Meeting of the Parliament 02 April 2015
I absolutely accept that, but it is still quite a strange way to legislate. The committee and Parliament should really have had those materials at stage 1 if the committee was to do the job that we all expect it to do. I have no hesitation in saying that I know that the Justice Committee, under the convenership of Christine Grahame, will do a fantastic job, but it should not have to do it in that way.
Victims and communities need to know that, if a sentence of four years is handed down, the prisoner will be in prison and communities will be protected from that individual for that length of time. I do not disagree at all with the Scottish Government on that point, but victims and communities also need to know that when that person has been released from prison, everything possible has been done and will continue to be done to prevent them from reoffending.
The bill must put in place systems to help to manage the transition that every prisoner has to make back into their community at the end of a sentence that they will have served in full. The offender has to leave prison equipped with enough skill and self-awareness to be able, with support, to find a productive role in society once again. I acknowledge entirely that that is the difficult part. Rehabilitation is not easy, but it must not be seen as an add-on; it must be seen as an essential part of a successful justice system. If rehabilitation is to work, it must surely continue as tailored support when a prisoner is released.
I congratulate the Justice Committee on its work on the bill and its carefully considered report. It was right to ask for clarification of the Scottish Government’s intentions. It is also right to want to know what the minimum period of supervision upon release will be and that any guaranteed minimum period will be sufficient to allow effective post-release work with the offender to take place. That must be accompanied by continuous risk assessment.
In his opening comments, the cabinet secretary quite understandably asked for views on the length of the mandatory period. It is clear that he is still considering that, and that is to be welcomed. My view is that the period must surely depend on the nature of the crime and that it must be proportionate to the sentence. I am not sure that we can say that six months or nine months is right. I think—perhaps the Justice Committee’s evidence will prove me wrong; I am happy to be proved wrong on this one—that it should be tailored to the individual, the pattern of their offending and the sentence that they have served. However, time will tell what the outcome of those deliberations is.
As we have heard, continuous monitoring will, of course, bring additional pressure to bear on the parole service and other community-based services. The question of how they are to be resourced must be properly addressed. The committee is right to press for a supplementary financial memorandum and an updated policy memorandum.
The prospect of allowing release to take place up to two days earlier to avoid a clash with the weekend makes absolutely perfect sense to me. Like many members, I am sure, I have had phone calls not just on Fridays but earlier in the week—I have had letters in advance, too—from people who were being or had been released from prison and were looking for support because they were worried about what would happen to them when they were released and about the effect on their behaviour. I very much welcome that aspect of the bill.
16:19