Meeting of the Parliament 23 June 2015
The policy memorandum talks about helping to reduce offending and improve public safety, and it is important that we have an evidence base for that. People have referred to the Justice Committee’s report, which questioned the focus on sex offenders, not least given their compliance while in custody and their level of reoffending. We heard clear evidence from the Risk Management Authority on that.
The Justice Committee discussed the populism of the bill. I do not think that it is weak in any way for the cabinet secretary to have changed his position on a number of issues. He actually showed strength by listening. After all, that is what the Parliament is here for; it is that scrutiny and change that are important.
Time will tell whether the bill will reduce offending. To my mind, it is poverty prevention and poverty alleviation that are important, but everything will play its part. We do know that there is a clear link between supervision and support, and reducing offending.
The critical early days have been talked about. Less talked about has been the provision that brings forward the release date to assist prisoners to reintegrate. I question whether some of them have been integrated in the first place. That is where the challenge lies. There are challenges around housing, health and, increasingly, the Department for Work and Pensions. We can deal with the first couple, but not the third. Clearly we would want some alignment with United Kingdom policy on that.
I discussed the proportionality of supervision with Dr Elaine Murray in advance of the committee’s discussion of that. As Dr Murray knows, I was minded initially to lend my support to her proposal. However, my mind was changed on that by my discussions with the cabinet secretary at stage 2, in which I sought confirmation on what the bill would mean for individuals. We know that community justice workers who work in prison do an admirable job. I asked about risk assessments for individuals and I said that treating everyone equally does not mean treating them the same: people have different needs. I was reassured by what I heard then, which is why I will lend my support to the bill tonight. I was reassured on the non-statutory support that continues after six months and the very important plans for release, which involve the SPS and the criminal justice social work service.
A key point in my persuasion was when the cabinet secretary said that quality rather than quantity was important—a point that one member has already raised. His link with the chairing of the ministerial group on offender reintegration is important.
On long-term prisoners, I commend the approach to release in order to help start employment. The provision of 27 throughcare officers is very important; I am keen to see progress on that. The Christie commission on the future delivery of public services talked about organisations working together for the integration of health and social care. There still are challenges, though, as members have said, for prisoners who have been released.
I do not think that the availability of rehabilitation programmes should be scattered. The Scottish Human Rights Commission said that there would be the possibility of prisoners raising appeals about that, as it would ultimately affect their right to liberty under article 5 of the European convention on human rights, so that is important.
I would also ask whether the balance—the cost—is correct in the scheme of things, as I have mentioned previously. This bill will cost over £16 million, compared with a community justice budget of £31.8 million.
There is also the issue of where the bill fits in the overall direction of travel. I would like to see a situation in which the only people who are being confined are those who pose a threat to our communities. Dr Murray talked about extending MAPPA to cover violent offenders. That is something for which there would be an evidence base or understanding of where individuals sit in the scheme of things.
For me it is about prevention, rehabilitation and never losing sight of it being about individuals. Positive prison? Positive futures says that it values the changes to automatic early release but
“only as part of a comprehensive review and restructuring of the criminal justice system from arrest through to release”.
Rod Campbell talked about rejoining the community and the thought-provoking approaches that we may need to take in respect of that. The Howard League for Penal Reform talks about community-based supervision. That is the future, not more prison.
16:01