Hansard

I am glad to have the opportunity today to discuss another aspect of the Scottish Executive's work that is aimed at protecting our communities. Managing the risk that offenders pose and safeguarding the public are about protecting our communities and are crucial in creating a safer Scotland—a Scotland in which our people feel safer because they are safer.

Community safety links all the initiatives that have been touched on this afternoon. It also underscores other work that is being done, which will interact with the proposals in the white paper.

It is important that we remain aware that the work of improving community safety does not begin and end with our proposals for high-risk offenders—of whom, as Jim Wallace indicated, there is a relatively small number in any year—nor with the review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. We also need to help people on the ground to act and act together to improve community safety.

That is why police forces and local councils, with our support, have set up local community safety partnerships throughout Scotland—indeed, in all 32 local authority areas. Those partnerships involve the public, private and voluntary sectors working together in tackling crime. From the grass roots to the high tariffs, all measures must work towards the safety and security of our people.

The debate has rightly focused on our new proposals for serious violent and sexual offenders, which we presented in our white paper that was published on 11 June. The proposals are comprehensive and innovative. One of the key innovations in the proposals is the new body that we propose to set up: the risk management authority. That is a new approach to assessing and managing risk. The RMA will exist to ensure that best practice is followed by every agency throughout Scotland.

A number of speakers have made the point that a large range of agencies throughout Scotland have a role to play in managing and minimising risk. That is the case. No longer can we accept a situation in which pockets of excellence are isolated throughout the country. More to the point, and as Pauline McNeill made clear, no longer can we tolerate gaps in practice in the field. The RMA will have the role of spreading best practice throughout the agencies and throughout Scotland.

The point has been made on various occasions that the risk management authority may feel that the agencies with which it is working or which it is advising have difficulty in delivering what is required of them because of problems with funding. The RMA will be able to advise and recommend to the Scottish Executive specific funding that might be required to be allocated to agencies with whom it works in order for it to deliver its responsibilities. The final decision on that funding will of course remain with Scottish Executive ministers.

In discussing the risk management authority, I would like to reassure one or two members, including Roseanna Cunningham, who spoke about the status of the RMA, specifically about the fact that it will be a non-departmental public body, that we considered very carefully the question of whether there was any other way in which to deliver our proposals effectively.

The body of course has to be efficient and effective, and has to be independent. Believe me, following what the Minister for Finance and Local Government has announced on the matter, this is not a good time to argue for the setting-up of a new NDPB, unless it is the right thing to do. In the circumstances, we believe that that is the correct way to go.

On funding, which of course is required for the RMA to work, we have budgeted £3 million for the set-up and initial running costs of the RMA in 2002-03, and £5 million in the following year, within the justice budget.

The RMA will be able to provide advice and guidance whenever that is needed. When it comes to the highest-risk offenders, it will be required to ensure that the multi-agency risk management plans meet the best standards.

In response to Phil Gallie, it is true that the decision on release will lie with the Parole Board, which indeed holds that function for other categories of prisoner. That will parallel the arrangements for mandatory and discretionary life prisoners, and we believe that to be the fairest approach: it guarantees the offender's rights to a regular review of his or her detention while using the Parole Board's expertise to ensure public safety. As is the case with life prisoners, either the Parole Board or Scottish ministers can recall an order-for-lifelong-restriction prisoner for breach of conditions. If the offender is recalled, the Parole Board will have to be again satisfied that he or she does not pose a high risk, before it will consider re-releasing the offender.