the committee as we normally would have done, which is why I'm here now to discuss the issue and I'm grateful for the opportunity to do so. As the minister has already told us, the new clause 11 enables Scottish ministers by regulations to confer a power on sheriff courts to make a telecommunications restriction order. The power enables Scottish ministers to create offences for breach of a telecommunications restriction order without specifying the maximum penalty which may be imposed for such an offence. In principle, my committee considers the delegated powers should not contain unlimited power to set penalties. This is a view that the committee has previously expressed. For example, in relation to the Tribunal Scotland Bill. So my first ministerial question to the minister is going to be why has no maximum penalty being set please as a matter of principle? What that penalty might reasonably be, of course, is a matter of policy which is for the committee but the principle is one that concerns my committee. If I might give you the full story at this point minister and then we can come back to it. In addition, the LCM states that the new clause 11 will enable Scottish ministers to make regulations conferring discretion on the sheriff court in making telecommunications restriction orders regarding matters such as accessibility of court documents and the proceedings, the holding of meetings in private and matters relating to proof and evidence. It appears to the committee that the power is not drafted in a way which actually enables such provision about court proceedings to be made. The matters do not fall within a list of items in sub clauses 3 or 4 which regulations may or may make provision about. Therefore, it appears to the committee that there is discrepancy between the policy intention as stated in the LCM and the scope of the proposed power which appears in it. This is a provision about court proceedings which would normally normally be made within court rules rather than by ministers. There is actually ministers generally don't have the power to do so. I don't know if you were listening into the DPLR committee this morning. We are and hopefully I will be able to respond to those two points. Thank you. Certainly on the first point in terms of the power in the bill and the lack of specification of a maximum penalty, whilst it would have clearly been preferable to have this included in these amendments, the decision to bring these forward was taken by the UK Government at a very late stage of the bill and therefore there has been less opportunity than we would have liked. I am sure indeed that the UK Government would have liked to make those provisions perfect. It is, however, envisaged that a breach of the telecommunications restriction order is likely to be prosecuted as contempt of court. In terms of section 152 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 the current penalty for contempt of court is up to two years imprisonment or a fine or both. However, the penalty for contempt of court and the shared court is in most cases up to three months imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500 or both. It is worth stressing that it is thought that the need to seek the court to impose such penalties will be rare as this legislation is the preferred option of the communication providers and has been taken forward following consultation with them and at their request. Further amendments allow the Scottish ministers to make provision by subordinate legislation for the enforcement of telecommunication restriction orders and this may include the creation of offences that will be open to ministers to create a bespoke offence of breaching a TRO and create specific penalties for that offence. Although the current intention is to rely on contempt of court as a means of enforcing these orders there are alternative means of enforcement available to ministers should that be considered necessary and I hope that tackles the point that the committee have fairly raised in relation to the lack of specification of a maximum penalty at this stage. I just want to go over what to respond to that. I hear what the minister says and of course my committee's concern is always to look beyond what the present government thinks it will do and that's with the greatest of respect to the present government regardless of its political view and to try and ensure that what we put in legislation is watertight. It's on that basis that my committee would always come back saying if you're going to create an offence about absolutely anything let's have on the face of the bill what the maximum penalty should be but having said that I've heard exactly what the minister says I can see exactly why it might well want to be prosecuted as contempt of court and that of course is a protocol which exists and is well understood. Very well be an interim position. Indeed it's open to ministers to create a specified offence and perhaps give more comfort to the committee and indeed to the delegated powers committee as well on that issue. Subsequently I could address a second point community if that would be helpful. On the discrepancy between the scope of the power and what the policy men Morandom says about the accessibility of court documents and hearings the early draft provisions contained regulation making powers in relation to the accessibility of court documents and to allow court hearings to be heard in private. The early draft LCM provided the general principles of the amendments as no final provisions have yet been agreed and received. In the final provisions there is no power to allow court hearings to be held in private as there are already powers to regulate court procedures in section 32 of the Sherf Courts Act and section 5 of the Court of Session Act the SPS have no plans to seek that the court exercise these powers that is to hold hearings in private. The SPS have been open in terms of the location of the technologies in terms of HM prison shots and HM prison glenochal and that they intended to pilot mobile phone blocking technology. I think that there has been a degree of openness about where technology has been deployed to date. That helps address. Just to questions from members, John. Thank you, convener. Morning, minister. I was very exercised about this before for a very particular reason and that is in the town where I live and indeed the only prison in the region is closer to the prison perimeter wall than I am to you and I was very concerned about the potential for intrusion that could have existed there. I note that this pilot project is there. I don't know if you're in a position to reassure regarding the standard of the blocking and intervention. It was things around the issue that of course a lot of people rely on telecare issues like that. What reassurance you can give in respect of that, please? Well, indeed, these are important issues and we have obviously as Mr Finnie has identified the two pilot projects have been under way. In regards to HM prison shots, it's been very successfully implemented and there have been no technical difficulties. I will invite my colleague Jim O'Neill to discuss the detail in relation to HAP Glynocal. There have been some more difficult situations in terms of implementation because of the need to ensure that external signals are not being interfered with by the equipment. The powers that we are discussing today would allow us to use potentially more mobile technology, which would be easier to update in relation to emerging technology, for example as 4G develops and 5G develops. The existing regulations don't allow us the technology to be able to tackle that at present. The regulations that would be developed and the approach taken to implementation of the legislation would allow us to have technology that could be more sophisticated in the sense that it could be targeted more at a particular part of a prison rather than having the entire prison covered simultaneously. I invite Jim O'Neill if we may convener to explain the technical difficulties we have and the challenges that we face in terms of ensuring the problem that Mr Finnie has fairly raised does not occur in practice. I will try my best to give you that. It is fairly technical and please forgive me if I stray. I would like to reassure the committee and Mr Finnie that the testing that is undertaken before this equipment is switched on is very robust and has taken the testing that is undertaken by the Home Office cast division. That involves a 10,000-point perimeter test of the prison to ensure that no interference is achieved with the perimeter of the prison and that is part of the memorandum of understanding that was agreed between Ofcom, the mobile network operators and the Scottish ministers. So 10,000 times do we check around about the perimeter, at 10,000 points do we check around the perimeter of the prison that there is no interference with any of the properties close by? If I might share just a very brief experience which I think demonstrates the commitment of those involved as part of the testing at Shots Prison there was some interference creeping over the fence at a particular corner and only one particular network I should say. Before we tweak the equipment we had to look at what properties were in that area and there was one property within the reach of that interference or potential within the reach of that interference and of course we visited that person and we asked them have you discovered any interference with your mobile phone and the owner of the property said we have found no interference with our mobile phone whatsoever. The reason for that was quite simple because the network that was slipping over was not the network that the person was on so from time to time environmental conditions and what have you we do find that but the interference is subject to a 10,000 point check and to the satisfaction of the mobile and net co-operators and OFCOM. How would you know it was being interfered with? Simply you couldn't use it. You should have no signal. That gives me zero reassurance because the way you would know your emergency alarm that wasn't going to work is if you had a fall and you got no response perhaps. I'm not reassured by that and perhaps we can get more information back in the pilot projects. Literally within a stone's throw and in the centre of a city there are hundreds of properties and a lot of these people will be people who are benefitting from telecare. Excuse me, I'm not a technical person maybe it has no impact but I suspect given that it uses the technology that it has the potential to have an impact and none of this and I have some subsequent questions none of that is to suggest anything other than appreciating the significant procession of mobile phones by prisoners posers and I think we want to do everything possible to assist eradicating that challenge to the prison service and to people out with the prison walls. If I could respond convener I certainly take the point that Mr Finlay is making and really to pick up the points that Jim O'Neill has just said about the proactive nature of the checks I feel like so it's not in a sense being left entirely to chance that someone is having their phone interfered with by the equipment unintentionally but proactively checking all the way around the perimeter and making sure that we can identify if there are signals that are present that might be interfering with the equipment and then practically finding out where they are coming from so I think that's the process that was gone through in terms of shots but I entirely take the point and understandably members will want reassurance about their constituents' interests and around prisons that are juxtaposed with urban settlements and I entirely take that point to the going forward and development of the draft regulations that would be deployed in Scotland to implement this policy would be to offer to the committee should it wish to do so an informal private discussion with technical officials so that these kind of issues can be explored in a kind of detail that perhaps members would wish to do so and to interrogate if they'd be in a private setting as I believe has been done previously and indeed human trafficking to offer the committee the chance to discuss with the officials if there are any particular technical questions they have to make sure they can be ironed out in the regs as they are implemented I'm certainly grateful to the minister that would be very helpful and I appreciate that technology moves very quickly and there may be other things come on the market that will make things more easy can I perhaps move on to some other issues there you mentioned RIPSA and indeed in RFC we're told there that it's the UK one the regulation investigatory powers that will be used to analyse patterns of usage to establish the phone as in use within a relevant institution there's a potential for collateral damage or collateral interfere instead as well isn't there my understanding is if there was a request by SPS to have a TRO implemented here that would, if it necessitated getting communications data from a mobile phone operator that would be done via Police Scotland and using RIPSA rather than RIPPA so appreciate the drafting of the notes is perhaps not helpful in this respect but with possible exception I presume of if there was an instance of terrorism out I think it would be unlikely that the individual would be housed in Scotland but there's a chance they could be so therefore we'd have to look at that and we can come back on the issue of what circumstances if any RIPPA would apply rather than RIPSA but my understanding is that procedures would be I appreciate that to some extent anticipated this from Mr Finnie and asked the questions myself but I believe that the procedures such as they are would involve using Police Scotland to seek that data from a mobile phone operator and assuming that was done by Police Scotland it would be done through RIPSA rather than RIPPA in Scotland I think it's just unfortunately that is not clear in the documentation that the committee has been able to see it may indeed be accurate in its RIPSA that's missing rather than RIPPA I wonder then we are also told at note F scope to make provision within the body of an order provider or a person specified in order must take steps to re-establish the operation of the device that is designed to deal with the scenario when it becomes clear that an error has been made and the wrong phone has been disconnected could you explain a scenario where a wrong phone could be disconnected well clearly there's a risk that the phone is incorrectly identified and the signal is shut down and we would need to correct that error I'm not aware of any specific examples that have been given to me but if I may ask Jim O'Neill who's more familiar with the kind of use of phones in a prison environment to give an example where that not from a personal perspective but indeed from a Scottish prison service perspective if Jim O'Neill can maybe explain where that might arise in practice as the committee is aware the pilot is on going of this technology at these two sites and we have found no evidence and had no complaints thus far of any phones being affected by the deployment of the technology I think these provisions are important provisions because they in some way look to try and focus on what future technologies might do obviously Mr Finnie is quite correct to say that where properties are within a fairly very close proximity to a prison then the safeguards that you need to put in place are obviously much greater to ensure that there is no disproportionate interference or effect on mobile phones out with the prison the technology is challenging it is complex the regulations the powers envidges at least that possibility and therefore provide an avenue of redress but it is difficult in the current pilot to see to think that the likelihood of that is going to be great but there is an essence of future proofing where you may take the technology into a prison which is in close proximity to the community and there is scope for errors indeed that scope minister has recognised in the financial implications because one of the implications that is referred to there is the compensation that could be paid for erroneous disconnections but if I can go back to Rippa Ripsa how would an individual know that they are the subject of that and they might just think their phones faulty how would they know to follow this process up that is a good question I imagine that we have got to bear in mind that any use of a mobile phone in the prison is currently illegal and therefore there shouldn't be perhaps expecting consumer normal consumer rights to be observed in these situations absolutely but this clearly the scope of this goes beyond prisoners and to say for the avoidance of any doubt salary punishment for those responsible for breaching prison law and all the rest but these provisions cover the community perhaps a community impact assessment would have been a helpful addition to this minister well we clearly I take the point that Mr Finney has identified and obviously there is a risk this is an important issue that we need to take forward in developing the regulations to make sure that they are as watertight as we can possibly make them in this respect but in terms of the equipment as I understand if there's a clear cut observance of a signal which is being captured by the kind of grabbing equipment already in shots and although it's not fully deployed yet in clinical if that is subsequently deployed we'd be able to grab a signal and if we were absolutely sure that that signal is coming from within the prison and there's no risk of it being from outside or indeed from somebody who's just visiting the prison that day having their phone on their person then they can be conceded with without going through the process of getting communications data from a mobile phone operator but obviously there's a degree of triangulation that can be used by going through the route using RIPSA through Police Scotland to get communications data from the mobile phone operator to double check about the pattern of usage when it's consistent with the understanding of the phone being used illegally within the context of the prison to make sure that we've got certainty that this is bona fide case that the phone needs to be shut down as a signal that's being used is about normal conventional mobile phones and Jim's community brought along this indeed is a mobile phone, believe it or not it looks very much like a Mercedes-Benz in this case key fob but that is secreted on someone that's actually got into prison potentially in a, hopefully not this particular one in a body cavity or something of that nature and has very low element of metal within it and so I think I understand from the technical point of view that the internal area is not particularly strong there's quite a weak signal and it probably wouldn't be similar to a smartphone in terms of its ability to capture a network so we are talking about the confines of prison the limited range of signal from something like this it would probably be quite easy to pick this up whereas a more complicated modern smartphone might be more difficult to isolate from other phones You used to phrase patterns of usage the thing that concerns me and we would ignore at a folly I think giving the wider implications is we're talking about potentially widespread surveillance here and it's an individual how an individual would have redress if their mobile phone were blocked it's not clear to me I don't know that the technology is up to what our expectations are and I'm not suggesting it's a man walking about with an aerial but perhaps the use of rips doesn't suggest some immediate act it suggests some pre-planning and indeed that is the basis of the evidence that's provided to the court evidence that I notice is the standard of proof as a civil standard not the criminal standard of proof again potentially Obviously there are existing provisions where as I say it's already an offence to be in possession and to be using a phone within a prison system so if you were able to identify someone actually had a handset on them you could prosecute them through the existing procedures the problem we have is we have people potentially hiding these sort of devices in prison and being able to track them down is more difficult we're able to identify that in a certain area of the prison a signal is being received but not being able to prove exactly who it is that has it and to capture it at that time and so the ability to then shut down the signal to the phone is very important talking about we can obviously have two approaches to this you catch someone in the act of using the phone and you can use existing procedures to deal with that because it is an offence but we also need the ability to shut down the phones if we know a phone is potentially being used and these are almost like a currency within jail that certain individuals may have them it has a certain amount of power over the fellow inmates and a certain hold over them but we may not be able to track down I have no issue with that I would want that very strong but the public require to be protected from inappropriate surveillance and inappropriate intrusion into their privacy which the potential with the existing limitations of the blocking mechanisms that's what we have at the moment thank you I'm just wondering about product placement minister so in case somebody's got a zoom in on it there are other awesome ideas right, I'm going to take Margaret then guilty's market I think the point's been well made by even demonstrating that little handset this is such a vexing problem it's been going on for so long it seems that the criminals are always one step ahead and technology helping with smaller SIM cards which can be passed round and different handsets that look anything but a handset and I think it's important to be in mind that it allows them to continue the very behaviour that they were put in prison for first so I very much welcome this LCM in attempting to reduce and eventually eliminate the use or elicit use of mobile phones in prison could the minister perhaps give an indication of the extent of this in the whole of the prison this state and particularly the effect of the pilot if it's possible to assess just how effective that's been so far to set out some numbers currently the current position is they still remain a challenge and we need to recognise that the existing provisions have not fully dealt with it but in 2011 there were 959 mobile telephone handsets found in Scottish prisons an addition more than 800 component parts of mobile phones obviously SIM cards and the like were found sometimes phones are broken up and then distributed and reassembled for the purpose of actually making a call and in the six month period to October 2014 after the implementation of the existing regulations in relation to the previous measures committee has overseen 135 mobile telephone handsets were found in Scottish prisons an addition more than 170 component parts of mobile phones were found so if you gross that up to a year's figures then there's been quite a substantial reduction in the number of phones being found and indeed components so it is having some impact Margaret Mitchell is quite right it's about trying to keep up with and try and stay ahead where we can of the entrepreneurial activity of some prisoners within the custodial setting and obviously with the advent of new mobile phone bandwidths and 4G and potentially in future 5G and other generation phones we need to be alive to that and be able to be alive to the innovation that is going into these devices and more generic kind of phones that are being brought into prison so we were realistic there will be others that will have escaped detection and the Scottish prison service do take the issue extremely seriously at the moment but hopefully that gives a sense of scale as to what the numbers were before the regulations came into force and what they are now but we just need to keep ahead of where the prison community are going in terms of technology it requires a court-ordered compel the communication provider to take action how long is that likely to take well this is an area convener and Margaret Mitchell is quite right to ask this where we will need to do some further work we need to speak to Scottish court service to see what potential there is to if particularly there is a concern about a serious crime that might be being furthered through the use of the phone or risk to public safety or risk to witnesses perhaps outside the prison system that we need to move very quickly we will need to explore with Scottish court service whether there is potential for expedited procedures to be used to ensure that when necessary we can get the first available opportunity to go through court and get it delivered and happy to come back to the committee in the private setting or through correspondence to discuss how that might be taken forward with the committee thank you thank you can I go back to questions relating to communities living in and around their prisons and what rights do they actually have in the setting up of your ten thousand point perimeter before you action that would the public be the priority or would the security and the government be the priority well it goes without saying and Gil Paterson and indeed Mr Finlay are quite right to raise these issues that we must take the protection of civil liberties extremely seriously and to take that as a very high priority so I would hope that that is a key consideration in implementing technology and as a part of the proposals that we have the ability to be able to have more mobile technology that can be used within the prison rather than potentially impacting on outside the prison will be helpful to us and perhaps minimising the risks of this happening but if I may again ask Jim O'Neill just to explain what the process is we go through to ensure that we do protect local communities and go beyond the answer that was given originally to Mr Finlay indeed the minister is correct the public is the priority and that's obviously the key interest of OFCOM who are responsible for regulating the wireless network if I might briefly just turn back to Mr Finlay's point about telecare and other services the technology has no impact on those whatsoever because the technology only operates on the frequencies of the mobile phones it does not operate on any other or block any other frequencies that's future proof Mr O'Neill on the other hand sorry would you know that that's future proof then because these technologies themselves could develop they could but obviously OFCOM have oversight of the whole of the wireless spectrum and are aware of who who is transmitting on the whole wireless spectrum so therefore OFCOM need to be satisfied as the principle regulator that we are not interfering with parts of the wireless spectrum which we are not authorised to do and the technology only interferes on those wireless signals which mobile phones use so I think that's the key in terms of public protection and the testing the testing is to the satisfaction of the regulator of that wireless spectrum technology and the mobile network operators and they have the public interest at the core the core of their business Mr Paterson's benefit that the directions to prison governors in terms of the are designed to limit interference inside a prison and more importantly and pertinently given both the concerns Mr Paterson and indeed Mr Finney is that the technology must be switched off should it be proved that it's disproportionately interfering with outside the prison boundaries so there's direction sorry sorry it's really just to make that point there's also as Mr O'Neill has indicated the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish ministers indeed UK ministers of common and communication providers and that guarantees we continue to work constructively with them they have the operators have the interests of the wider community using their phones at heart and that's a key consideration for government as well to ensure we're not impacting on them where we can avoid doing so and to ensure the powers are exercised both effectively and proportionally and responsibly so it's not something that's done lightly I think I would want to put on record but you know clearly we are talking about some situations where we may have a serious threat to public safety and therefore difficult decisions have to be made but that's why it's important to have the ability to redress the situation should a phone prove to be incorrectly switched off and to get that to be compensated for the impact that's had on the individual a next question to what right would the public have what an individual have in this process if it was approved and the scheme was in operation but you're telling me that an individual could make a complaint have it investigated and the phone brought back into use so they have a right to do that the memorandum understanding now has that right within it and any member of the public can raise any concerns whether mobile network operator and the mobile network operator have agreed to work with us to have a look at to explore whether this is a problem with their own technology whether it's a problem with our technology there is through the memorandum understanding already that opportunity for people to raise concerns make complaints equally we'd be delighted if they would approach us and we too would be happy to investigate that just the last question is that people do always read leaflets that go through their doors I presume you do this if you're implementing this within the vicinity of a community within the vicinity of a prison how do you engage telling people we're going to be doing this if you find something funny with your mobile phone let us know here's the contact now if you put on a leaflet they may not lead it because they maybe think it's furniture sale or something stuff comes through the door all the time how do you make sure that people know and they get a simple list of things that they may feel well it's not something somebody's blocked it how are you going to tell people I think that that's a very important point I'll just explain what we already do in that respect but I'm happy if the committee have any concerns about the communication with local communities around the prison to look very sympathetically at anything about how we engage and make sure they're aware of their rights and how to go about fixing any problems that arise certainly the procedures that Mr Finnie identified in 12F in terms of the procedures in terms of somebody contacting their communication provider yeah but how do you tell them in advance you know that they might not think it's doing it I certainly agree that that would be a sensible thing to do to ensure that local communities are aware there might be a problem therefore to contact either their communication provider I was just going to send them a text, I thought of that too but I don't know if your phone's not working Jiminy, you'll just explain what we're currently doing in that respect in advance of the problems that are at shots in Glenoco Yeah, I think that's a very important point and I think the key thing that SPS did do was that we made public which is quite contrary to the approach taken down south it was really public and indeed the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice visited one of the sites where we were piloting the technology and so there it was in the public domain already where this technology was being deployed it received some fairly significant coverage in local press in the area and in the national press so the one key way in which we made the public aware that this was happening was to take a different approach to down south and actually publicise the fact that we were deploying this technology but we didn't put something through people's doors as well don't have to get... No, we didn't because we said quite openly we are going to do this here in this place and we invited... I mean people don't all read the papers and things or watch television if a neighbour doesn't have a television so how do you just simply do a door-to-door here's a note telling you and if this is happening it may be this I think that would be... I think that would be entirely fair but I agree I mean if there's a concern and obviously Mr Finney's identified a particular prison where there might be a concern of that nature then it wouldn't be unreasonable just to let people know how they go about identifying if it has had an impact if there is an impact on their signal then to communicate with their service provider the service provider will know if that signal has been switched off because it's obviously specific to a phone and to a SIM card and I can obviously undertake the redress steps to restore that service if it's not somebody who's an inmate so I think we... It could have a complaint you see if you did that that you could take reasonable steps I feel Yeah I think that's important and it's about ensuring that people are comfortable with what we're doing as well Well I think that's fine, thank you very much that's the evidence session concluded thank you minister and your officials we will consider a draft report in the LCM at our next meeting I thank Nigel Dorn for coming and explaining why we have that committee that I can never remember the new name of thank you very much and we now move into private session and we break everybody 2 or 3 minutes