 I hope that it will go down. I go to item 1. I welcome Jane Baxter as our new member of the committee. What a turnover we have. We must be some kind of gulag for people I think. Our first item of business today is to invite Jane Baxter to declare any interests that are relevant to the remit of this committee chain. Thank you. Could you put a microphone to say it again please? I have nothing to declare. Thank you very much. Item 2, we are invited to agree to consider item 4 consideration of our approach to stage 1 scrutiny of the human trafficking and exploitation of Scotland Bill in private. Are you agreed? Thank you very much. Item 3, prisoners control of re-scotland bill. This is our first day of evidence taking at stage 1 of prisoners control of re-scotland bill. I welcome to our meeting from the University of Strathclyde, Dr Monica Barry, principal research fellow University of Clyde, alone and painfully loitering Dr Barry, but unfortunately this is due to the family illness Professor Cyrus Tassar, professor of law and criminal justice from the same university. It is had to withdraw at short notice. I hope you will be able to give evidence at a future meeting. If you were able to come next week, would you be content? Thank you very much. We have written submissions so I will go straight to questions. Gil, followed by Elaine. Thanks very much. I am particularly interested in addressing sexual offenders behaviour. I wonder if the fact that early release takes place and knowing that people to address their offending, for instance in Peterhead I know there was a particularly good scheme that was happening, but it relied of course on people volunteering and I suspect that some of them volunteered to play up to the parole board, but the indicator suggested that it was very, very successful. So that if early release stops, would that in effect, what are your feelings about what impact that would make? Is it a good thing that perhaps there is more time for people to reflect and understand that they are going to be here longer if they do not participate and get working on it for the two reasons that I mentioned, for the good reason and the reason just to get out of the place, or is there a downside to this? I know that there may be some downside and I wondered what your feelings were in regard to that. I mean, I would say firstly that sex offenders are the most compliant of ex-prisoners that you will find, I think. They are absolutely paranoid about being returned to prison following the recall and they do tend to keep to the conditions of their licence. But in terms of sex offender programmes, a lot of people I've spoken to, I've done research with high-risk sexual and violent offenders, both in London, who are on levels two and three mapper, and also with about 70 people on licence in Scotland. And they all say, the sex offenders say that the programmes do help, but they don't have the time for them. And there's an assumption in the Bill that if automatic early releases abolish, prisoners will more readily take up these group work programmes. But the point is that there are waiting lists for these programmes, both in Peterhead and elsewhere. So not everyone can access them at the time that they're in prison. And I've been told both by prisoners and by sheriffs that extended sentences are often used as a way to ensure that people get programmes in the community, which I think is the wrong use of extended sentences, certainly. So there's not a demand problem with programmes. There's a supply problem. There aren't enough programmes in the prison. So people are being put out into the community and asked to do the programmes there. And the other thing, while I'm on that, is the open estate. To get parole, people have to have time in the open estate. And there are waiting lists for that as well for some reason. So there's no possibility sometimes for people to get parole, and therefore they're dependent on the automatic early release at the two-thirds stage. So there's maybe perhaps a resource question. There's definitely a results question now, and that will be exacerbated if these reforms go through. I'm interested in the fact that you said that programmes after people are released, and since it would mean that people again would need to volunteer, they couldn't be co-est into it. So is it more reliable, if you like? Let's take on board that you said there's a resource element to it. But it would be the idea that folk would volunteer after being released in great numbers of fine, difficult to comprehend. But if there was not a release, if the resource element you talk about, if that wasn't a barrier, would you think that if the resource was there that we would enjoy higher numbers of people presenting voluntarily within prison? I'm not sure, but I think prisoners who are released on non-parole licence have to undertake the programme in the community if they haven't done it in prison, and I apologise if I'm wrong on that. But I'm pretty sure that's part of the conditions of the non-parole licence. If they haven't done a course in prison that needs to be done, they have to do it in the community, which is why sheriffs are putting extended sentences in place to ensure that there's time for them to do that. Some sex offenders would do programmes voluntarily, but I doubt many violent offenders would, for example. And there's probably a quite a sensible minority of sex offenders who wouldn't voluntarily. I've visited Peter Hayden. It may be out different now that one of the issues put us is that many of them were in denial, in fact, who didn't think they'd committed an offence, particularly if it was, you know, children were involved in it. And that's a huge difficulty. It's getting them to see that they, in fact, were guilty of an offence in the first place. Is that correct? Yes, it is, but I mean, that's a minority, I think. Okay. And they do tend to do the programmes, not least because if they don't do the programmes, they don't get out. I understand that's a complex, but whether or not it means anything to be done in the programme is another thing. I mean, some people I've talked to have said they went into the programme thinking, I'll just do this for tokenistic purposes. But they come out thinking it really did help them, made them change their mindset. Thank you. I've got Eileen followed by Roderick. Thank you, convener. Dr Barry, in your submission to the committee, you're actually pretty critical of this legislation. You describe it as a flawed change in legislation and in undermining rather than strengthening the role of both deterrence and reintegration. I wondered if you felt the alternative proposals in the custodial sentences in Weapons Scotland back in 2007, which haven't been enacted, in which there was a custody element and a community element to sentence, whether that would be preferable to the approach being taken in this bill? It would be much preferable, yes. I don't know why the reforms from the 2007 act haven't been enacted, but it's vital that you have a community part to any custodial sentence because that enables people to be tested in the community. People aren't going to reoffend in prison in a way that's going to harm the public, obviously. So it's only when they're released that the potential for risk is there. So they need to have that kind of monitoring and supervision in place when they get out of prison. The longer somebody is in prison, the more need there is to adapt to life on the outside and the more support they need for that. Many of these people, especially sex offenders, don't have social networks in the community that they can call on. On social workers and the police, many people have said to me they look forward to having a police visit once a week if they're on a sexfender notification requirement, for example, because it's company, it's somebody to talk to. So they really are desperate for that kind of social support. Your principal concern about the bill, as it is drafted, is that they'd lessen the support that is available compared to what... There will be no support for the most potentially high-risk people if the reforms go through, because once they're out after a full term of imprisonment, there's no statutory requirement to look after them. So you would not agree that the proposed reforms would help to protect the public? Not at all, no. Thank you. Thank you, convener. A couple of disparate questions. First of all, the policy memorandum, Dr Barry, the Government's policy memorandum makes it clear that reforms will not mean that all prisoners affected by the ending of automatic early release will necessarily serve their entire sentence in custody. Prisoners will be able to be considered on a regular basis for parole. If the parole board is satisfied that a prisoner poses an acceptable risk to the public safety at a given point in the sentence, discretionary early release, on parole licence will take place. So there will still be an incentive to a prisoner. Would you agree with that? Yes, but given that I think there's only something like 25 or 30% of people who go forward for parole actually get it, there's not much incentive there and prisoners know that it's unlikely, depending on their offence, that they will get parole. And also if they've not done the programmes because there's a waiting list and they've not been in the open estate because there's a waiting list, then they're unlikely to get parole. But yes, they can continue seeking it every year or two whenever it is. But the point I would like to make is that if somebody is deemed eligible for parole and gets out, that is no guarantee that they're not going to re-offend. You can never guarantee that somebody is not going to re-offend. And if they don't get out because they're deemed a risk to the public in January 2015, but they do get out in January 2016, having served the full term of the imprisonment, then that risk isn't going to change. And if they're without support in January 2016 at all, then the risk of then re-offending is exacerbated. The policy memoranda makes it clear that there are alternatives, extended sentence and the use of mapper which could come into play if these proposals aren't legislated. I don't have any comments on that in terms of post support. Yeah, extended sentences and suppos, sexual offences, prevention orders and mapper itself will not make up for the lack of supervision and support that can be given through criminal justice social work. These additional sentences, and they are additional sentences in the eyes of prisoners, that there are double punishment in a way. They're purely for monitoring behaviour and managing risk. Prisoners think that they're a kind of catch-all to trick people up and get them recalled to prison as soon as possible. That's what they think, therefore. They don't see them as a help at all. Can you help us in a different matter on figure work at the present time? Those prisoners at the present time who are released at the two-thirds point and then obviously subject to supervision, what's their re-offending rate in that period in which they're subject to supervision as opposed to on-going after the supervision has ended? Is there a distinction in the re-offending rate? We've just completed a study, the fieldwork of a study which is looking at 10,000 people on community-based supervision, either community payback orders or post-release licence conditions. Unfortunately, we haven't analysed that yet, but I can certainly get that to you when we do. I suspect from previous research that people on non-parole licence are more likely to re-offend than people on parole licence. People on no licence conditions whatsoever are more likely to offend than people on licence. It would be useful to look at the same individuals as it were subject to supervision, re-offending rate and non-subject to supervision, re-offending rate. Any information would be helpful, however. I think the convener would agree. I certainly always agree with you, Roderick. That would take time, because the people who are not subject to supervision now are a different type of person with a different type of offence and have been in prison for a much shorter period of time. So, to really look at that, you need four or five years to be able to get them when the new legislation is out, if it comes out. And then spend over two years looking at their reconfiction dates once they're in the community again. So, it would take time. Time, Doctor. I've just been discussing with the clerks that we've got to the end of February before we have to draft a report. Would that information be available by then? Our information will be, yes. That's excellent. Thank you. Christian, followed by Margaret. There you go. Good morning. I just wanted to have some clarification when you talk about, say, use offenders and talking about the bill. The bill talks about only a very limited amount of offenders. Do you think that there will be more marriage to the bill if it was for all offenders? No, because I don't think there are any merits in the bill in terms of reducing re-offending or encouraging reintegration. What I would say is that if they're piloting this with high-risk violent offenders and sex offenders, then they're probably piloting the wrong people. They should be going for the lower end if they're going to abolish early release. So, for example, dangerous driving, which is probably a higher risk to the public than sex offenders, or common street crimes such as shoplifting, theft, breach of the peace. If people are in custody for under four years, under two years, possibly, it's likely that they will survive better after a full term of imprisonment and no support in the community. But the longer in prison and the more stigma attached to the offence, such as sexual offending, then the more support you need when you get out. Going back to what my colleague Roderick O'Ball asked for about MAPPA, you don't see any justification of having anything after the sentence, after the end of the sentencing. I'm not sure. I would have to check this, but I'm not convinced that MAPPA has a statutory obligation if the person is not on licence. I may be wrong there. I'm happy for somebody to tell me otherwise. If there is no statutory obligation for social work to help that person or to monitor their risk, then it would be very difficult to hold them to account. Whereas if they're on licence, it's a statutory obligation. You would be quite happy for that type of services to be just at the end of the sentence, but not after. No, that can be after. As long as there is support in place, there's no point in monitoring somebody in a vacuum. You have to give them proactive support in terms of accommodation, employment, education, benefits, etc. I'll break it. Thank you. Margaret, please. Good morning, Dr Bright. I wonder if you could comment, obviously, the bill targets and pilots sex offenders with a custodial sentence of four years and more other offenders with a custodial sentence of ten years of more. Given what you've said about recidivism and that category of offenders who are more likely to be offend, is there a case, really, for more wide-ranging reform of the system of early release? You've gone a little bit into where you would start with this, but if you could expand on that, it would be very helpful. Yes, I think there needs to be much more wide-ranging reform to the criminal justice system generally. Firstly, as I mentioned, the group work programmes in prison need to be expanded, and that's whatever happens reform-wise. There needs to be more access to programmes for people when they need them, and even if they're transferred to a different prison, they need to be able to continue the programme that they started, and that's an issue for some prisoners. There also needs to be greater use of the open estate if people need the open estate before they can get parole. In terms of the 2007 legislation needs to be enforced, I think, with half custody, half community. Our study just now is looking at 250 offenders who have breached or not breached community payback or post-release licence conditions. As I said, those findings will be later this year. But they said that breach conditions are overly strenuous to adhere to, so breach needs to be loosened, I think, whether or not somebody is giving parole or non-parole. Community supervision needs to be much more proactive, which means social workers not only having more resources to look after people on release, but also more of a remit and encouragement to help them gain constructive activity in the community. Without any constructive activity, they're not going to feel part of that community, they're not going to reintegrate easily. Also, there needs to be much greater prison-based planning for release. I mean, I know the reforms are suggesting if somebody gets out on a Thursday or on a Friday, it might help, but I have my doubts about that. I think they need planning in prison for about three months prior to release and they're not getting it just now. If they get parole, they'll let out the next day and there's no planning that you can do in that time. So, the whole system needs to change. Housing needs to be more proactive and hold best for people who are potentially going to get out on parole or non-parole. Given the cost of reoffending is about $3 billion a year, it seems to me to make sense that you put many more resources into the kind of activities you've just explained rather than maybe some of the approaches we are taking. Just finally, I wonder if you could comment on the perception issue and is in your opinion, does the act as drafted or the bill as drafted clarify sentencing policy? Is there a need to clarify? Is there some confusion here? I don't think it does clarify. I think it muddies the water even more and it's at the expense of one of the most vulnerable groups. So, it's playing into the hands of obeying public in a way and the media and it seems to have more electoral appeal than enhancing public protection. The 2007 act clarifies things a lot more, I think. It is obvious that it is half community, half prison, half community and that in the community it's rehabilitation, not purely surveillance. Thank you for that. Can I just pick up on what I'm interested in your line? You said 250 offenders are not breached community payback orders, you're looking at them just now. You said breach has to be loosened. Breach criteria has to be loosened. The criteria has to be loosened. Could you just expand on that a little bit? Social workers currently, a lot of social workers are going by the book and saying if you don't turn up for two appointments then you're breached and if you don't have a valid reason for not turning up then you're breached. If your grandmother dies and you can't attend an appointment you need a death certificate. Things are getting quite out of hand, I think. For sex offenders they're being alleged to have committed a further offence when they insist they haven't and they're recalled to prison on the basis of an allegation by a member of the public. They can be there for years before they're let out again even if they're found not guilty of the subsequent offence. It seems quite extraordinary that... It happens quite a bit. The parole board takes a long time to... I mean it's not their fault but it takes a long time to go through the paperwork to get somebody back out of prison once they've been recalled. It can take three months. But you've just said somebody could be in for years when I would have thought that the Crown Office has to bring a prosecution forward if there's been an allegation of another offence. They must be sure to be prosecuted for a subsequent offence. But that can take time. But also, I mean it depends on why they're recalled but if they're recalled on the basis of an allegation or because of breaching technical conditions of their licence then they can be kept in prison for the duration of the sentence, the original sentence, which can be years. So yes, I accept that if it's an allegation which is prosecutable then it will take less time. But it's still... I mean people have told me that it's taken three to six months or longer to get the case taken to court and then it can once found not guilty it can take three months to get them out. I think for clarification I've now got Jean. You're made in voyage. Morning. You've spoken this morning about the impact of social isolation and the lack of community networks on people, on prisoners who've been released and living in the community and you've also spoken about the need for more proactive approaches and additional resources. If those things are not addressed and this legislation goes through how do you think that's going to impact on the current workload of criminal justice social workers who you've said play such an important role? Is there a capacity to be effective going to be even more squeezed than it is at the moment? Well it depends. I mean if people are released with no statutory supervision then it won't impact on criminal justice social workers at all but it will impact on humanity certainly and on the community because people will be without accommodation possibly without employment, without social networks and without any statutory authority to help them get back on their feet. So I mean offending is likely to increase if there's no support and that's a research finding that the less support people have the more likely they are to resort to offending. I've had prisoners tell me that when they were released and they had no support from social work they actually found the police and said, can I come back inside? That's a damning indictment. Thank you. I have no further questions so I thank you very much for your evidence and I'll suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the witnesses to change. Thank you very much. Now welcome to the meeting our second panel of witnesses, Lisa McKenzie, Policy and Public Affairs Manager Howard League Scotland, Pete White, National Coordinator, Positive Prison, Positive Futures, Professor Alan Miller, Chair, Scottish Human Rights Commission and Sarah Cromby, Acting Director of Corporate Services, Victim Support Scotland. Don't take this the wrong way, but usual suspects. Here we go. Now we have written submissions so if we go straight to questions, Elaine. I don't know how much of the previous witness that some of you have seen, I think, and if you have, you'll be aware that she described the legislation as being flawed. Many of you have also indicated concerns about the legislation, in particular the release of people at the end of a sentence into the community without any support. I wondered, first of all, as you will know that the what's the name of the bill, actually, I'll get the criminal Custodial Sentences and Weapons Scotland Act 2007 proposed a different approach where there was a sentence that would have an imprisonment part and a community section. I just wondered whether you could comment on the relative merits or demerits of those alternative approaches to this issue. Ashwin, will you just indicate to me if you want to be called in? We would like to pick up that one. Nobody, right? That's the end of the session. Miss Cromby. Thank you. With Victim Support Scotland then we do actually quite like the 2007 act as in the victim knowing more clearly and being more transparent as to the amount of time that an offender spends in custody and the amount of time that they will be spending in the community. With victims then it's crucial and it's very important that they're aware of any conditions that offenders may have attached and they are given that information proactively so that if they do have any safety concerns then they have time to put those safety concerns into place. So we believe that there is a realisation for victims to know what to expect so they know how much time has been spent in custody and how much time will be spent rehabilitating and reintegrating into the community as a positive. Mr White, you were subscribed. Thank you. First of all, I agree with Sarah and her focus on the need for victims to know when someone is going to be released. The prison service went through some kind of a transformation in its view of how it can work to help people in prison to leave in a better state. I think that there's scope for review of that bill and this one together to take into account a wider range of options than are currently available. I think that we need to help the just judiciary to recognise that prison is the last resort and not a handy one and to find them a way of being more comfortable with handing down community sentences in the first place because that's better for everybody at the end of the day. So I think that there are some parts of the bill we're discussing today that are highly commendable but I think it too is flawed and we need to look at the whole system from the point of someone being charged right through to their return to the community as a citizen rather than just bits and pieces of it all. The answer is to comment on the flaws there aren't flaws in Mr McKenzie or in the current proposals and the 2007 I don't know how to leave with it I have to be honest the 2007 legislation predates my role so it's not a piece of legislation I'm very familiar with and I know that the Hurley Scotland presumably at the time as well did oppose bringing it into force and I know the Clish Commission identified a number of concerns so I don't feel I'm terribly well qualified to say much more than that certainly in terms of the current proposals I mean from my point of view it's stated in the policy memorandum it's been advanced on a platform of increasingly likely of reducing re-offending and improving public safety so we ought to measure the current proposals against the evidence-based suggest that that might be the case and I think the concern is that presumably part of the reason why the proposal has been advanced is that there is a desire to retain some people in custody to the end of the sentence but as Dr Barry has already said I think we have some real concerns about the idea of these people being spat out of prison cold with no supervision of support and with that in mind it's hard to see how that would increase public safety and reduce re-offending if there's clearly a desire to retain some people in prison to the end of the sentence otherwise I assume these proposals wouldn't be being advanced as they are what I'm saying is let's measure the proposals against the policy objectives and I think we have some concerns that they won't actually live up to that and that's why we've made this point there's a lot of public misunderstanding about the criminal justice processes and what we really don't want to do is run the hazard of increasing public cynicism about the criminal justice system automatic early release is not terribly well understood as it stands and if the government stands on a platform and says we have these new proposals they're going to increase public safety and they don't then there's a real hazard that you can increase levels of cynicism and I think that's something to keep in mind would it be fair to say that we've had evidence and if you've heard it from I'm not saying it's right or wrong from the SPS and the camp sec and ministers that the prisons will now take on much more serious the preparing packages for individual prisoners you don't just one day you're in prison the next minute you're out it's not just simply releasing them other than on Friday but run a day of the week that's more convenient for them to be dealing with the services such as social work and housing but there will be other support when they come out so it's a fluidity of being released from prison to have GP services and so on is it fair to say that this should be seen in the light of that that you say prison is changing in a way although it does differ from statutory supervision if you're not compelled to comply with statutory supervision license conditions I mean it's absolutely right that you should ensure that when someone comes out to prison best efforts are made to ensure they have adequate housing that the access GP services addiction services and so on but that's... and obviously it's absolutely right there should be programs in prison to prepare people but we've already heard from Dr Barry that she has some real concerns that those programs are not always available and I think and the other point that we made in our original submission was that if those programs aren't available and prisoners are saying well I want to put myself forward for parole but I can't access the programs then you might be laying laying open for the legal cases where they say fairly detained I would like to prove to everyone that I am no longer a risk but I'm unable to because I can't access programs and I think that's also a real concern that's why you wanted to... I think it's fair to say that the SPS have changed their attitude and changed their planning but they haven't actually been able to change the way in which the prisons are run on a day to day basis the access that prisoners have to education and to courses is minimal compared to what's required and I think there's a huge resource reallocation required to make it viable if someone's going to spend any time in prison it's important that services are provided that they can connect with that will help them on their path back to being a contributing citizen and I think that at the moment that's a vastly under resourced unrecognised problem and so in Edinburgh for example where there's over 800 prisoners only 43 can attend education at any one time and that is a huge disparity compared to what's required I know that education isn't the only part that's required but it is a problem and that's represented in other ways Thank you Professor Millard, do you want to comment? Well just picking up on the last few comments I think good intentions as we found out don't always lead to good practice good intentions are good but they're not enough and I think you have heard from witnesses that the current resources within prison and out with prison are not seen as being adequate this on any measure is going to increase the spotlight on these resources and whether they're adequate or not and despite the good intentions we know we're in times of austerity and that's not going to go away in the immediate future so that there is a real danger that with the best intentions there will be unintended consequences which are foreseeable today that this will actually increase the risk to public protection not reduce re-offending and therefore not achieve the good intentions that we all recognise On reading the submissions that have come in so far I became increasingly concerned that to a certain extent this legislation is tokenistic it will only affect something like 1% of the prison population and should we not actually be taking a deeper look at the whole process of sentencing policy and what prison means and what post prison means that maybe this is reacting to pressures from within the media rather than actually looking at the problem Politicians reacting to the media Breaking news Yes Do you want a comment on the comment? I think that's a fair observation It would be I mean the sentencing council I understand that are recruiting staff now so seems a shame in a way to be preempting their existence when I presume this is the sort of thing that they might be able to take a look at in more detail than as you say and I can't take a bigger picture rather than looking at a piecemeal approach Is it not the case I might defend the media a little bit I never thought I'd hear myself saying that but it's not the case also the public want to see an end to early and it should be the sentence simple as that Well I think that's where a sentence review is required a sentence planning review is required we're basically on a sort of medieval or Victorian process where the sentence that's handed down by way of a length of time to be spent in prison is based on what's been said before then it's automatically cut and that's the bit that people don't understand because there's no condition particularly for short term prisoners they don't have to behave themselves after half their sentence has been served they can be as rowdy as they like in the prison and they can be as uninterested in connecting with anything as they like and they're still released and that's the bit that people don't understand because it's unconditional at the moment and I think if the people who hand down sentences were to say I sentenced you to 12 months if it meant 12 months then people would understand that more carefully and if there could be conditions attached to that about how someone engages but at the moment it's it's a bit of a Frankenstein's monster there are bits bolted on to sentencing which don't really add up to a complete being yes I would agree with what's been said with victim support then it would be good to be able to see the introduction of sentence in council where enable courts to deliver similar outcomes for the same crime so there's no disparities across and then with victims often experience that they don't understand there's confusion there's a lot of confusion about what it actually means what does the sentence actually mean when sentencing is handed down also we'll have to remember it's still at a point of a lot of distress and trauma for victims and taking in any information you know can be quite difficult so there needs to be a transparency and clarity and also at the release of the offender as well victims' opinions and views need to be taken into account and that's all victims with the we have cited and made it known we'd like to see expansion of the current victim notification scheme to include all victims of all crimes so that the views are taken into consideration as to any kind of supervision community reintegration that may take place so again they have a chance that they wish to plan for their own personal comfort and safety or they're at least aware that there might be a chance that they might bump into the offender on temporary release where they're actually doing their education in the local college I thought they were told that just now they are on some certain occasions there's a difference between being escorted and unescorted at the moment that's being looked at with the current victim notification scheme do you want to confirm this one I'll take Roderick I'll take you now please In the previous session I talked about incentives if I can refer to another part of the Government's policy memorandum they refer to the situation where if automatic early release is ended then prisoners in their view will realise that there is an incentive to engage with schemes to modify their behaviour if they don't they will be there for the full term whereas at the present time they can look and say well I'll be out anyway at two thirds we'll do could the panel like to comment on that matter Yes I think that's true I completely agree with that analysis I think by taking away automatic release not only is there this sort of inevitable consequence of that that you will be releasing those who have been sentenced to serious custodial sentences back into the community cold without any compulsory supervision but also it could have the effect as you say of incentivising prisoners to engage more with whatever programmes adequate or inadequate or in existence because they'll make more applications to the parole board and I think therefore as I said before the spotlight is going to come increasingly on the adequacy of these programmes if more are demanding them quite rightly because that's what society has said that's the deal and if the parole board has to make decisions more than in the past on the adequacy of those arrangements then the spotlight is going to come on them and I think you've heard evidence from a number of witnesses that that may not be a very favourable spotlight that will be seen to be inadequate and I think it also places a big dilemma for the parole board if the parole board has a case coming to it where it knows there's no automatic release this person could eventually at the end of the sentence be released cold into the community without any compulsory supervision do we therefore take a calculated risk and put that person out on licence because there will be some kind of compulsory supervision and less likelihood on balance of re-offending or that might go wrong and the person might offend and the parole board is going to be held accountable or do we play safe and say no we'll not let you out complete your sentence but knowing at the same time that from a public point of view that's basically transferring a potential risk to the public whose right to life and security could be jeopardised by someone being released at the end of their sentence without any compulsory supervision so I think a lot of a lot of spotlight is going to be cast on what up till now has been a largely invisible area what is there within prisons that prepare prisoners for release and reintegration into the community and therefore question of resources has to be seen hand in hand and I looked at the human rights impact statement with the bill and it's simply not adequate all it will address is are the measures on the face of it still immediately going to be in violation of the human rights of prisoners and the answer given is no but you have to look at the consequences which are foreseeable of ending automatic release and the jeopardy that then is cast to the public and the rights of the prisoners if they're not given the rehabilitation programs that they will be looking for more than in the past so it's these unintended consequences that I think the committee really has to look at and welcome the fact that you're doing so That's a helpful answer Can I just move on to whether anyone on the panel has any comments to make about reoffending rates prisoners currently released on licence conditions and when those conditions cease to apply whether it's no supervision anyone able to throw any light on that from our experience people who are served long sentences and are released on licence they're less likely to reoffend than for example short term prisoners who've been released after half of their sentences have been served with no particular support I think that licence conditions and the conditions that lead to breach of those are being as was mentioned earlier by Dr Barry those are rather restrictive and they lead to someone being recalled for a breach of licence for something that wouldn't normally merit a jail sentence and I think that's a very harmful way of dealing with these things but I think the reoffending rates must come down and it's not going to be helped by these strict and inconsistently applied breaches of conditions but the longer someone serves in prison the more out of shots prison for example come out through the open estate their reoffending rate is far less than those who are released through the gate of shots prison they're the ones who haven't complied with programmes and haven't engaged so there is some way forward for the work that's done in prisons to reduce reoffending for people who are in there for some considerable time okay thank you Margaret to follow up on the recidivism point I think that's much more justifiable than looking I think one of the things that came out of a lot of the different piece of evidence that you recid was that it wasn't entirely clear quite why that you'd hwned in on these two particular categories of what was going on in prison and what was going on in prison and what was going on in prison and what was going on in prison and what was going on in prison you hwned in on these two particular categories of offender particularly in the case of sex offenders the international evidence seems to bear out a trend that says that recidivism levels are lower than average among sex offenders but as we know people on low tariff offences who are in prison often for very short amounts of time they're much more likely to reoffend conversely with violent offenders there is a higher reoffending rate of violent offends I'm just looking at the law society's evidence admittedly very small numbers but I think they took that from parole board figures which apparently are no longer available but it was on recalls I think they had in 2005 or 2006 I'm not sure 21 people released on licence for sex offences 14 were recalled for non-compliance 3 for crimes of dishonesty 1 drug offence and 3 sex offences on the violent offenders there are 184 released on licence 65 were recalled for further violent offences which is over a third certainly the message I was taking from a lot of the other submissions was that offence type or sentence length isn't necessarily the best, most reliable indicator of the likelihood of being a risk to the public on release so maybe some further digging is worth doing by your committee in the next few weeks about trying to unpick that a bit I know you've got a kind of panel of academics next week you might be better in a better position to sort of dig into those sorts of statistics yes thank you Lisa so I agree with what Ms Mackenzie has been saying and if you have a look at the Scottish women's aid submission as well they actually agree and comment to say that the current kind of proposal will exclude the vast majority of prisoners and do not include perpetrators of domestic abuse and they can be considered as high risk, as reoffending so but they might not often have the sentence of 10 years plus so isn't exclusion group there Mr White I agree that a wider ranging reform would be welcome and the idea of looking at everything from the possibility of diversion from prosecution in the first place through to using prison as a last resort rather than a convenient one would make quite a difference in many ways and picking up the point of austerity and the like it's a lot more cost effective to keep somebody out of prison properly than it is to keep them in prison for any length of time at all and I think that the scope for change is huge my only concern is that if this bill is not processed somehow or other that the excellent idea of changing the Friday release to maybe one or two days earlier might be lost and that would be tragic for some people because of the risk of harm and reoffending on Friday release so I find myself in a cleft stick at that point our previous witness suggested that two days really wouldn't do very much in the grand scheme of things of providing the kind of through care that's necessary to be put in place to arrange housing, to arrange so many other things that really this would have to be done many weeks in advance of release I think that there are two issues here there's the work that would be done that should be done but isn't always achieved in the prison in the last few weeks of a sentence to make practical arrangements but some of the practical arrangements that are put in place for people who released on a Friday are impractical in reality if someone for example is released from Inverness prison and they have to attend a housing appointment in Stornoway they're not going to make it because by the time they get there given public transport and the like the housing office will be shut and that immediately leads to a problem whereas I realise it's only seen as being a very small change but for the lives of the people and more people are released on a Friday than any other day of the week and people who are released on a Friday who don't make appointments are the ones who re-offend, who commit self-harm who overdose, commit suicide or re-offend to get back in because they've got nowhere else to go and so I wouldn't want that to be lost in what we're talking about today and it puts in perspective Is there any other way just to explain to me why it has to be a Friday can that not be changing some other way than this? Well I'm not here to tell politicians and parliament how to change legislation or how to make things possible You're here to give us your experience and to tell us what's flawed and what's not flawed and how we can make it better I don't know what Didn't you know that was why you were here? I will claim naivety on that one, thank you very much That's not you Anyway, let's hear, why is it a Friday? Because the length of time which services are open on a Friday is sometimes shorter than any other day No, no, why do people have to be released on a Friday, as I'm asking because I don't know When a sentence is laid down the length of time from the date of that sentence being handed down is extended by the calendar and people end up who would be released on a Saturday or Sunday are also released on a Friday because people cannot be released on a Saturday or Sunday So you end up with the weekend people that become the Friday people and that's what makes the balance The weekend people join the Friday people and so if someone can be released a day or two before the technical date of the end of their sentence is a better chance of engaging with services that will support them I understand that bit, it was just why we had this bulge in it Well, it's one of these things that prisons and whatever don't operate at full strength over weekends and that's why at somewhere along the line in legislation that predates my knowledge of these things people aren't released on a Saturday or Sunday and if we were going to try and keep all the services open seven days a week I think that would be a very difficult thing to apply effectively and possibly be anti-social for the people involved in staffing offices What's the 1990 act? I'm told it's a 1993 act which determines that if you're to be released at the weekend you'll get released on a Friday instead Well, thank you for that clarification So it could be amended just to amend that act without having a whole bill I'd be delighted if we could do that that would be great and thank you very much for pointing that out I am now less naive than I was No, I think it's to move the Friday as well Sorry, I just wanted to know that because I didn't understand that Next, I've got Christian Having made a muddle out of something here Christian, you take his back clarity My turn to make a muddle out of things Regarding the bill at his stands Will it be helpful to have the concern that everybody this morning has raised because the biggest concern seems to be to be to be released at the end of the sentences without any compulsory supervision Would it be helpful if the bill was amended and either way said to free month compulsory supervision and released into the community or maybe in the open state for every prisoner Will that would help? Miss Cromby Thank you I know that Dr Barry mentioned that the average time within the prison is the three months planning as well so to victim support it would be kind of something that we could look at or something to look at that three months is put in place to allow the kind of compulsory supervision to take place I know that Dr Barry mentioned that the average time within the prison is the three months planning as well so to victim support compulsory supervision to take place Is anybody else wish to comment? I agree with that I have feeling I have curtailed your submissions Mr White that everybody Something will not be a bad thing Is anybody else wish to comment on that? No? I have no sorry Christian If I can ask another one I ask you to the previous person who came to give evidence Do you think the bill is targeting the wrong type of prisoners of offenders? I know Mr White that you talk about we do not consider it appropriate to dismantle the automatic release of prisoners in a piecemeal fashion and I know that Ms Mackenzie talked about piecemeal fashion is when you talk about piecemeal fashion do you talk about that the bill is targeting only a few offenders and maybe if the bill will have more it will be more it will make more sense if the bill were targeting everybody I agree that it would make more sense if it was not just those two groups I think there is a whole review of the way in which prisoners are, well people are sentenced in the first place and sent to prison and I don't think we should pick on these two particular groups I think the comments made previously about media focus on those groups it may be the reason why they are the ones but I think that a wider range of understanding could be extended to all people in prison to make sure that everyone understood from day one when their sentence was going to end and how it was going to end and how they were going to be managed back into the community in a constructive way that I think would help a great deal Andy, else Mr Cromart Yes I would just make the point that I made earlier that this was drawn from other submissions too doesn't seem to you any evidence that offence type or sentence length is the most reliable indicator of the likelihood of being a risk to the public on release I can't come back at that with a better answer but it might be that your panel next week is able to dig a bit deeper into that and shed a bit more light One of the better answers if the bill wanted to pilot the changes would you have targeted of a type of offence a difficult question I don't know Excuse me Would that not, and I'll ask Professor Milnes would that you couldn't pilot it so one group of prisoners was subject to one regime in one part of the country and in another with whether or not they had early automatic early release could you do that or would that breach the rights of those who were still getting entitlement to automatic early release I don't think that would be able to fly at all It's difficult to understand what the logic that underpins this bill is because when a judge sentences someone they will pass an extended sentence if they think that the person needs to be subject to compulsory supervision when they come back into the community and we know that the biggest recidivists are the shorter term offenders but the government has decided to take a category of offenders who don't get extended sentences by judges because the judges don't think they are the most serious and who we know are not the most likely to reoffend but the government says well it's because of the length of the sentence and for public protection they should stay in prison for public protection but it's that category that the government is isolated for special attention you could say who are then going to be released cold into the community and more likely to reoffend than if they weren't released cold and subject to automatic release so it's actually turning things on its head and from a public protection point of view increasing the risk to the public of reoffending by those individuals and therefore it's very difficult to understand why do you not want to do a whole piece look at the criminal justice system but if there is a particular problem with a category of prisoners it's difficult to see what this is going to achieve it's counterintuitive because it's going to have consequences that will increase the risk to public protection I'm looking at the purpose of the bill and it says to allow prisoners seven all but very short sentences released from prisoners particularly if they are suitable for the reintegration of the community I don't think it would be possible to amend this bill to bring in lower sentences but I think that wouldn't fit within the purposes would that be a fair comment? Is there a possibility under the criminal justice bill which we have to move into that territory as I understand it maybe the committee wants to look at that later Margaret If I could just return to the SS's written submission where you referred to the submission report of 2008 called for automatic air release to be ended with those convicted of custodial sentencies of two years or more and it seems particularly recommendation 21 provisions around risk assessment conditional release and compulsory post release supervision arrangements should be reserved for those serving two years or more could you comment on that aspect of your written submission? Thank you Victim support Scotland then first of all it's going back to ensuring that whichever system is taken up then there's the clarity and transparency there and that victims have the knowledge and information that's required and we believe that all victims whether you know whatever crime has been committed then should receive that information and should make sure that they have the ability to be able to access their own homes so they're aware of when offenders are being released they're aware of any conditions that are attached to that release and it shouldn't really matter if that is a ten year sentence or a two year sentence so we believe that for both short term and for a long term prisoners then victims should receive that information of what is happening Thank you finish Margaret Also would it be fair that they recommend station 21 the risk assessments, conditional release, compulsory, post release supervision should be also applying to those for serving a sentence of two years or more Yes I have fatal thing to say I have nobody else indicating they want to ask a question so I've put my blinkers on here Can I thank you very much for your evidence I'm just checking we've got the criminal justice social work next week Professor Tasas should be able to come I've got the risk management authority, pro board and staff association so it will be interesting to Professor McNeill so it's interesting to put the issues you've raised appropriately with us thank you very much for your evidence and as we agreed we now move into private session thank you