Short-term prisoner release point: responses to targeted consultation

Response from Inverclyde Council

This consultation response is being provided by Inverclyde Council and its statutory Justice Social Work function as well as its hosted Community Justice Partnership and Violence Against Women Multi Agency Partnership.

Question 1: What are your views on changing the release point for certain short-term prisoners to 30%?

While we understand and appreciate the imminent need to relieve pressure on the prison system we are unclear that evidence from previous early release exercises supports a position that changing the release point to 30% would be an effective means to address this. We would suggest that the unintended consequences of such a policy change may be significant, not least, the significant disruption to people’s lives for what will- in reality be- exceptionally short periods in custody. We would also suggest that such policy changes be considered in terms of the principles of PASS. We also recognise that this should the Scottish Government accept the recommendations of the recently published ‘Justice that works’ report by the Scottish Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission around extending PASS and as such this will have implications should the 30% threshold be introduced.

Question 2: What are your views on excluding those serving sentences for domestic abuse and sexual offences?

We support the necessity of such exclusions in respect of public protection and support to victims but would note that evidence does not support any necessity for individuals convicted of such charges serving longer custodial terms in respect of risk management or recidivism. This response is supported by the Inverclyde Violence Against Women Multi Agency Partnership who were consulted on this question.

Question 3: What are your views on making equivalent changes for children detained in secure accommodation?

We support a position that secure accommodation should be used only when necessary and for the shortest time possible. In principle we would be supportive of any measures that facilitate a reduction in the use of secure care and increase opportunities for children to be safely supported in their communities. That said, we would strongly assert that communities are in no way resourced or equipped to safely and effectively support this at this point. We would highlight that, given the principles noted around the use of secure accommodation, that this should only be being utilised as an option for the most complex and high risk young people suggesting that the alternative community resource required would be significant.

Question 4: What are your views on the changes applying to short-term prisoners serving sentence for fine defaults and contempt of court?

We appreciate that there are limited available and effective options available to courts to address such matters however given those convicted of such offences rarely pose a significant risk to the public we see no reason why such offences would be excluded.

Question 5: What are your views on the proposed transitional approach to initial releases?

Without detail on the proposed transitional approach it is difficult to comment however we would be generally supportive of any planned, transitional approaches to implementation.

Question 6: Do you have any other comments?

We would again highlight the absolute need for community services to be properly funded in order to support any sustained, effective reduction in the prison population. Alongside statutory justice social work services, this includes consideration of third sector partners and properly funded and resourced housing for individuals leaving prison. We note that the recently published ‘Justice that works’ report by the Scottish Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission discusses many of the issues we have raised and the broader discussion around release from prison, and will consider further responses when the opportunities arise.