I thank Liam Kerr and Daniel Johnson for their amendments. I know that they come from a very sincere intent. Both members and you, convener, have been very consistent since stage 1, particularly after the HDC reviews, on the point around risk management, the need for robust tools and the request to have something in that regard on a statutory footing.
I am grateful that amendments 75 and 134 have been lodged. I know that what the members propose through the amendments has also been a consistent theme of conversation, discussion and debate among those from whom the committee has taken evidence. Risk assessment was discussed in some detail during stage 1, and I have previously written to the Justice Committee, setting out the activities that are currently under way in the area.
10:15
On amendment 75, there was discussion at stage 1 about the merits of placing risk assessment on the face of the bill. I am still very firmly of the view that to do so would present a risk, and I believe that the Risk Management Authority has written to the Justice Committee, expressing its concerns. My usual concerns about putting things in a bill very much extend to amendment 75 because of the potential inflexibility of what is suggested. There is a better place for such an approach. However, I fully recognise why Liam Kerr and Daniel Johnson want something that has statutory underpinning. I hope that I can propose a compromise position that satisfies members’ desire for risk management being on a statutory footing but does not put such a measure in the bill. I will come to that shortly.
On the language that amendment 75 uses, the risk assessment tool is not defined in the amendment or elsewhere in the bill. The criminal justice system has a range of risk assessment tools that have been developed for use with particular groups of prisoners and in particular situations. It is not clear from the amendment what sort of risk assessment tool would be created—would it be intended to assist with the decision on releasing a prisoner or with managing risk once a prisoner was released?
A risk assessment by a governor for temporary release is very different from a risk assessment for HDC or parole. The creation of one risk assessment tool for all three distinct forms of early release would overlook the different nature of each form.
The Risk Management Authority and the Parole Board for Scotland sent the committee letters, which I will quote to emphasise the point. The fourth paragraph of the authority’s letter says that its framework for risk assessment management and evaluation
“emphasises the distinction between risk assessment and ‘tools’, in that there are a range of instruments that may contribute to a risk assessment, but none that in itself produces a risk assessment. Such tools vary greatly in their design, purpose and applicability, and there is not one that fits all situations.”
The fourth bullet point in the Parole Board’s letter says:
“The adoption and promotion of one generic tool oversimplifies the complex process of risk assessment which should be informed as appropriate by specific relevant assessment tools but should also involve wider evidence and expertise”.
That emphasises the point that I am making. Amendment 75 would duplicate existing risk assessment processes across all forms of early release, and there are existing statutory provisions that require risk assessment for the purposes of HDC, temporary release and parole. I can provide more detail in writing if that would help the committee.
The obligation in amendment 75 to develop a risk assessment tool would sit alone; no corresponding duty would be placed on any organisation to use or have regard to the tool. It would create a duty to consult certain bodies, and the implication might be that those bodies should have regard to the tool.