Meeting of the Parliament 23 June 2015
I am pleased to speak in this afternoon’s debate. However, I am disappointed because introducing the legislation in this way is a missed opportunity.
Rod Campbell says that the bill is a positive response from the Government to the issue of early release. He added that that was for “this group of prisoners”, but indeed that is a small and exclusive group.
Let us remember how we arrived at the position that we are in today. In 2013, Kenny MacAskill proposed the bill and said:
“We have stated clearly our aim to end the system of automatic early release ... we are committed to fulfilling that pledge”.
In 2014, he added:
“This Government is taking tough action to keep communities safe and reduce the likelihood of prisoners reoffending.”
I am sorry to say that I do not see the amended bill reflecting those commitments.
Professor Cyrus Tata, in evidence to the committee, observed that reconviction rates for those serving sentences of between three and six months is 53 per cent, yet, having served only half of their sentences, those prisoners will not be the subject of supervision by criminal justice social work.
We should not be talking about early release; rather, as Professor Fergus McNeill indicated, it would be much better were we to identify a timely release period. I reiterate that the bill does not deliver on the notion of a timely release with appropriate supervision thereafter.
As Dr Monica Barry reflected, the current legislation is very much about the offence and the length of sentence, rather than about the risk and the perceived threat and what is being delivered in terms of community safety. There is a shortcoming in what the bill delivers in that respect. Indeed, from the viewpoint of the public—from the viewpoint of victims and witnesses—the bill does not provide clarity on sentencing so that they can be confident that they know precisely what will happen to an accused once that person leaves the court upon conviction. The bill does not deliver what, in my view, Victim Support Scotland suggested in saying that it is an important advance that will go a long way to improving public perception of justice.
The speeches in today’s debate from the cabinet secretary and other members indicate how confusing the issue is. Indeed, Professors Tata and McNeill, along with Dr Barry, suggested that the bill should be scrapped and that we should go back to the start of the process. I have sympathy with that view.
The public cannot stand front-door sentencing and back-door releases. They are extremely frustrated by that prospect.