Hansard

I begin by apologising for my late arrival, which was entirely my fault and responsibility.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate at stage 1 of the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Justice Committee, the committee’s clerks and those who gave evidence during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill.

I welcome the support for the bill’s general principles that is given in the committee’s stage 1 report. The issue of the early release of prisoners has been raised in Parliament frequently since the current system was introduced nearly 20 years ago. Section 1 of the bill will fundamentally change the system of automatic early release for long-term prisoners. A long-term prisoner is anyone serving a sentence of four years or more. Currently, such a prisoner is entitled to automatic early release if they are still in custody at the two-thirds point of their sentence.

The system operates so that there is absolutely no discretion to keep dangerous prisoners in custody beyond the two-thirds point. In our view, that is not the right system. The system’s operation has regularly brought criticism because it is difficult to explain why dangerous prisoners have to be released in that way when one third of their sentence is left.

The alternative to automatic early release is discretionary early release. That is where the independent Parole Board for Scotland considers an individual prisoner’s case and decides whether to authorise early release on the basis of an assessment of the risk that the individual poses to public safety.

The evidence is clear: the rate at which prisoners breach their licence conditions when granted automatic early release is seven times higher than the breach rate for prisoners who are granted Parole Board discretionary early release. The rate at which prisoners are recalled to custody when granted automatic early release is five times higher than the recall rate for prisoners who are granted Parole Board discretionary early release. The independent Parole Board does a challenging and difficult job well, and the bill will give it further powers to carry on its good work and to consider more individual cases in the future, rather than indiscriminate automatic early release taking place at the two-thirds point of the sentence.

We think that it is right to trust the Parole Board’s judgment by giving it that enhanced role. It will help to keep our communities safer while allowing parole release to aid a prisoner’s reintegration into the community when the risks to public safety are manageable in the community.

In early February, we announced that we would expand the bill’s reach to end the current system of automatic early release for all long-term prisoners. That is the right approach to apply our policy’s benefits to a wider group of prisoners.

If Parliament approves the bill, including our stage 2 proposals, that will mean that no prisoner receiving a sentence of four years or more will be entitled to automatic early release at the two-thirds point of the sentence. Decisions about early release will be left to our trusted independent Parole Board. Dangerous prisoners will no longer be entitled to leave custody two thirds of the way through their sentence. If a prisoner is assessed as posing an unacceptable risk to public safety, they will serve their sentence for a longer period in prison. That will help to reassure communities, reduce reoffending and protect public safety.

Concerns were expressed at stage 1 that, following our reforms, some long-term prisoners might be left in a position where they were subject to what has been called “cold release”—release without the ability to apply specific controls over the prisoner through supervision of them in the community. We have listened and responded to those concerns by committing to ensuring supervision through a period of mandatory control, which will now apply to all long-term prisoners leaving custody.

That mandatory control period will help to ensure effective assistance to reintegrate prisoners into their communities. Robust steps will also be able to be taken to bring prisoners back into custody if conditions of release are breached.

It is important to stress that the need for a mandatory control period will apply to a relatively small proportion of long-term prisoners. That is because many long-term prisoners will continue to receive Parole Board early release or will have an extended sentence in place. For those prisoners, a period of mandatory control will always be in place on release from custody, through licence conditions. However, when a prisoner does not receive Parole Board early release and does not have an extended sentence, a mandatory control period on release needs to be put in place, with the conditions set by the Parole Board.

The Justice Committee’s stage 1 report raised two important issues about the mandatory control period. First, the committee explored whether the period might be part of the sentence. It is clear that a mandatory control period after a sentence had ended would be problematic, given that the sentence has been imposed by the court and has ended. It is difficult to see how such a period of mandatory control could be effectively enforced if it was post sentence end. In line with the evidence that the committee received, we therefore consider that the mandatory control period in the community should be part of the sentence.

Secondly, the committee explored how long the mandatory control period in the community should last. Any prisoner requiring supervision through a mandatory control period will have spent, as a minimum, close to four years in custody. Our view is that the necessary period of control over a prisoner who has served close to four years is likely to be similar to that of a prisoner leaving after, say, 10 years in custody, given that both are extremely long periods to be incarcerated.

Members will be aware from the evidence that they have heard that the initial weeks and months following release are generally the most crucial for prisoners. That period after leaving custody is when prisoners have to re-establish themselves in their communities, when challenges such as those faced in accessing housing or work opportunities can be at their most acute and when a mandatory control period would be most appropriate.

At this stage, I am minded to provide for a minimum mandatory control period of six months. Such a period would seem a good balance, so that mandatory control is in place in the crucial first few weeks and months following a long period of incarceration, but it does not extend too far into the future. However, I would welcome further views in the debate about the appropriate length of the mandatory control period.

Reducing reoffending is a key justice priority for the Scottish Government. Earlier this week, we announced that the reconviction rate fell by nearly 6 per cent between 2011-12 and 2012-13 and that it is now at its lowest level in 16 years. That is welcome news. Coupled with recorded crime being at its lowest level in 40 years, that is testament to the commitment of the police, prosecutors, our courts, education and social services and other justice partners such as the Scottish Prison Service, which are working hard to address offending and its underlying causes.

Despite those significant improvements in recent years, reoffending has significant implications for public services and taxpayers’ money. Reducing reoffending requires more effective and closer links between the criminal justice system and wider public and third sector partners. A Scottish Government ministerial group on offender reintegration was established in October 2013 to address the demand for better integration between the criminal justice system and wider public services so as to facilitate a reduction in reoffending.

Individuals rely on key public and third sector services to address a range of basic and practical requirements on release from prison. Failure to address them in a timely and effective manner can hinder prisoners’ ability to turn their lives around and live a life free from crime. Section 2 of the bill will help in that important area.

In 2011-12, there were approximately 10,500 liberations of convicted prisoners, of which a large proportion—approximately 40 per cent—were released on a Friday or on the Thursday preceding a public holiday weekend. Release on the days preceding weekends and public holidays is consistently raised as a key barrier to plugging the gap between receipt of support in custody and access to wider services in the community. Access to key public services such as housing, welfare and addictions services on the day when prisoners are released can be crucial in helping them to break the pattern of offending. The problem can become even more acute when release happens immediately before a weekend or public holiday.

When there is evidence that suitable arrangements are required to address a prisoner’s reintegration needs and they cannot be addressed immediately on release, section 2 will allow the prisoner’s release to be brought forward by up to two days. I welcome the Justice Committee’s strong support for section 2.

The bill will improve the system of early release by allowing decisions about how and when long-term prisoners are released from custody to be informed by individual consideration of a prisoner, the risks to public safety that the prisoner poses and the need for effective supervision. That is the best of both worlds and ensures that dangerous prisoners do not get released automatically, while all long-term prisoners will receive a minimum mandatory control period in the community when they leave custody. That is the best way to protect communities and to reassure the public.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill.