 I thank you very much. Good morning and welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's fourth meeting of 2015. I can 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. I'm inviting the committee to consider item 3 on the draft report on our supplementary LCM, and then item 4 on our work programme in private. Are you agreed? Thank you very much. Item 2. This is our final day of evidence taking at stage 1 of the Prisoners Control of Release Scotland Bill. I welcome to the meeting our first panel witnesses, Michael Maslithon, Cabinet Secretary of Justice, along with the Scottish Government officials, Philip Lamont, Head of Criminal Justice and Sentencing Unit, Jane Muffet, Head of Rehabilitation and Reintegration Unit and Ann Davies, Director for Legal Services. I understand, Cabinet, that you do not need to make an opening statement so far you've won, friends. So I'll go straight to questions. I'll take Christian, then Elaine, then Gil, Alison, Margaret, Roddy, John. Why not join in? Yes, Jane. There we are. You're all down for questions. I've forgotten who I'm starting with. Elaine. No or not, it was Christian. Is it? You've not written it faster though. Christian, you're too fast for him. Right, off you go. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Were you heard during the evidence we had a lot of concern regarding cold release? I think every witnesses and every submission we had, we had a very great concern about cold release. We heard from the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, SACRO, to answer the question, how to try to ensure that release of prisoners are safely rated back into communities. They said not to remove automatic early release entirely, but reduce it to the last three months of the sentence to ensure that there was some brief period of compulsory supervision to oversee real tradition to the community. I think that's important. When I asked the question to Peter Johnson, for example, talking about the mandatory, I called it a pre-release supervision, there were some scope and some of the people who came and gave evidence for it. It could be an idea to amend the bill. Any thought about this? I think I'm conscious of some of the evidence that you have received has raised concerns about the issue that you described as being cold release and the implications of that. I think that it's worth taking a step back in just considering some of the issues that are at play at the present moment. Although the bill intends to end automatic early release, there is still the provision, obviously, for parole-conditioned release to take place. If someone receives release on condition set down by the parole board, they have a level of supervision. That's the case at the present moment. That will be the case with the ending of automatic early release. It just means that, at the present time, when you can apply for parole halfway, if you're refused, when you get to two thirds, it doesn't matter, you get automatic early release, that element will end with no supervision in place. There are individuals who will be released with conditions set by the parole board, so that will happen. There are also those with a significant number of prisoners who receive extended sentences, which are handed down at the time in court. That's for those individuals who have a determinate sentence. Once they've served that period and they're released, there is a period of supervision, which then takes place after that as well. It's clear that there is a category of individuals who may not qualify for parole for any form of early release and then may be released at the end of their sentence. I'm open to exploring with the committee, given the evidence that you have heard, whether there are measures that could be put in place in order to try to address the concerns that have been raised. For example, Sacro's suggestion about the idea of three months prior to the person being released if they were to be given a period of supervision in order to help to move them back into the community and to address any issues that there may be. I'm open to considering that. I would welcome the committee's input and views on that particular approach. It's worth keeping in mind, though, that all prisoners will be in that situation, because you will have those who will get parole released, and you will be supervised, and those who will have extended sentences opposed at the time of their sentence. For that smaller category of individuals, I'm more than willing to explore whether there are further measures that we could take to improve the bill. I think that, for example, Peter Johnson was very, very clear that he thought that for all prisoners who were on the extended post release, there will be no problem at all with that. We are only talking about the very small number, as you said. I think that it's a very small number, but if we could reassure most of the people who came and gave evidence for this now—a small number of prisoners—who could have ended up being released in cold release before any pre-mandatory release supervision, I think that that would help greatly. I'm prepared to look at that. For example, I take from SACRO's suggestion that the idea would be that they would receive parole release three or six months prior to the end of their sentence in order to supervise their move back into the community. If that's a way that is more appropriate to try to manage some of those risks, I'm open to exploring how we can improve the bill in this particular area. If other members of the committee have other suggestions, I'm again content to consider those in going forward with the bill. I don't know, cabinet secretary, if you have the opportunity to see the written submission from Professor McNeill of 20 January to the committee. No, I haven't. In which he says in a quote, "...I spent last week in a meeting with European experts from several jurisdictions, and many of them were expressing concern about the increasing numbers of prisoners opting to, in quotes, max out close quotes on their sentences in order to avoid the painful uncertainties attendant on discretionary release schemes and the more and more intrusive and sometimes disproportionate forms of post-release supervision emerging in many jurisdictions." In other words, I'm not looking for a release, I'm not looking for parole, it means I can just, when I get out, I'm free and easy, I'm not done that. Is that, have you addressed that? I don't know if you addressed that in your answer to Christian. Well, you have that at the present moment with automatic early release. They just have to serve two thirds of their sentence and they can be released, even though they may have been considered in previous years by the pro board as being a risk that they don't believe they should be released into the community. What I'm more than prepared to look at is whether there are, for those who get to the end of their sentence, whether there is a measures that we could take to try and help to address some of the concerns that the committee have highlighted to them. But I should also emphasise that there are provisions that are open to the courts at the present moment in order to apply an extended sentence for individuals when there have been sentences that they think will continue to pose a risk to apply that. Maybe I can give you a couple of statistics that might demonstrate the scale to which extended sentences are used. In 2013-14, 42 per cent of sex offenders getting a sentence of four years or more received an extended sentence. 50 per cent of sex offenders getting a sentence of ten years or more received an extended sentence by the courts and 32 per cent of non-sexual offenders receiving a sentence of ten years or more received an extended sentence. Courts at the present time in considering a case have the flexibility and option available to them to extend an individual sentence at the time of their period in custody if they believe that they will continue to pose a risk. So the issues may be more around whether some members feel as though that has been used sufficiently by the courts and whether there are any measures that can be undertaken in order to look at extending that further. I'll let other members then perhaps return to other issues. Elaine Fulbaigill, Fulbae Allyson. Thank you, convener. We heard a number of pieces of evidence. Professor McNeill in written evidence said that the question of how best to manage early release should be referred to the Scottish Sentencing Council. Professor Tata agreed with that, saying that he couldn't support the bill as it is and the Sentencing Council should be looking at these sorts of issues. Peter Johnson, the risk management authority, also thought that further thought should be given to the bill rather than proceeding with it as it stands. Lisa Mackenzie of the Howard League said that the Scottish Sentencing Council is recruiting staff and it seems ashamed to be pre-empting its existence. What's happening with the Scottish Sentencing Council and would it not be better placed to examine these sorts of issues? First of all, I'm open to improving the bill, but I'm also committed to ending automatic early release as we've set out very clearly within the bill. Clearly it's for the Scottish Sentencing Council to determine what their work programme is. Of course, we could ask them to look at further issues around automatic early release at some point in the future. The Scottish Sentencing Council is due to be up and running by the end of this year, which is a piece of work that's been taken forward by the Lord Justice Clarke, who will head up the Scottish Sentencing Council. From the quotes that you've made reference to, I'm, as I've said to the committee, open to looking at how we can improve it, but I'm also clear in our commitment that we are going to end automatic early release. If the committee and others have a view on how we can improve the existing bill, then I'm more than content to consider those issues. Equally, in ending automatic early release for the way in which we've set out in this particular bill, if there are further areas that should be considered at a later stage, that is a matter that the Scottish Sentencing Council could consider. However, I don't think that we have to wait to make a decision on ending automatic early release for the Scottish Sentencing Council to come to a decision in the matter. However, it's true that it's only ending automatic early release for about 1 per cent of the prison population. I wonder if you could maybe explain what the thinking is, because there was an alternative approach postulated through the custodial weapons and sentencing act in 2007. Now, the McLeish commission found a number of problems with that. In particular, it would—the prison service really couldn't cope with the increased number of people who would be kept inside at that point. Then, your Government amended that through the 2010 Criminal Justice and Licensing Act, which enabled ministers to break in a phased implementation of basically a sentencing regime where there would be a defined period in prison and a period under supervision in the community. I just wondered why instead of progressing with that approach, which I think that your Government agreed with, this other rather contradictory approach has come in that will only affect 1 per cent of the population? It's 1 per cent of the population based on the timescales that were set within the bill itself. The 10 years for non-sexual crimes and four years for sexual offences, if the committee has a view as to whether that threshold should be lower, then again I'm prepared to consider that. I know that there are some stakeholders who would say that they would believe that the threshold should be lower for both categories, which in doing so would then have a bigger impact on the percentage of the prison population that that would have an impact on. With regard to the wider issue around the other possible route that could be taken, you still have the issue about addressing automatic early release. The issue was about providing transparency in sentencing policies, so you have the period in custody and the period in the community. What we are doing with ending automatic early release is that an individual will then be required to have their case considered by the parole board, and the parole board will determine whether they believe that the issue should be released early. At the present moment, we don't have that at all after once a prisoner gets to two-thirds of their sentence. The other thing that is worth keeping in mind around the other approach to changing the sentencing arrangements was that, as Henry McLeish pointed out, there are a number of other issues that would have to be addressed before that could be introduced and taken forward. A large part would be about addressing short-term sentences in order to create capacity in the prison estate and to keep prisoners in prison for longer periods of time. There are a number of other things that we need to do before that would be possible, some of which we are already doing, but I also think that it is important that we send out a clear signal about ending automatic early release. The issue for victims and for the community is that a sentence should mean what it says. The approach in the 2007-2010 act was about a sentence being what somebody would serve the sentence that they were given rather than come out early, which is the objection that the public has to automatic early releases that you think somebody is going away for six years and they only go away for three years. The other approach would tackle that perception issue without potentially releasing people out at the end of a sentence with no support at all. That is one of the concerns about that. People could end up at the end of their sentence with no support. Okay, they will have served what they were supposed to serve, but there is nothing there to support them into the transition back into the community. For a small proportion of prisoners, that would be the case. Maybe there are ways in which that can be addressed, but the certainty that a victim has in ending automatic early release is the knowledge that that individual will not be released automatically when they get to two thirds of their sentence, irrespective as to the risk that they may continue to pose. It gives us a way in which we can address that much more effectively, and it is clearer for victims in that sense. However, to reinforce the point, it would only be for a small proportion of prisoners who may get to the end of their sentence that could be released if they had no supervision. That is why I am more than happy to explore ways in which we can address those concerns. Do you think that you will bring in the provision to the 2010 act in terms of the orders that you could make, because that was going to be a more staged approach to bringing in that order? As Henry McLeish pointed out, there is a range of other things that you have to do around dealing with short-term sentencing in order to address that shift. We are committed to doing that. We have already got to the point where we have moved for a presumption against two-thirds of less than three months. If the committees get a view of moving that further, I would be more than happy to explore that with the committee around tackling the effectiveness of short sentences. That was one of the key things that Henry McLeish pointed out in his report. Is this the first stage in which you intend to end automatic early release? That does not end automatic early release, not in the vast majority of cases it does not. Are you intending to move further? I am prepared to consider whether there are, for those stakeholders who do believe that the thresholds can down to a more than prepared to explore that. I am not in a position where I am saying that I am going to bring it down to x-level at the present moment, but the four in ten year thresholds that we have set is a position that we have started with as a Government, and I am prepared to look at extending that further once I have been able to consider those issues further. If the committee has got a view, I am more than happy to explore that with the committee. I want you to take you, cabinet secretary, to post-release rehabilitation programmes that are in place. I was involved with the Save Peterhead campaign and travelled up there and met lots of people who were involved in the programmes. They drew world attention to the success rate in Peterhead, and I believe that that continues to this day. Of course, prisoners that are more than four years who volunteered to participate in those programmes, whether they were doing it because they felt that their behaviour needed to address sexual serious offenders or if they were lining up to benefit from the parole boards appreciation of doing something positive. However, the outcome, no matter what the category, for the right reasons and those who were doing it to get out early, the same conclusion was that both categories got a lot of benefit from it. There was no difference, apparently, from the two different categories. However, one of the things that came up in the first session in this inquiry or this evidence-taking session was that the prospect, simply because if we do away with early release then as night falls day, there is going to be more people that would possibly benefit from rehabilitation programmes within the prison setting, but the question that arose was that two things that came to the evidence was, first of all, presently resources are being a bit squeezed, that folk that were already there and volunteering, some people weren't benefiting from it and secondly, since there's going to be higher numbers, then resources might be further squeezed. My question is, can you assure the committee that, since there will be longer, if it goes ahead, then there will be more people spending longer terms in prison, but the opportunity to engage in the programmes that are very, very positive are there, but will the resources be there to make sure that that happens? I'm imagining the reference to the Peterhead campaign that was a stock programme, which Peterhead was one of the pioneers in taking forward to rehabilitate sex offenders. I know that, in the evidence that you received from the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Colin McConnell, he was expecting an increase in the number of prisoners who would take up rehabilitation programmes, largely on the basis that, if you know you're going to be automatically released two thirds, then there's less of an incentive for you to participate in a programme. If you wish to secure parole early release, then you are going to have to demonstrate that you're addressing your offending behaviour and that you're making progress on that. So there's obviously an incentive there for prisoners then to take up these programmes. In terms of how resources are deployed to meet that increasing demand, that would be a matter for the Scottish Prison Service and to manage that within their resources. There will always be pressure on those things. It's like every other department. Government, there are financial pressures which make things challenging, which is why it's important. The programmes that the Scottish Prison Service is running are ones that have better outcomes, which are the ones that make the difference and to be focused in providing them. I would like to give you an assurance that the Scottish Prison Service will do their best within the resources that they've actually got. One of the benefits is that, in more prisoners undertaking rehabilitation, it helps to reduce the potential for them to commit further offences in the future, which would have a medium to long-term benefit in terms of reducing demand on the system. There's an element where you're investing in these types of rehabilitation things to reduce further demand at a later stage, which would be the preferred approach that I'd like to see happening. One of the things in the Peterhead campaign to save Peterhead, eventually, it was saved, of course, was lots of women's groups who were looking after people who had experienced some of the impact of serious sexual attacks on women and children. They were to the vanguard to save Peterhead because of those very programmes. I really want to know if you're comfortable in that we can assure the committee and women's groups in particular that we can handle this and the expected numbers. There will be greater numbers and we can actually help and increase the number of people who are in prison to change their behaviour. We did receive evidence, not from the prison service. I listened carefully to what they had to say. It was reassuring, but I got the feeling that they will do the job as best they can, as you explained. I'm very concerned that we use the opportunity in this early release that we tackle those who perhaps are not putting themselves forward who would definitely benefit, and it might actually be a resource. I would be grateful if you would perhaps look at that to reassure yourself in particular and the committee. Of course, I'm more than happy to look at that, to now discuss that particular point with the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. Particularly when it comes to sexual offenders, there are a whole range of other measures when a sex offender is released from prison as well in terms of supervision, etc. That is put in place in order to address areas of risk, notwithstanding any rehabilitation that they may have undergone well in prison or not undergone well in prison as well. Part of the challenge is to make sure that we increase the number of prisoners who are participating in those programmes. I believe that, by ending automatic early release and the requirements that the probe will have in order to consider whether someone should be released early, they will act as a driver for more prisoners to participate in those programmes. I think that one of the benefits that will come from that is the increasing number of prisoners who will participate in the programmes. I'm more than happy to discuss with the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service how they will address any additional demand. I'm confident that they'll be able to do so. However, if the member wishes me to do that, I'm more than happy to do that with him. I'm grateful for that. I'll pursue that a little bit further if you don't mind, cabinet secretary. I hope that the ending of automatic early release will act as a driver. The views that we've heard have been mixed, I think, on that, to be fair to say. However, what has been quite clear is that we have heard from Professor Miller that equity, provision and access to programmes across Scotland will become more important and there will perhaps be a human rights issue underneath there. If prisoners are not able to access release through parole because they have not had access to the proper programmes due to pressure or due to them not being available in one particular area, the consequences might be, and I quote Professor Miller, the consequences for prisoners' rights if they're not given the rehabilitation programmes that they will be looking for more than that in the past. The committee needs to look at that as a foreseeable consequence as we go forward and perhaps the minister could reflect on that as well. I'm more than happy to do that. I think that it's also worth keeping in mind that the ending of automatic early release doesn't just increase demand tomorrow. The time frame for that to kick in is over a 10 to 11-year period by the way in which the turnover of prisoners. So there's a period of time that allows for planning into developed programmes that can meet that increasing demand. However, I'm very clear in my view around tackling Scotland's prison population. A big part of the focus has got to be tackling underlying causes of offending behaviour. I also recognise that prisons are not also the best place to rehabilitate people as well, but while you do have individuals in prison, you have to make the best opportunity you can in order to try and achieve that. So it's an important element of one of the three pillars of our prison system is having adequate rehabilitation provision available to it, but I'm more than happy to make sure that we continue to explore how we provide equity of provision of rehabilitation services within our prison estate to ensure that we can be confident that we are maximising the potential that we can get from rehabilitation while individuals are in prison, notwithstanding the financial constraints that we're in just now at the present time, which allows us to give us, and as I mentioned in the 11 years, give us some time for some of the planning and some of the additional work that will be necessary. However, I'm confident that the professionalism of our prison officers and the Scottish Prison Service will be able to provide the additional support and assistance that will be required in rehabilitation. Thank you. Thank you, Alison. Margaret, followed by Roderick, followed by John, followed by Jean. If I could just pursue that particular issue a little further, cabinet secretary, this isn't a new problem for many years now—incess of 10 years now—we've looked at inadequate provision of rehabilitation programmes for prisoners, and it does boil down to resource. If I can quote Dr Monica Barry, she highlighted that it's not a demand problem with programmes in prison, there is a supply problem. It doesn't matter how professional the SPS is, or how many discussions are there, unless the resources are in place, where we're going to have the same kind of situations that we're finding in the report from HMS Shots, which found that there's still a lack of meaningful and productive work available for prisoners. That isn't a good state of affairs for anyone. You will be aware of the updated report on shots, which has actually said that there's been a significant level of improvement made in providing purposeful activity, so that it has addressed a number of the concerns that were highlighted in the previous inspection report. It's important to recognise the work that the professional staff within Shots are undertaking in addressing some of the deficiencies that were highlighted. That was published a few months ago, the updated report. There was an update that was published around some of the progress that's been made on some of the challenges that have been identified in Shots. I made reference to that just before Christmas in a parliamentary question that was asked to me as well in the issue by, if I recall correctly, Alex Ferguson when he raised the matter in the chamber. I think that part of the challenge within the prison estate is to make sure that we are using the resources in the way that can best affect change. One of the challenges around that is to make sure that we are—for example, those who oppose the idea that we should have a presumption against short-term sentences. Short-term sentences have been demonstrated as being a very ineffective way in dealing with offending behaviour. Even sentences of less than six months are a very ineffective way of being able to address offending behaviour, but they take up a tremendous amount of the Scottish Prison Services resources. If there's a desire to make sure that we are much more effective in rehabilitating prisoners within the financial environment in which we operate, we also have to be realistic about how we can achieve that and how we can make sure that greater provision of rehabilitation that some people may believe is necessary to do it in an equitable fashion, but to do it in a way that actually has better outcomes for those prisoners that they are targeted at in order to deal with their offending behaviour. Part of that also means being honest and realistic in looking at some of the aspects around short-term sentences, which we know are extremely ineffective in addressing offending behaviour, but they cost the taxpayer a very large amount of money and a large amount of the SPS's budget, which potentially could be better used for rehabilitating those more serious offenders who pose a greater risk to our communities. I'm more than happy to have that debate and to explore those issues, but I'm very much of the view that it has to be a balanced approach about how we can make better use of rehabilitation within our prison establishments. On the issue of short-term sentences, for various reasons, people will end up there when they've gone through all the other disposals when there's a breach. The only disposal left is a short-term sentence very often. I would have thought, therefore, it was more important that rehabilitation programmes would be available for those people in that circumstance. For example, identifying literacy and numeracy problems, which we know a large population percentage of the prison population do have. Other plans to look at automatic testing of that and to provide even a gatepost to where more support can be found for those people would say dyslexia, for example. All of those things help to rehabilitate people who have offended for various reasons and we know that that can lead to these difficulties and can lead to criminal behaviour. Is the resource problem now in prison that could be used to stop recidivism rather than the revolving door where they're coming back, which I would argue is a greater cost to the community? I'm all in favour of stopping the revolving door and I think everybody in the committee would be signed up to that. It's about taking an approach which is effective in stopping the door from revolving and what I think we need to do is we need to be very clear about how we are going to go about achieving that and a big part of that is your correct, is about addressing the causes of offending behaviour and from my perspective and you know the evidence shows this is that given the situation that very often prisoners present themselves, particularly if they are serving a sentence of maybe three or four months, they will also have automatic early release at two thirds of their sentence. It gives the Scottish Prison Service an absolutely tiny window to try and address these things and I think it's unrealistic to expect the Scottish Prison Service to be able to deal with if they've got literacy issues, all of these issues and what could be a very, very small timescale while that individual is in prison. I think that part of the challenge that I believe we need to debate is about, well, is that an effective use of our resource? I'm sorry to interrupt, but both of you and Gina are wanting us to move on. It's a very interesting debate, but we're opening it up now to the revolving door short sentences and so on, which is important, but we're actually examining the bill in front of us, which is not short term. It is a big and interesting debate, but we are digressing. I ask your opinion, cabinet secretary, of Professor Tata's comment, rather than making sentences clearer, the bill actually muddies the water in that a 10-year sentence is 10 years, somebody else on nine years, for example, is released after two thirds, that six years. Isn't it really just complicating the sentencing process rather than making it easier to understand and more effective? No, I don't agree with that position. I'm aware of the view and the evidence that was given to the committee. I believe that by providing an end to automatic early release, we put ourselves in a situation in which victims will have the certainty that individual will just not automatically be released at two thirds of their sentence irrespective of circumstances. That would be the case if it was automatic early release that abolished for everyone, as opposed to the small group that has been... That's a different scenario then, but that's a different scenario if you're saying the threshold should be lower and that we should be taking a larger number of prisoners into the category of not qualifying for automatic early release. If that's the view, Professor Tata or yourself have on that matter, as I've said, I'm prepared to look at the thresholds. What that threshold should come down to is something that I'm more than prepared to explore, but I do think that in ending automatic early release, it gives a clearer indication that someone won't just be released just for the sake of it because it happened to have got at two thirds of their sentence. Right, I'll censure you want to move on to that. No, it's just that I'm looking at the purpose of the bill, which of course is key, and it says certain long-term prisoners, so it has to be, as I understand it, four years and over whatever happens. If you want to get into this debate, it maybe has to be other legislation. I don't know if this could be amended, even if one set one's path in that direction. If you were to go below four years. Yes, I don't think it could. Well, we are restricted to the long title of the bill in terms of what the provision would be. That's right, so it would be a different place. Anyway, I'm moving on to Roderick, John and Jane. Morning, cabinet secretary. Notwithstanding the policy memorandum and the acceptance of the policy memorandum that re-offending rates for sex offenders—serving sentences more than four years—were not necessarily higher, we heard concerns, particularly from Mr Johnson, about the selection of sex offenders and the logic for that, because of generally low rates of recidivism. Would you like to comment on that particular point? I think that, as a Parliament, previous Governments have taken an approach where we have dealt with issues around sex offenders in a different way, largely because of the impact that sexual offences have on victims and their families in their wider community. That's why we have a range of provisions in place to safeguard the community from sex offenders. We believe that it's an appropriate measure to have a lower threshold for sex offenders given that, and that's why we have a different threshold from that that we've set for serious offenders of 10 years for non-sexual crimes. Mr Johnson said that sex offenders generally tend to co-operate in prison in terms of accessing programmes. In his view, those are the people who should not be focused on. Anything else to add to that point? Numbers of them will participate in different programmes, but I think that it's important that we also have a threshold for sex offenders that allows them to apply for early release that we have appropriate supervision in place, which a pro-release would help to provide. What I also think will happen is that, as some of the evidence that you've received to the committee suggests, an increasing number of sex offenders will also participate in rehabilitation programmes. In your evidence from Colin McConnell, he felt that it's around the current update for sex offenders amongst programmes, or programmes that are offered around 50 per cent. He thinks that it estimates that that will move up to around 67 per cent in ending automatic early release. That will assist us in increasing the number of sex offenders who are participating in programmes to address their offending behaviour, which can assist us in helping to introduce the risk of them once they return back to the community. Can I just move back briefly to the question of cold release that we started with? Mr McConnell and his evidence said that his experience was that the first six to 12 weeks after release can be extremely risky. His emphasis, as he said, is on making custody itself less distinct and less disconnected from the community. That includes moving resources, prison officers, much more into the community to work alongside citizens who are moving from a period of custody back into the community. Any comments on those comments from Mr McConnell? I think that this goes back to some of the issues that were raised by Mr Allard and that was about other measures that we should take that could assist in helping to put provisions in place. That means that, when someone is coming to the end of their sentence, there is a period of supervision if they have not qualified for parole release. It is also worth keeping in mind that there is a significant amount of work that has been undertaken at the present moment by the Scottish Prison Service in order to better manage through care of prisoners, particularly for them who are going back into the community. With a named officer, within their establishment links with social work, housing, you will be aware of the programme that my predecessor set up, which is the cross-portfolio programme looking at the whole area of housing, health and other areas that can help to support individuals in moving back into the community. That work has to start early in prison in order to make sure that, when someone is being released, it is being properly planned for and it is able to be implemented at a time when individuals are being released from prison. There is much more happening in terms of managing through care of prisoners and planning for their liberation. Alongside that, the issue that Mr Allard has raised is considering whether there are measures that we could put in place within the bill to address the issue of folk ending their sentence without any supervision. Could the sisters in trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised? In essence, the emphasis on through care in any event irrespective of the detail of those provisions continues anyway. Professor McNeill, in his evidence, which he will have seen extols the committee to lift the quality of public debate. I commend your comments about the ineffectiveness of short sentences, your comments about prevention and rehabilitation. He also talks early in his evidence about the use of language and the use of unconditional in terms of earlier release. He goes on to say that it is not a helpful statement because individuals remain liable to return to custody to serve the remainder of their sentence if they commit a further imprisonable offence. There is a suggestion that there is a lot of populist background to legislation like this, particularly the references to sex offenders. I will not repeat Mr Campbell's questions, but they are a level of co-operation that we have from them. Can I ask you about MAPA, the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements? Can I first ask you what the purpose of the bill is? Is it to enhance public safety? Yes. If it is to enhance public safety, Minister, would you not be better setting this legislation aside just now and concentrating on section 10 of the Management of Offenders Scotland Act 2005? 10-year-old legislation, because the provisions of MAPA do not cover violent offenders. That seems to me, and in another walk of life I have some personal knowledge of this, to be a far more pressing matter than dealing with the matters that we are dealing with here. MAPA is a framework that is for the purpose of sex offenders and knows with mental health conditions that brings the agencies together in terms of planning. The person obviously requires a level of supervision. Supervision provision has got to be in place, so it cannot plan circumstances where that is not the case. We are currently undertaking a piece of work internally in government, which is the MAPA principles that are used for sex offenders and are used for violent offenders. That piece of work is due to be completed this year to see how we can extend that principle and that framework and approach to dealing with violent offenders as well. I think that there are a lot of values within the MAPA approach and a lot of principles that potentially can be used for non-sexual violent offenders. That is the work that we are taking forward just now. I would expect to be in a place by the end of this year to look at how we can extend that provision to violent offenders on non-sexual crimes. That is helpful and I am sure that the committee would be grateful if you keep us updated in progress with that because it aligns with some of our other work as well. If the priority is the protection of the public, to what extent would putting in place MAPA for violent offenders offset any of the aspects of the legislation? Clearly, many people would imagine that legislation that had been in place since 2005 should have been enacted by now. You are in a situation where you have an individual when you get to two-thirds of their sentence that if there is no extended sentence provision put in place and they do not qualify for parole, they are being released without any necessary supervision provisions put in place. The question that I am taking from your question is whether MAPA should be used as an alternative to dealing with that supervision. Is that correct? In the scheme of things, we have legislation in place that has not been enacted in relation to a purpose that this legislation asserts to be addressing. I am wondering if we are out of culture with things. For instance, it is the case that someone can serve a full 10-year centre for violent offence, not co-operate with the prison authorities throughout, and be let out of the gate full stop. That is part of the reason why we are taking forward the work to look at using the MAPA principles for violent offenders, which we are doing just now. I am questioning the priority or the urgency. We will be in a position this year to look at taking that forward once that piece of work has been completed. The impact of this bill is over a 10- to 11-year period. I do not think that there is a conflict between the timelines. I would expect that the work that we are undertaking around the MAPA principles for violent offenders is something that we could have well in place before the provisions of the bill start to have a significant impact on our prison population. It is the case that, where they are already in place and should have been in place, many of the issues that have been raised about cold release and that would have been addressed because you would have been able to say, well, MAPA. MAPA keeps in mind that there needs to be a supervision provision in place for the individual. If the person gets to the end of their sentence and there is no extended sentence in place, MAPA does not apply. It could be a very violent person who has been released into the community. That goes back to the point that Ms Rallard was raising. I am more than happy to explore with the committee the idea of individuals getting to the end of their sentence and if they have no supervision provisions in place for going back into the community a way in which we could use the bill in order to achieve that. We are talking about a very small number of individuals because, at the present time, if sensing someone they think is violent and could be at risk at the end of their sentence, they have the option of being able to provide an extended sentence after they have served their period in custody. I think that the public thought, cabinet secretary, might reasonably expect us to encourage you to put in place the full provisions of legislation that has been on the statute book for 10 years rather than putting in new legislation, which in turn might have aspects that are not imposed for 10 years. That is why I am keen to encourage you to follow up on that. I hope that you are reassured by the work that we are doing just now. Do you understand the work that we have by the end of this year on MAPA? I hope that that would provide you with three assurance and take it out forward. It does indeed, thank you. Can I just ask, cabinet secretary, that business that is looking at MAPA and how it operates, when is that going to come to any kind of crystallisation use? Is it the end of the year? So that work started at the end of 2013 and they have been taking it forward over the course of last year and it is due to be with ministers by the end of this year. I think that the expectation is during the course of this year recommendations to ministers and then obviously following any decision that would come before the time. I am just going to say to the committee that I think that it is quite useful if we kept our ironness and perhaps had a session ourselves at some point, because there are issues just now with the main MAPA currently operates. I do not want to digress having reviewed somebody else who is digressing, but it is my understanding that prisoners are released currently back in the first instance to where they were resident and that may be where the crime was committed, which means you get vigilante, you get all kinds of things happening. There are issues about the way it operates just now, so I would hope that if we are looking at that, we committee would have the opportunity also to examine that. That is a matter for us really, as it is important, but it has flaws as it operates at the moment. I am more than happy to keep the committee informed of progress on this matter and once we start to get to the point when the details come to us. That would be very good, thank you. Yes, thank you very much because I think that we have all had some examples within our constituencies of it, not operating the way one would wish it. Jane, you have been very patient, but I know that it is worth waiting for. Thank you, convener. Morning, Cabinet Secretary. John Finnie stole my question. I was going to ask about MAPA. I have got some experience in the past life of how it works, so I am quite interested in the scope for MAPA to deliver a bit more of its objectives, but that has been dealt with. I am going to ask about another aspect of the bill, which is the early release for community rehabilitation. We had some witnesses who said that that was a slightly tokenistic approach, other witnesses who said that it was a very practical response to the help and support that the prisoners needed at the time of the release. I would like to hear your view of how much value you think a couple of days is going to make at the end of a sentence, and how many prisoners do you think that that will affect? That came about as a result of the work that has been taken forward in the ministerial group around tackling re-offending. One of the issues, if I can give you a practical example, because I was a health minister who sat in that group and I now chair that group in this portfolio, one of the challenges that it was highlighting was an individual who was in Berlin, prison, was liberated on a Friday, but resided in Obann. By the time they got to Obann, in order to see housing and other services on the Friday, they were in a situation where very often the offices had closed and they were able to get access to a GP, those types of practical provisions, all of which go back to the point around improving through care and managing prisoners back into the community. We know that, if we do not manage that effectively, you are in danger of just continuing with the revolving door that Margaret Mitchell made reference to for some of those individuals. They end up homeless, I think, the only way in order to get themselves back in somewhere, they end up committing offenses and back into prison again. Managing that period is extremely important in itself and it requires a multi-agency response, health, housing, etc. So, as a practical response to that, it was to give the Scottish Prison Service the flexibility to be able to flex that by two days. So, for example, going back to my individual in Berlin, who may reside in Obann, it may be for practical reasons in order to manage their move back into the community that we should do that on the Wednesday so that we can get the housing, we can get the benefit issue, we can get the health issues sorted out before the weekend. So that we are not setting someone up to fail. It is a small, practical thing that I think can make a significant difference in those types of instances. It is to be used at the SPS's discretion. It is not something that will be used routinely, but it allows them a level of flexibility so that they can accommodate that type of issue as and when it arises. I am interested in how local authorities and other public sector agencies work together to support prisoners on release. It is part of the rehabilitation programme, and I wonder if you think that community planning mechanisms have got, if there is any scope, to develop through community safety approaches a stronger network, a stronger partnership working between housing and health, so that they are better prepared as a team to cope with prisoners who are being released into their communities? I definitely think that there is a role for community planning partnerships there. As you will be aware, there is a commitment in the programme for government to take forward changes to community justice partnerships, and part of that will be looking at this issue around how we can affect better plying in those areas. Maybe just to give you a further example, we have a piece of work that we are taking place in Perth prison, which is working with housing agencies there. If there is an issue that is flagged up to me by those who work with offenders, housing tends to be this key issue that, if it is not managed, it just breaks down so quickly. Part of that is to look at how we can. They have a pilot in how they are working with some of the housing partners for their offenders and using different approaches to make sure that they manage that much more effectively and plan it much more effectively. We have also got a piece of research that we are undertaking across the country, which is looking at other approaches that have been used in different parts of the country to try to manage the issue of housing when prisoners are released as well. It is not just a matter for the community planning partnerships, it is also a matter for local authority housing departments or housing associations, all to recognise that they have a part to play in working with the SPS to try to deliver this. The SPS can only do so much, and they need to see themselves as being partners in that. For example, some of the work that we have commissioned off the back of the Elish Angeline report, such as the Tomorrow's Women Glasgow project, is a project in which there is a housing official in the team. Their job is that, when individuals are moving back into the community, they create that link. When I was chatting to that particular official, it was very clear that her mindset had changed since she had come into that role from being a housing official, because she has used it entirely differently. She now finds herself going to her colleagues and saying, no, you are going to have to think about this and challenging their normal way of working as well. More of that type of approach is the type of thing that I want to see happening, but I think that it is important that we do not just expect the SPS to sort it. The other stakeholders have all got a part to play in helping to address those types of issues. The revolving door starts to burrow at the custody stage sometimes, so there is a need to provide those sorts of supports right through the prison system, right pre-court, pre-trial. Whenever people are in the system, they need to start to get that kind of support with that. That is a different bill, a different meeting. I just like the word burrow. It is a great Scottish word, but it is visual, isn't it? On that note in burrowing, can I say that? No, I am not looking at them because there is no hands up. That is the end of our question session. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary and your officials. We are now moving, as we have agreed previously, into private session, so I will ask the room to be cleared, please.