As a membership body, our view of an issue is a strategic view, informed by our members.
We find a number of ways to get that view across: responding to consultations and calls for evidence; briefings to MSPs; event reports and publications based on our own work.
Consultation response: Youth Justice standards
Social Work Scotland is the professional body for social work leaders, working closely with our partners to shape policy and practice, and improve the quality and experience of social services.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Youth Justice Standards. Within the membership of Social Work Scotland there will have been a range of local responses. The views below do not capture the insights and expertise of all of them. Suggestions below focus on views about general emphasis, and specific strengths and concerns about content, meaning and impact.
Yes, ( broadly and allowing for caveats and considerations below, some of which are fundamental)
If the issues above are transparently captured in the way that services are self- evaluated and inspected then it will be possible to answer this question positively.
See references and points made above in relation to relevance of extracts below
Response to Victim Statements Scottish Government consultation
SUBMISSION FROM SOCIAL WORK SCOTLAND, TO SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION
28 NOVEMBER 2019
Social Work Scotland is the professional body for social work leaders, working closely with our partners to shape policy and practice, and improve the quality and experience of social services.
Option A – expanding eligibility to include the list of serious offences at section 4 of the consultation paper
Option B – expanding eligibility to all cases heard under solemn proceedings
Option C – as per Option B but also including a list of offences which would be eligible for a victim statement even if they were tried as summary proceedings
We favour Option C, in that it ensures the widest extension of the scheme and puts victims more firmly at the centre of the criminal justice system. The right to make a Victim Impact Statement should be open to all victims, allowing their voice to be heard.
If you favour option C, which offences do you think should be considered for inclusion so they would be eligible for a victim statement even if tried as summary proceedings?
We think all offences in the extended list should be included.
We understand the complexity and resource implications of allowing a victim statement to be made for any offence, and that there is evidence to suggest there is less demand for less serious crimes. However, the principle of giving every victim the right to say how any offence has impacted on them is one we think Scotland should consider, as is the case in other jurisdictions.
Victims reading their statement in court
We think there is some merit in exploring this option as it would provide the victim with an opportunity to be directly involved and in control of the statement they wish to make, and to express their thoughts and feelings as they would wish.
However, we are also cautious about this option. Victims would need to be well supported to make an informed choice, as well as prepared and supported through the process itself. There is a risk, potentially significant, that victims are are retraumatised by the experience of reading out their statement in court. Ensuring support workers are trained in trauma-informed practice would be essential.
Some victims may also have difficulty with reading, which would impact on their ability to articulate their statement clearly. We know that a sentencing diet can be postponed for many reasons, including at very short notice and on the day of the court. This may happen more than once. This may engender considerable frustration, even anger on the part of the victim, and may prevent victims being able to move forward with their lives. It is a balance between respecting the rights of victims and the unintended consequence of causing more harm.
Pre-recording the statement on video
There is less risk with this option than physically reading a statement, but it would maintain the value of victims feeling in full control of their statement and its delivery. It would allow the victim to record their statement safely and without undue pressure and to directly express themselves without the potential pitfalls expressed above. It would address the issues around literacy.
Pre-recording the statement with audio only
Like a video statement, but this option offers a degree of anonymity whilst still allowing the victim’s ‘voice’ to be directly heard.
The judge reading the statement aloud to the court
Whilst precluding physically seeing and/or hearing the voice of a victim, it is a safe option that offers protection for the victim and certainty that their written statement will be heard.
We think another option should be for a relative or friend of the victim to read the statement out in court. In situations where the victim, for whatever reason, felt unable to do this him/herself, being able to select a person of their own choosing to act on their behalf means they would retain more ownership and control over the Victim Statement than, for example, if it was read out by a judge or sheriff.
Another option would be for Victim Support Scotland given their current role and expertise in supporting victims and offering advice and guidance on Victim Statements, to offer a service to facilitate the provision of Victime Statements to the court.
For options (1) – (5) there would need to be clear guidelines as to how they are conducted, e.g. use of language, tone of voice, use of self, etc.
Victims often question the extent to which their voice is heard within the criminal justice system. The system is seen as all about the individual that has offended, with little attention paid to victims.
We believe there is some truth in this, and that more could and should be done to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. Victim Statements offer a potentially powerful took with which to articulate the impact on victims at different points in the journey, and to hold people to account for their actions, decisions, etc.
For example, justice social work (JSW) prepared 28,400 criminal justice social work reports (CJSWR) in 2017/18 to assist the court in determining the right sentence for the individual. Each report analyses the offence(s) and requires an explicit analysis of ‘the level of recognition by the offender on the impact/consequences of the offence(s) on the victim/community’ (question taken from the national CSJWR template, Scottish government 2011). However, in most cases the justice social worker is reliant on the terms of the charge(s) and what the individual tells them in interview. The social worker does not receive the Crown Office’s Summary of Evidence or any other independent and objective account of an offence and the consequences for a victim. (There are exceptions to this, for example some sexual and domestic offences.) This not only disadvantages the social worker in providing a fully informed analysis and assessment of risk and need, but also denies the victim an opportunity to articulate how the crime has impacted them.
Notwithstanding GDPR and setting out the terms of information sharing and use, with the consent of the victim the statement could be shared with JSW to help inform the CJSWR and supervision with the individual on a Community Payback Order, and his or her progression through a prison sentence, including the parole process (and we welcome the clear consensus to strengthen the voice of victims in the parole process as summarised in the Transforming Parole in Scotland: consultation report [Scottish government, November 2019]). This information would better ensure people are held to account for their crimes and ensure the victim’s voice is heard.
This change would cost little but the impact would be considerable and ensure the rights of victims are continually heard throughout an individual’s order or sentence. We think this is worth considering with victims and Victim’s organisations.
Similarly, there is also the potential to consider how Victim Statements can enhance Restorative Justice processes.
We also think this is an opportunity to review the Victim Statement template, its availability (it’s not currently freely available, including on-line), the timing of when it is done and ensuring victims know what happens to their statement.
Although this is not something being planned alongside changes to the current scheme, SWS think there is merit in reviewing the current eligibility set out in the 2003 Act. Specifically, this should consider extending this to children, or their parent/carer on their behalf, as is the case in victim statement schemes in other jurisdictions. This is in accordance with the principle of respecting the rights of children (including UNCRC Article 12) and in acknowledgment of the impact of domestic abuse and other crimes upon them.
GDPR legislation came into force in 2018 and any revised statement would require to be proofed against this. This would also apply to the implications if people other than the victim were involved in, for example, recording or reading out a victim’s statement.
As referred to at (5) above careful consideration would be required of widening out the scheme as described.
For further information, please do not hesitate to contact:
0131 281 0853
Financial redress for historical child abuse in care – pre-legislative consultation
PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE REDRESS SCHEME
Yes, in general terms we agree with the proposed purpose of financial redress. However, in the drafting of the legislation we would encourage greater alignment with the wording used in the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017, to ensure it is clear that the scheme applies only to individuals who sustained harm, rather than any child who was placed in a particular setting. Furthermore, the term ‘long term’ should be removed; ideas of what constitutes ‘long-term’ are contested (one month, one year?) and no clear definition exists or is likely to be agreed. The only relevant factors are that a child was placed in a setting by a public body (i.e. the state) and in that setting they suffered abuse. The length of time the child was in care should be immaterial.
If some version of the phrase “responsibility for the care of the child in place of the parent” is maintained in the description, it would be prudent to consider how the Redress Scheme will treat cases where institutions and bodies facilitated private arrangements within families, supporting relatives or family friends to provide care for the child in place of the parent. In these cases the state may never have assumed formal responsibilities for a child, but could still have had a significant role in determining with whom the child was placed; who may subsequently have subjected the child to abuse, or sent the child to a setting where they were subjected to abuse. While likely to affect only a few individuals, an equitable and effective Redress Scheme must be clear on how to treat these and other marginal cases.
2. Do you agree with these guiding principles?
Yes, we agree with the guiding principles proposed. But we feel that the list of principles should be extended further. Firstly, to include an explicit principle that individuals applying to the scheme are provided with specialised support from the start, designed to minimise the potential for future harm through the process (building on Principle 5), and also to ensure as strong an application as possible. This is to ensure equity of access to the Scheme, as some eligible individuals may have more experience, confidence, skills or support that others.
Secondly, while we agree the primary focus of the principles should be on the experience of the persons applying, we believe it would be helpful to have additional principles related to how public bodies and other organisations / institutions will be treated. For example, there could be a principle that the Redress Scheme will not put at risk services currently available to nurture and protect children looked after by Scottish local authorities. A clearer statement of how affected organisations can expect to be treated will not only help manage their engagement, it should improve transparency around a critical dimension of the Scheme for individual’s applying.
3. Do you agree with the proposed approach in relation to institutions and bodies having long term responsibility for the child in place of the parent?
No. As noted previously, the notion of what constitutes ‘long-term’ is subjective and contentious, and the phrase should be removed, in favour of simply “responsibility in place of the parent”. The factors which need to be established are whether institutions and bodies had responsibility for the child (in place of the parent) at the time abuse took place.
Similarly, we would recommend removing the term “morally responsible”. We assume this has been included to highlight that the state (through its institutions and bodies) had ethical and moral responsibilities towards the children in its care. However, in this context it appears both anachronistic and, possibly, trivialising of the extent of responsibility. We would favour instead “…and were legally responsible for their physical, social and emotional needs in place of parents” or “…and were practicably responsible for their physical, social and emotional needs in place of parents”.
4. Subject to the institution or body having long term responsibility for the child, do you agree that the list of residential settings should be the same as used in the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry’s Terms of Reference?
Broadly, yes. The list of residential settings should be the same as used in the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
5. Where parents chose to send children to a fee paying boarding school for the primary purpose of education, the institution did not have long-term responsibility in place of the parent. Given the purpose of this redress scheme, applicants who were abused in such circumstances would not be eligible to apply to this scheme. Do you agree?
No. While we understand and broadly agree with the rationale for excluding from the scheme children who were placed in fee paying boarding schools by parents who were free to choose, the current wording does not take into account the complexity of the UK’s history or individual family situations. As a result, individuals may be unfairly denied access to the Redress Scheme.
For example, how should the scheme treat children who were sent to fee paying boarding schools because of the parent’s employment abroad for the state, such as in the military, as colonial officers, or on diplomatic missions? In some cases the state itself will have paid the fees for these boarding schools, either directly or through supplements to parents. In these circumstances, did the parent’s ‘choose’ to send their children to boarding schools? Furthermore, in such circumstances it may be argued that sending children to such schools was for not primarily for the purposes of education, but also of care.
Related to points already made, there may also be situations were institutions and bodies (of the state) facilitated the placement of children in fee paying boarding schools, securing the financial support of relatives to keep the child out of formal state care. The Redress Scheme does need boundaries, but it must also be flexible enough to take account of the immense variety and complexity of individual circumstances. That will require skilled professionals, supporting individuals with their applications from the very start. And where people / groups are excluded from the Redress Scheme, we should be confident that those individuals have recourse to redress through other means. (Even then, we are concerned about the potential disparity which may emerge between two school peers, both victims of abuse, but one able to access a supportive, person-focused Redress Scheme, the other only with access to the courts.)
Finally, if a version of this exclusion is adopted, it will be important to communicate that it does not apply to people who were directly placed in boarding schools by institutions and bodies who had parental responsibilities towards them.
6. Where children spent time in hospital primarily for the purpose of medical or surgical treatment, parents retained the long-term responsibility for them. Given the purpose of this redress scheme, applicants who were abused in such circumstances would not be eligible to apply to this scheme. Do you agree?
No. We are very uneasy about the exclusion of children who were abused while in hospital for the purpose of medical or surgical treatment, where parents retained ‘long-term’ responsibility for them. As with boarding schools, the lack of nuance here risks denying many individuals the right to redress for abuse suffered while in the care and protection of the NHS. It also insulates the NHS from appropriate accountability around how it fulfilled its responsibilities to the children in its care. We fully accept that local authorities had responsibilities towards children who were then victims of abuse, but that is equally true of hospitals and NHS Boards.
The primary consideration in determining eligibility should be whether the state had a significant role or power in determining the placement of the child, and when the child was in that placement, had responsibilities for their care and protection. A parent whose child requires medical treatment does not ‘choose’ to leave them in hospital; they follow the recommendations (and often decisions) or doctors. Nor does the parent remain totally responsible for the care and protection of the child over that period; the hospital (and NHS more generally) assumes responsibilities too. These dynamics are true today, but were perhaps even more of a feature in the past, where deferential attitudes towards medical professionals would have meant less challenge of their decisions, and where hospitals were less welcoming of parents and families (with strict visiting times, etc.). By any common sense account, children in hospital for medical or surgical treatment were (and are) in the care of the hospital and its staff. That should be reflected in the eligibility to the scheme.
By our understanding of this proposed eligibility criteria, if a group of children had suffered systematic abuse in a Scottish hospital (such as Jimmy Saville perpetrated in an English context) only those who had been formally ‘looked after’ by a local authority would be eligible to apply to the Redress Scheme. This does not seem fair on the victims (who may legitimately feel the hospital had responsibilities to keep the safe) nor on the local authorities and other organisations who will participate in the Redress Scheme.
7. We intend to use the same definition of abuse as the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 for the purpose of the financial redress scheme. This includes sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse and abuse that takes the form of neglect. Do you agree?
Yes. The same definition of abuse as the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 should be used for the purpose of the Redress Scheme. We also support the link to the Child Protection guidance.
In determining how specific applications to the Redress Scheme are handled, we believe the interpretation of this definition should be expansive, taking into account certain actions which do not correspond obviously to sexual, physical or emotional abuse. For example, in situations where there is inappropriate administration of drugs, whether as means of control or as part a fabricated induced illness.
8. In our view 1 December 2004 represents an appropriate date to define ‘historical’ abuse for this financial redress scheme. Do you agree?
Not sure. Any date is going to exclude people, however, in the interests of making the Redress Scheme as inclusive (and final) as possible, should we not set a date somewhere closer to the present? Particularly as the scheme is not expected to be in operation until 2021. Moreover, the rationale given for the December 2004 date feels weak; we are concerned that victims / survivors of abuse may not feel the date of a public apology is a sufficient milestone. Perhaps a more suitable alternative would be the start of the public inquiry, in 2015.
If the 2004 date is chosen, clear guidance on alternative routes to redress must be made available to those who suffered abused at a later date.
9. Do you have any comments you would like to make in relation to child migrants who also meet the eligibility requirements of this redress scheme?
We are supportive of the proposals around child migrants. It is both logical and fair that these individuals are considered eligible to the Redress Scheme, if they suffered abuse within Scotland while in the care of the state. This should apply even if they have also received or applied to the UK child migrant scheme.
10. Do you have any comments about the eligibility of those with a criminal conviction?
Criminal convictions should be no barrier to accessing the Redress Scheme. Eligibility should be determined by the circumstances of an individual’s childhood, not what the individual did or went on to do. We understand that for some it will be unpalatable to award financial payments to individuals convicted of offences (particularly sexual offences against children), but ultimately that is a political, presentational problem. The scheme can only live up to the principles on which is supposed to be based if it is open to all, irrespective of the actions of individual applicants. Moreover, if any restrictions were to be introduced, they are likely to be challengeable under the Human Rights Act 1998.
11. Do you have any other comments on eligibility for the financial redress scheme?
It may help if the eligibility criteria were clear on characteristics like citizenship. Our assumption is that the Scheme would be open to anyone who suffered abuse in Scotland while in the care of public bodies, regardless of their citizenship at the time or now.
We also recommend that powers be taken by Scottish Ministers to review and adjust eligibility criteria, and for these to be formally reviewed after the first couple of years of the scheme’s operation.
12. What options might be available for someone who has been unable to obtain a supporting document which shows they spent time in care in Scotland?
Those who are unable to produce documentary evidence of being “in care” are ineligible for an Advanced Payment; it makes sense that the full Redress Scheme mirror this. However, individuals applying to the full scheme should have the option to give evidence on oath, submitting an affidavit for determination.
Assuming that individuals will receive support with applications from the start, it may also be possible to triangulate from other documentary evidence, including individual’s personal records, to a high degree of certainty that an individual was at a particular place when abuse took place. This could be validated by a version of the ‘in care confirmation letter’ developed for the Advanced Payment scheme.
13. Do you think the redress scheme should have the power, subject to certain criteria, to require that bodies or organisations holding documentation which would support an application are required to make that available?
Yes. To deliver the Scheme efficiently and effectively relevant bodies and organisations should be required to provide information which would support an application. This power would replicate that of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. It would also help ensure all relevant parties share the load of facilitating the work of the Scheme.
However, the provision of information is not a cost free exercise. In fact it can be a highly onerous one, and detailed consideration will need to be given to how organisations covered by this power are supported to undertake the work requested. Resourcing (human and financial) and imagination will be necessary. It could be worthwhile, for example, to establish within the Scheme’s statutory body a team of sufficient size that they can directly assist data / evidence providers (who otherwise may need to recruit and train additional staff). In all instances, adequate, realistic timescales must be given for compliance.
The key consideration for the design and management of the Redress Scheme must be that attention and resources are not diverted (more than is absolutely necessary) away from the current provision of services, and the support of children and adults (some whom may also be applicants). The redress scheme will be unsuccessful and self-defeating if it saps the strength of today’s public services, through the reallocation of money, or people’s time and energy. The operation of the Redress Scheme must be fully funded, including the cost requirements of local authorities and others, whose staff will be central to making the Scheme work.
14. For Stage One, what evidence do you think should be required about the abuse suffered?
For the Stage One payment, the evidential test should be the same as currently in place for the Advance Payment scheme. We should be confident that abuse did take place at an institution while the individual was placed there, but not need to have proof of the specific instances of the individual’s abuse. Individuals should be able to submit what information they see as relevant to assist their application, including a written statement, but it should not be required. Similarly, a short written description of the abuse and its impact should not be required; the Stage One scheme, as proposed, would not be about assessing the extent of impact, so this would not be relevant. The act of describing the abuse may also, in itself, be re-traumatising. It should be choice whether they wish to disclose this, as part of a Stage 2 application.
15. Do you have any additional comments on evidence requirements for a Stage One payment?
16. For Stage Two, what additional evidence of the abuse, and of its impact, should be required for the individual assessment?
17. Do you have any comments on evidence requirements for a Stage Two payment?
While the evidential test for a Stage Two payment should be appropriately more demanding than Stage One, the process for assessing claims must remain victim centred, flexible and focused on enabling and empowering an individual to secure redress (rather than meeting requirements or thresholds). This is likely to mean a process heavily dependent on skilled professionals and volunteers, including social workers, councillors, therapists, archivists, etc. That must be taken into account in the design of the scheme, and the structure and costs of the structure / organisation delivering it (e.g. a new public body).
18. Do you think applicants should be able to give oral evidence to support their application?
Yes. They should be able, but not required, to give oral testimony. They should have this option even if there is sufficient documentary evidence for their claim. This option should also be utilised where it is difficult to assess a case on the basis of available information.
19. Do you have any views on whether the length of time in care should be factored into the Stage Two assessment?
Length of time in care should be a consideration, but not a determinant or indicator of any impact. Being in care for two years and suffering abuse three times is not necessarily less significant than being in care for fifteen years and suffering abuse three times. Length of time in care should be something the professionals undertaking the assessment take into consideration, drawing on evidence about how individuals deal with trauma in different contexts, with different support structures, etc.
20. Do you have any views on the balance the assessment should give to different types of abuse (physical, emotional, sexual, neglect)?
Each case must be considered independently, and the focus must be on assessing the impact abuse had, whatever its form, on the individual. Establishing a hierarchy of abuse, as this question suggests, risks marginalising some victims’ experiences.
The process of assessment must be rigorous and forensic, but also sensitive and person-centred. It will not work if it becomes either a tick-box exercise or an opaque, subjective judgement. Maintaining the central, delicate balance will require very skilled professionals, using tools and their judgement, backed up by case notes and managers, and case discussions within small teams (to ensure individual assessors’ prejudices and assumptions are being challenged). Critically, individuals should have the right to appeal assessments.
21. What are your views on which factors in relation to the abuse and its impact might lead to higher levels of payment?
This should mirror the approach currently taken by civil courts.
22. Do you think (a) the redress payment is primarily for the abuse suffered; (b) the redress payment is primarily for the impact the abuse has had; (c) both the abuse suffered and the impact it has had should be treated equally.
It is unclear whether this question relates to Stage 1 payment, Stage 2 payment, or both. Assuming it refers to the Stage 2 payment, then its primary purpose is for the impact the abuse has had. The Stage 1 payment should be about acknowledging the abuse, and the second payment about its impact.
23. How do you think the scheme should ensure all parties are treated fairly and that the assessment and award process is sufficiently robust?
Again, the question is unclear about whether it applies all or part of the Scheme. Assuming that it refers to the Phase 2 payment, ensuring parties are treated fairly and the process is robust will depend on (a) the skills of the professionals undertaking the assessment, (b) transparency of the criteria being considered, (c) opportunities for review and appeal of assessment decisions, (d) strong structures of supervision for those undertaking assessments, (e) close work as a team to ensure consistency, and (f) constructive internal challenge.
Fairness is not something which can be baked into a system, or achieved through process or criteria. It is something experienced by individuals, and it will be determined in the relational space which the scheme’s employees offer. If individuals feel listened to and treated with respect, and that assessors took everything possible into account when making their judgement, and that decision makers give clear reasons for their judgement, applicants are more likely to feel the Scheme was fair, and accept decisions.
24. Do you agree that anyone who has received a payment from another source for the abuse they suffered in care in Scotland should still be eligible to apply to the redress scheme?
Broadly, yes, we agree that individuals who have received a payment for another source should still be eligible to apply to the Redress Scheme. However, the amount received should be deducted from any future redress payment. And where a court has made a determination about a previous claim, the Redress Scheme must handle applications very carefully, to ensure that an award does not contradict the court’s decision.
Our rationale for supporting this eligibility to the scheme is one of equity and fairness. We considered an example where two individuals experienced similar abuse, in the same institution, at a similar time. One of the individuals has successfully secured redress through the courts or another scheme, while the other chose not to. The latter individual now makes a claim through the Redress Scheme, and is provided with a more substantial award than that offered to the first individual. While we expect variance even between two very similar cases (due to variable impact of abuse), it does not seem fair that one is entitled to make the claim and the other excluded.
25. Do you agree that any previous payments received by an applicant should be taken into account in assessing the amount of the redress payment from this scheme?
26. Do you agree applicants should choose between accepting a redress payment or pursuing a civil court action?
Yes. We agree that applicants should choose between the two routes to redress. However, we do have some concern about the availability of quality legal advice to people having to make this decision, and the potential for individual’s to be exploited. There is already anecdotal evidence of some legal firms encouraging individuals to make civil claims (sometimes on a no win, no fee basis).
MAKING AN APPLICATION
27. We are proposing that the redress scheme will be open for applications for a period of five years. Do you agree this is a reasonable timescale?
Yes. However, it would be advantageous if the legislation permitted an extension of the scheme, with the approval of relevant stakeholders, if demand, logistics, etc. justified it. Furthermore, if there is to be a deadline for applications (e.g. five years after the scheme opens) it will be necessary to build in some form of public information campaign to ensure eligible people know and understand the deadlines.
It is also important that we distinguish the timeframe within which applications can be submitted, and the timeframe of the scheme and associated public body. Processing applications may take some time (well beyond the closing date of applications) and, moreover, it would be a lost opportunity if the public body did not complete some research and publications before it was wrapped up. Further communications around the Scheme should make clear that the public body may be in operation for longer than the Scheme itself.
28. Should provision be made by the redress scheme administrators to assist survivors obtain documentary records required for the application process?
Yes. However, in part this should be achieved by properly assessing and resourcing the archivist and data retrieval functions of data holders (such as local authorities). Ensuring that these organisations have the capacity needed to meet demand would achieve the same result, but also have many more attendant benefits (freeing up front line social workers, for example). Locally embedded capacity could also work in local projects around record retention and access more generally, and would hold out the potential for skills to be developed locally, rather than in a public body which will eventually be dissolved.
Should a national database be developed with admission and boarding-out-register data (as is currently being considered) there is an opportunity for the Scheme to access the data directly and where the person is discovered this will negate the need for further documentary evidence.
This will not fully negate the need for survivors to be assisted to access records though, and whether the necessary support is provided by the Scheme or other organisations, it should be a priority in both the legislation and implementation. And the support for survivors will need to go beyond practical documentary evidence gathering, extending to emotional and legal guidance too. The complexity – and cost – of providing such support should not be underestimated.
29. In your view, which parts of the redress process might require independent legal advice? Please tick all that apply.
30. How do you think the costs of independent legal advice could best be managed?
If it was possible, perhaps a measure of legal advice for free (provided by legal professionals employed or contracted by the statutory body). Then if an application is taken forward, this should be supported through legal aid (if the individual is eligible), with a cap on the maximum amount charged.
NEXT OF KIN
31. What are your views on our proposed approach to allow surviving spouses and children to apply for a next-of-kin payment?
Some provision for close, immediate family seems appropriate as a recognition on the impact the abuse may have had on the family. If the individual has died, the payment may also act as posthumous recognition of that individual’s experience.
It may the case that multiple family members may apply separately, but in our view only one payment should be available per survivor who has died. The Scheme will need to determine how a payment is then subsequently sub-divided between next-of-kin applicants.
We are supportive of the proposal to limit the next-of-kin definition to surviving spouses and children, as long as ‘surviving spouses’ includes civil partnerships and those who in long term relationships. Cases may become further complicated where ex-‘spouses’ feel justified to a claim on the basis that relationships with the abuse victim broke down in part because of the abuse the deceased individual had experienced. And there may also be difficulties with assessing the validity of children who were estranged (questions about whether the victim / survivor would have wanted them to receive funds), as well as those individuals who were not biologically or legally a victim / survivor’s children, but who were treated as such (e.g. children who grew up in informal kinship arrangements, with uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc.).
32. We are considering three options for the cut-off date for next-of-kin applications (meaning that a survivor would have had to have died after that date in order for a next-of-kin application to be made). Our proposal is to use 17 November 2016.
We do not have a firm opinion on this, but suggest that a single date be agreed to mark the various thresholds and cut-offs relevant to the Scheme. Previously we had suggested 17 December 2014, the announcement of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry.
33. We propose that to apply for a next-of-kin payment, surviving spouses or children would have to provide supporting documentation to show that their family member met all the eligibility criteria. What forms of evidence of abuse should next-of-kin be able to submit to support their application?
Next of kin applicants should have to provide the same proof as required by living applicants, as well as proof of their relationship. That should include any existing written documentary evidence of the abuse, and here necessary, written or oral testimony in support of their application.
34. What are your views on the proportion of the next-of-kin payment in relation to the level at which the redress Stage One payment will be set in due course?
35. We think those bearing responsibility for the abuse should be expected to provide financial contributions to the costs of redress. Do you agree?
Yes. Attributing responsibility for abuse will, in many instances, be complex and contentious. But, if we work from a position that certain parties had a responsibility to keep children safe and protected from abuse, we can build a framework within which relevant parties (i.e. those who should make a financial contribution) can be identified. This would include the government (now Scottish Government), local authorities and institutions.
Determining liability with regard to local government is likely to be very complicated, and we urge Scottish Government to work closely with COSLA and others to identify and properly stress-test different contribution models, before any legislation is introduced into Parliament. A suitable model can then be agreed in advance, supported by the relevant parties.
36. Please tell us about how you think contributions by those responsible should work. Should those responsible make?
No answer to this question.
37. Are there any barriers to providing contributions, and if so, how might these be overcome?
No answer to this question.
38. Should the impact of making financial contributions on current services be taken into account and if so how?
Yes. It is critical that the Redress Scheme does not impact detrimentally on current services. That most obviously includes those services available to today’s children and families, but also extends to the adult services (disability, drugs and alcohol, social care) which many victims / survivors will rely. If the Scheme was found to be negatively impacting on current services (for instance through reducing available funding), public support for the Scheme would likely wane, and it would potentially create risk within families.
In respect of how the impact on current services is monitored, individual organisations will have mechanisms for this, but there is also potentially a role for Audit Scotland and OSCR, keeping under review the financial statements of the organisations involved to ensure that changes in the availability of funding for certain services are flagged, and the reasons behind them interrogated.
39. What other impacts might there be and how could those be addressed?
Harder to identify than financial impact on current services, but possibly no less important, are the risks of vicarious trauma and burn out among the professionals supporting applications. We already have examples, driven by the demands of the Historical Abuse Inquiry and Advance Payment scheme, of resources having to be diverted, teams stretched, and individuals requiring time-off (due to over-work or discomfort with the material). Many people assume that identifying and processing records (i.e. for a Subject Access Request) is a purely administrative and bureaucratic exercise, but in reality it is one which exposes individual workers to stories of abuse and neglect. That exposure has an impact, and with the expected increase in requests for documentation which will follow the opening of the Redress Scheme, it will need to be properly taken into account.
40. How should circumstances where a responsible organisation no longer exists in the form it did at the time of the abuse, or where an organisation has no assets, be treated?
No answer to this question.
41. What is a fair and meaningful financial contribution from those bearing responsibility for the abuse?
No answer to this question.
42. What would be the most effective way of encouraging those responsible to make fair and meaningful contributions to the scheme?
No answer to this question.
43. Should there be consequences for those responsible who do not make a fair and meaningful financial contribution?
No answer to this question.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO WIDER REPARATIONS
44. In addition to their financial contributions to the redress scheme, what other contributions should those responsible for abuse make to wider reparations?
For the redress scheme to be more than just an acknowledgment of abuse, and for us to take this opportunity to address the harm done by the abuse and subsequent response (or lack thereof), it is critical that financial redress is just part of wider package of support.
In our opinion there should not be a distinction between the redress scheme and wider reparations. The Redress Scheme should cover all aspects, with financial awards representing one component. The financial contributions from relevant organisations and bodies would therefore be for the entire Scheme.
Within the package of wider reparations should fall the support provided (either directly by the Scheme or by relevant bodies and organisations) to applicants, such as help finding documentation, psychological support, etc.
DECISION MAKING PANEL FOR REDRESS
45. Do you agree that the decision making panel should consist of three members?
It is unclear again if the question is referring to a decision making panel for Phase 1, Phase 2 or both. If for Phase 1, then a three person panel seems excessive. An individual, suitably supervised and peer reviewed, should be sufficient. This would be in line with the current Advance Payment scheme. If the question relates to Phase 2 or both, we agree that the panel may consist of only three members. This is a fairly standard size for tribunals, and seems proportionate.
However, we think it should be clear that this panel will not be working alone, and that they will need to be supported by a range of professionals (employed directly or indirectly by the public body) whose purpose it is to support individuals with applications, assess the seriousness of impact (and validity of experiences, in some cases), etc. These professionals will play a key role in ensuring the information submitted to the Panel is as complete as possible, but they should also have role helping the Panel come to decisions (where necessary).
All processes, discussions and decisions of the Panel and supporting professionals should be recorded, transparent, accessible and challengeable.
46. Do you agree that the key skills and knowledge for panel members should be an understanding of human rights, legal knowledge, and knowledge of complex trauma and its impact? Are there other specific professional backgrounds or skills you feel are essential for the decision making panel?
Yes, agree with the proposed knowledge and skills. No, there are no other skills or professional backgrounds which need to be represented in decision making panel. But as noted in our answer to Q.45, the panel – and individual applicants – should be supported by other professionals, who can be called on to help plug gaps in knowledge and expertise. The skills necessary for this scheme to work well should not – and cannot – be contained within a small, three person panel.
47. We propose that a Survivor Panel be established to advise and inform the redress scheme governance and administration, ensuring survivor experience of the application process is considered as part of a culture of continuous improvement. Do you agree? How do you think survivors should be recruited and selected for this panel?
Yes. This would represent an important aspect of governance and continuous improvement, including rapid responses to challenges as they emerge. Survivor experience should also be reflected in the schemes overall governance (i.e. the Board).
Selection should be on the basis of open invitation and competition (on transparent criteria). Organisations should be encouraged to support members to apply. Representation should be broad enough to ensure all perspectives are being heard.
48. Do you agree that the financial redress scheme administration should be located in a new public body?
Not sure. The consultation document presents this as the only option, but for such an important decision it would be helpful if other options available were presented and evaluated (i.e. costs, benefits, risks, issues, etc.). For example, Social Work Scotland members have queried why the Redress Scheme cannot be located within the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, on the basis that it already has relevant expertise, and has judicial oversight and appeals processes built in. Others also raised concern that a new public body would not be seen as sufficiently independent of Scottish Government or local authorities, on whose resources the public body is likely to rely.
49. Do you have any views as to where the public body should be located and what it should be called? What factors should be taken into account when deciding where the public body should be?
We do not have views on what a new public body should be called, and the right choice of location(s) will be significantly determined by the public bodies’ functions. For example, if the public body is going to provide a structure for the provision of support services for victims, the body should perhaps have multiple locations across Scotland. Its headquarters could be in a significant town, easily accessible by public transport. Access for survivors and participating institutions, bodies and professionals should be the primary consideration.
50. How can survivors be involved in the recruitment process for these posts? How should survivors be selected to take part in this process?
Through the recruitment process there should be scope for survivors to interview and be part of the assessment process for panel members. Their feedback would provide an additional perspective which will ensure the people on the panel have good interpersonal skills, are empathic and personable. It may also help to run a national campaign inviting survivors to apply to be panel advisors.
There are strong parallels here with recruitment of panel members and senior staff at Children’s Hearings Scotland. Engagement and learning from CHS’ experience would be advantageous.
51. What are your views on bringing together the administration of other elements of a reparation package such as support and acknowledgement with financial redress? What would be the advantages? Would there be any disadvantages, and if so, how might these be addressed?
While we acknowledge the advantages of bringing together the administration of the wider reparation package (in respect of improved coordination, governance, efficiency, joint-working, single-point-of-entry, etc.), we have concerns about breaking the link for people with established local support services. As a result of the centralisation of support ‘under one roof ‘, funding for local services may be put at risk. These are services which have established relationships within local areas and with local areas, and which, if properly resourced and supported, may outlive the public body running the Redress Scheme.
Furthermore, many aspects of supporting individuals and facilitating applications are currently provided by local authority social work. The relationships local professionals have developed will be difficult to replicate quickly in a national body. Ultimately, individuals live in local communities, and will benefit from being linked into a web of support which is itself local and accessible.
For these reasons, while we do see the advantages of bringing administration together, the case for doing so must be very convincingly made, its potential benefits clearly outweighing its risks of disrupting the existing mix of local and national provision.
52. Do you agree that it would be beneficial if the administration of these elements were located in the same physical building? What would be the advantages? Would there be any disadvantages, and if so, how might these be addressed?
No answer to this question.
53. Should wider reparation be available to everyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the financial redress scheme?
Broadly, yes. Access to the wider reparations should be on the basis that the individual experienced abuse while in the care of the state, between certain specified dates. However, we would favour a more nuanced approach to determining access to support than the criteria set for eligibility to financial redress.
Support should begin from initial inquiry, and be available (if desired) in the preparing of applications for financial redress. By virtue of this though, it would not be possible to determine whether someone is eligible for wider reparations on the basis of whether they are eligible for financial redress, as this may not have been decided yet. It may be the case that an individual applications for financial redress is turned down, but that they receive a measure of support through the process, and access to other services.
54. Should there be priority access to wider reparation for certain groups, for example elderly and ill?
Yes. A form of triage and prioritisation will be important, to ensure those in most need, and those with life limiting conditions are responded to early. Each person applying for wider reparations should have their needs and context assessed appropriately.
55. If a person is eligible for redress, should they have the same or comparable access to other elements of reparation whether they live in Scotland or elsewhere?
Yes. However, the services should be made available in Scotland, and people’s actual access to it will be determined by their proximity to relevant offers (groups, etc.) or access to appropriate technology.
It would not be feasible to extend all aspects of the wider reparations to people living in other countries. They should equal right to access, but not have services taken to them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND APOLOGY
56. To allow us more flexibility in considering how acknowledgment is delivered in the future, we intend to include provision in the redress legislation to repeal the sections of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 which established the National Confidential Forum. Do you have any views on this?
In our view the powers should be taken. The decision whether to use them should be considered further, but it is important that Scottish Government and its stakeholders have the ability to make changes in the future, if so decided.
57. Do you have any views on how acknowledgment should be provided in the future?
58. Do you think a personal apology should be given alongside a redress payment? If so, who should give the apology?
No answer to this question.
59. Do you think there is a need for a dedicated support service for in care survivors once the financial redress scheme is in place?
Yes. There is a need for a dedicated support service with a single point of entry and access to multi-agency services. Care experienced people who are no longer receiving services, and who are or wish to access their records, are a high-risk group who must be considered within the scope of these services. Moreover, for some survivors they will already have a key person who is offering support, and any development of dedicated service will need to take account of and incorporate these existing relationships.
We think it is odd that these questions of support have been located outwith the sections of the consultation concerned with wider reparations. In our view it is a mistake to separate these things out. The provision of high-quality, person-centered support (including but not limited to assistance in making applications for financial redress) represents reparation. Making amends for failures in the past by ensuring that today eligible individuals have access to all the support they need. Indeed, the Redress Scheme should be constructed with a view to the Self-Directed Support (Scotland) Act 2013, providing people with control over how they wish to direct and receive support. (In contrast to a national public body commissioning services which victims / survivors then have to ‘fit’ into.)
60. Do you have any initial views on how support for in care survivors might be delivered in Scotland, alongside a redress scheme?
Please see answers to earlier questions.
For further information, please do not hesitate to contact:
Director, Social Work Scotland
Priorities for 2020-21 Budget – SWS Justice Submission
This paper has been written in response to the pre-Budget Scrutiny request for the Justice Committee. With further change expected on the horizon, our submission calls for the Scottish Government and its partners to take a forensic look at how the justice system is working (and CJSW place within it), with a view to establishing a clearer, collective vision of what we are trying to build in Scotland.
Social Work Scotland is the professional body for social work leaders, working closely with our partners to shape policy and practice, and improve the quality and experience of social services. We welcome this opportunity to feed into the Justice Committee’s scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s budget for 2020-21.
Budgets provided to the public, third and voluntary sectors for health, education, employment, through-care, family-contact, rehabilitation/re-offending, in-cell technology and other services provided to prisoners
Criminal justice social work (CJSW) provides a range of statutory services to individuals in
CJSW therefore plays a central role in the justice system, and in particular the rehabilitation and management of individuals subject to community-based supervision. As the responsible agency for managing the risk of serious harm and the needs of people subject to statutory supervision, the ‘risk’ sits squarely with CJSW.
Funding is provided to local authorities in a ring-fenced grant provided under sections 27A
“Of the forecasts provided by Justice Analytical Services, even a ‘LOW’ uptake would result in approximately 1,300 additional people across Scotland receiving community sentences. If the policy has greater impact, then numbers could further increase. It is likely some of this number will require additional support to complete their sentence successfully. Local Authority areas and service providers need to be able to meet this demand for support.”
The report goes on to argue that research undertaken by Progressive Partnerships, an independent research organisation, suggests that “a proportion of these people (i.e. those currently receiving a prison sentence of up to 12 months that might now get a CPO) may have more complex needs that will require more support than the current ‘average’ person completing a CPO”.
It is true the total number of CPOs in Scotland has declined since their introduction in 2011 from a peak of 19, 451 in 2015-16 to 17,834 in 2017-18.3 However, notwithstanding the impact of PASS described above, there have been several practice developments in the last 10 – 15 years that have had a significant impact on CJSW workloads and the ability of services to work effectively with individuals and are not fully funded. These include, but not limited to:
Additionally, other developments in the justice environment continue to increase workload and pressure on a strained and over-stretched CJSW system. Many of these developments are, in themselves, welcome. But most are driven forward in isolation, with too little consideration given to the compound effect they collectively impose on CJSW. For example, Social Work Scotland members report a very significant rise in the requirement for CJSW to attend Parole Tribunals and Hearings in prisons. As this mostly requires attendance in person this development absorbs worker’s time. Relatedly, the lack of availability in the Scottish Prison Service of reliable connectivity limits CJSW ability to use videoconferencing with prisoners, for both Integrated Case Management (the process by which SPS manage statutory prisoners) and the development of CJSW report. Other examples of developments putting pressure on CJSW is the push to increase bail supervision numbers, and to offer Diversion to greater numbers.
Despite the seismic change in the demands and requirements placed on CJSW since the early 2000s, there has not been a comprehensive review to quantify and accurately cost the component parts of the work CJSW does. The S27 funding formula has been reviewed, but this was limited to how the grant is distributed. (In simple terms, the workload element was reduced from two-thirds to half, a rurality element was introduced and social and economic indicators are applied.) We believe the funding formula now requires comprehensive review.
Under the current formula, CJSW are actually penalised for reducing re-offending, as retrospective three year activity levels are the basis for allocation. Moreover, there is a clear case to consider more than one year grant allocations, as the current approach limits effective planning, being confirmed only in December of the preceding year (limiting our ability to respond constructively to reduced allocations). Previously, under the previous funding formula, whilst not entirely satisfactory, there was a mechanism to ‘soften’ any significant reductions in allocation from one year to the next.
We believe there is also a clear case for removing the separation of Part 1 and Part 2 funding, and instead providing local authorities with one S27 grant allocation. This would enable greater flexibility to allocate resources in accordance with local strategic plans and priorities.
In 2014 the Scottish government initiated research into the unit cost of a Community Payback Order (CPO). We are not aware that the final report was published, perhaps reflecting the complexity of establishing a ‘unit cost’ of a CPO, given the diversity and geography of Scotland and/or the difficulty of assimilating all the relevant expenditure/resources involved in delivering CPOs. In the absence of that research, in 2015-16 the cost of a CPO was estimated at £1,771. This figure was calculated by dividing
Indeed looking at the system as a whole, the actual cost of delivering CJSW services in line with National Outcomes and Standards for social work services in the criminal justice system and associated Scottish Government practice guidance, including the alternatives to prosecution schemes (Diversion, Fiscal Work Orders) and statutory community supervision (e.g. Throughcare services both during a prison sentence and post release) has not been accurately costed this century. Despite the fact that since 2000 the demands on CJSW have increased exponentially, driven by successive waves of criminal justice policy innovation and reform. Such an analysis, to identify the current actual cost of CJSW, could be done by conducting a time and motion study to assess the cost of producing a CJSW report, completing LS/CMI (including the extensive risk of serious harm component), managing an individual on a prison licence, etc.
This is not a call for a return to a justice system (and associated policies and practice) of the 1990’s. Social Work Scotland, along with many other informed stakeholders, strongly support many of the developments of recent years, encouraged that policies are driven by evidence and a commitment to human rights. But we cannot build or maintain a system on the strength of ideas alone. The system must be built methodically, on robust, appropriately resourced foundations; of which CJSW is one. This argument was made repeatedly in the written submissions and oral evidence (including from Victim Support Scotland and the Sheriff’s Association) heard by the Justice Committee this year, in considering the proposed extension to PASS. These made explicit reference to the need for more resources for
In considering the resource requirements of the criminal justice system, another factor which must be taken into account is the recent national public sector pay award. This has not been funded by Scottish Government, and in the six months since coming into effect Social Work Scotland members are reporting a serious impact on budgets. A survey of local authorities showed that, of the 23 that responded, 21 are required to fund the pay award from the S27 grant. One local authority calculates that they will have to find almost £1 million to cover the pay award between 2018 and 2021; that money will have to come from CJSW budgets. In another local authority, their small uplift in Part 1 funding in 2019-20 of £50,000 is less than the cost of the pay award. This situation creates serious challenges in filling posts when they become vacant, and creates pressure to re-design or re-organise services to meet the budget short fall. However, the time required to do this properly, with the requirement to consult and work with staff and unions, inevitably means that savings are not going to be achieved until future financial years. And in that time there will no doubt be further changes and funding reductions.
It is understood the S27 grant is made up of the ‘criminal justice social work’ allocation in the Scottish Government budget, topped up from money in the community justice ‘offender services’ budget. The former budget has remained static for several years at £86.5 million.
In 2017-18 the total allocation to CJSW including money from ‘offender services’ was £98,819,949; since then there have been marginal increases to £100,080,038 in 2018-19 and £100,115,038 in 2019-20. As set out in the paragraphs above, we believe that this has led to significant, systemic underfunding of CJSW. This is impacting on the ability of CJSW to deliver on the three key outcomes set out in NOS – reducing reoffending; promoting social inclusion; and public protection and community safety. And this will, in turn, impact on the system’s collective ability to deliver key Scottish government policy initiatives, such as PASS, community justice and bail supervision. CJSW is centre stage in efforts to
The resource requirements of such a key player must be properly understood and fully met. Longer-term challenges and financial requirements to tackle issues such as staffing levels in prisons, over-crowding, drug use, safety and security of staff and prisoners, the use of the open estate and an ageing prison population.
A number of developments are currently underway which will present financial challenges. Perhaps most significant is the work instigated by the Health and Justice collaboration Board to integrate health and social care in prisons. This is a programme Social Work Scotland is proud to be involved in, and tests of change are currently underway in six prisons. The integrated health and social care in prisons programme gives us a valuable opportunity to explore how health, well-being and social need affect the risk of offending in the future, and to work across statutory and voluntary throughcare systems to deliver a more holistic, individualised and integrated response to individuals, reducing the risk of
Elsewhere in the justice landscape, there are some potential efficiencies to be made in developing integrated, multi-disciplinary services and by reviewing and aligning third sector services in prison. To date these have grown organically, rather than through any strategic needs assessment and commissioning plan. It is likely, therefore, that they will not cover all current (and the expected increase) in needs which we will see in our prisons. In the context of integrated health and social care provision in our prisons (as described in paragraph above) we will need to review which and how services have been delivered in prison, and consider provision within the wider commissioning and procurement framework.
There remains a lack of data around the health and social care needs of people in prison, which some tests of change and a Government commissioned strategic needs assessment will seek to rectify in the next few months. Like the Scottish population as a whole, the prison population is ageing, meaning there will continue to be a greater number of people who are frail, and require additional support. But the prison population also has significant levels of need in terms of mental health, addiction, learning disability and neuro-diversity.
These needs impact on people’s capacity to make use of any opportunities for learning and development in prisons and then to successfully reintegrate into their communities on release. The prison estate does not currently have the capacity to meet the needs of a growing population of people with complex age and/or health related conditions. Without investment in the estate, this means care will likely be delivered in inappropriate settings, potentially without the equipment that would be deemed necessary in community settings. This not only places people in receipt of services at risk, but workers too. The Justice Committee may want to consider the elements both of the prison estate and the delivery of a whole systems approach to health and social care in a justice setting in its future planning.
Views on how to achieve a rebalancing over the longer-term in expenditure on prisons and that of community-based alternatives to incarceration and preventative spend, including the challenges of provision in remote or rural areas.
If we are to achieve this re-balancing, and potentially unlock resources to re-distribute to community-based alternatives, Scotland needs first to agree and articulate what the role of prison is. If our national aim, as articulated by Professor Cyrus Tata and others, is that imprisonment should be used sparingly, only where warranted on the grounds that the risk of serious harm is so great as to require confinement, and never on the basis of ‘rehabilitation’ or ‘self-improvement’, we should say so clearly, and work out the policies to achieve it. Over time we would see a reduction in the prison population, freeing up
With such an agreement about the role of prison in place, the change itself would require robust strategy, energy, collaboration, and, perhaps most importantly, bold leadership and financial investment. The newly established Community Justice Leadership Group, co-chaired by the Cabinet Secretary and COSLA’s Community and Wellbeing Spokesperson, offers an opportunity to explore whether this is possible. The group could set a clear vision for what the justice system in Scotland to look like in 20 – 30 years’ time, and agree the outlines of how we get there. (An example of this scale of ambition is the Housing to 2040 vision.) The group could crystallise what a compassionate justice system looks like, how it balances responsibilities, and identify the milestones on the journey to achieve it. Critically, the group could set coherent ‘stretch aims’ for the system, such as limits on the number of
However, to do this right requires both time and investment. A system built up over decades, which itself reflects public attitudes and culture with roots which go even further, cannot be transformed through policy documents and rhetoric. Vested interests will need to be challenged, all parts of the system be open to radical change, and resources made available to facilitate the transition. Simply put, the current system will need to continue to be maintained (and improved) while the new one is built. That cannot be done (or at least cannot be done quickly) with no increase in overall spending. For example, to win public (and some professional) support for a compassionate justice system, significant investment will be needed in deploying and evaluating the effectiveness of community-based interventions. We know such interventions work, but to fundamentally rebalance the system Scottish Government and its partners will need to go further than securing the support of experts.
The alternative is that public sector money will continue to be invested in an increasingly complicated version of the current system, with policy innovations woven into a prison-centric infrastructure. That will fail to unlock the potential of those policy innovations, and make it less likely that we develop across Scotland the integrated services needed to prevent offending and re-offending in our communities. It will also mean we fail to unlock the significant resources allocated to a growing and aging prison population.
For further information, please do not hesitate to contact:
Consultation response: Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act
Consultation response: Presumption against Short Sentences
Consultation Response: Transforming Parole in Scotland
Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill
Response to Call for Views on the Management of Offenders Bill
Response to Scottish Government Consultation
Response to Call for Views on the Management of Offenders Bill – Financial Memorandum
Reponse to Scottish Government Consultation