Meeting of the Parliament 23 June 2015
We must acknowledge that the bill has moved since stage 1 and that it operates in the context of the 2007 and 2010 legislation in the area, as yet to be implemented, and, of course, the McLeish commission. It is not and does not purport to be a bill about clarity in sentencing. The sentencing council will no doubt help in that area in due course, and we should wish that new body well. The bill is not the last word on automatic early release, either. That is absolutely clear. However, it is clear that the bill represents a first step along the way of ending automatic release and reversing the Tory policy of 1993.
We ought to recognise the Government’s response to criticism of what was described as “cold release”. We should also recognise what Dr Barry described as the need for
“proactive support in relation to accommodation, employment, education, benefits and so on.” —[Official Report, Justice Committee, 13 January 2015; c 7.]
We should bear in mind the need for throughcare for offenders returning to the community.
We should welcome the commitment by the Scottish Prison Service to providing 42 officers to support offenders to reintegrate back into the community, building on the work already begun in prison that the cabinet secretary referred to earlier.
There is a need to ensure that there are adequate numbers of programmes available to offenders within prison to enable them to change their behaviour. Yes, there are challenges and those programmes will need to be adequately resourced, but we have time to plan for this adequately. Indeed, as the cabinet secretary said during the stage 1 debate, an independent review of prison programmes, including psychological programmes, will be carried out. It is not helpful to highlight the possible ECHR challenges that might take place if programmes are not in place; rather, we need to allow the Scottish Prison Service to get its house in order.
The Government always recognised that any reduction to the period of automatic release might incentivise participation in programmes and any planning needs to take account of that. In that context, let us bear in mind that planning can be complex. Eric Murch of the Scottish Prison Service commented:
“Some prisoners will deny that they have a problem until very close to their critical date and then they will try to move up the list.” —[Official Report, Justice Committee, 24 February 2015; c 46.]
Is six months of guaranteed supervision adequate? We have heard a lot of debate about that and there is a variety of views. We know the position of Colin McConnell and Sacro, and we know that others take a different view. That was debated earlier, so I will not repeat the arguments, but I point out that the academics accept that the highest risk period is immediately after release even if they do not accept that that is the only period when support is required.
We reached a decision on that period earlier, and I have no doubt that courts will take account of the provisions and the alternatives, such as the increased use of extended sentences, at the appropriate time.
Some of the academic critics of the bill would, if their wishes were granted, simply succeed in kicking matters into the long grass. At stage 1 even Margaret Mitchell suggested that that was a real danger, and in February Sarah Crombie of Victim Support Scotland said that that would cause that organisation concern. Despite the academics, we need to grasp the nettle.
Public safety remains important. I am not sure what the frequently mentioned empirical evidence would show—if it were ever to be obtained—except that this group of prisoners will no longer be sent out to the community, come what may, at the two-thirds mark of their sentence.
The Parole Board will have a greater role than it does now. Public safety will not be reduced. Let us also not forget the availability of extended sentences to courts at the time of sentencing. That will provide additional protection for the public in appropriate cases.
Concerns have been expressed about the financial costs of the legislation by 2030-31. That is a long way off and much can happen in the interim. I hope that it will encourage further thought to be given as to the appropriateness of many short sentences, which, as we know, often do not act as a deterrent and certainly do not provide adequate time for rehabilitation.
Despite its critics, the bill has considerable value and I commend it to the Parliament.