Meeting of the Parliament 23 June 2015
It is important to remember that automatic early release is a management device. It was introduced as a safety valve to ease the pressure caused by escalating prison populations, not because of any compelling evidence that such a measure would improve public safety.
A number of questions face members today. Will the reform reduce reoffending? Will offenders receive sufficient supervision and support? Will it better protect our communities? Will it make sentencing more transparent and give victims more certainty?
The bill faltered because the initial draft was flawed in a number of those respects. I welcomed the cabinet secretary’s willingness to listen and to respond to the Justice Committee’s concerns as set out in its stage 1 report. I suppose the question in that regard is whether the cabinet secretary has gone far enough. Members have received a late joint submission, which some have mentioned, from witnesses including academics, the Howard League Scotland and Positive Prison? Positive Futures, that has cast doubt on that.
I have some sympathy for their argument that the case for the bill has not been entirely substantiated. For example, there is less than comprehensive evidence supporting the flat six-month release. Nevertheless, the cabinet secretary has set out in some detail why he considers that we should proceed with the amended bill. I am also mindful that the Risk Management Authority and the Parole Board for Scotland are broadly supportive of the legislation.
The legislation will mean that the Parole Board will be involved in decisions about the release of each individual long-term prisoner. The release of potentially dangerous offenders will be delayed, and the public will continue to be protected from those who have failed to progress through the prison regime or mediate their behaviour to the extent that they could be managed early in the community.
It would mean that the Parole Board decided when each long-term prisoner was fit for release, based on individual circumstances. That would delay the release of dangerous offenders: those who had not mediated their behaviour or engaged with rehabilitation programmes. The reforms could cause more prisoners to engage at an earlier stage of their sentences. We are talking about those prisoners whom the Parole Board described as “happy to wait”, in the knowledge that they will get out after two thirds of their sentence, irrespective. However, when it comes to providing programmes and courses, ministers and the SPS will of course need to ensure that supply meets demand. There is no doubt that the Government must ensure that the quality of the proposed supervision of long-term prisoners on six-month release is adequately resourced and regularly reviewed.
I turn to section 2. It is eminently sensible to release some people a day or so early if it guarantees that they receive the assistance that they desperately need with accommodation, employment or addiction. Many public and third sector services do not operate 24/7 or are not easily accessible, particularly in rural and remote areas of Scotland.
The short bill is a reminder of the Scottish Government’s record of disjointed penal reform. It reforms early release for some prisoners in isolation and neglects many more pressing priorities. Why have successes in reducing youth offending not been rolled out more widely? Where is the concerted shift towards effective community-based sentences and diversion from prosecution? Where are the plans to further reduce senseless, destructive short-term sentences or to reduce the number of people on remand?
In 2013-14, just more than 4,000 people were handed sentences of less than three months, despite our having a presumption against three-month sentences in 2010. A further 5,000 were imprisoned for between three and six months. Those are the people whom the McLeish commission dubbed “more troubling than dangerous”, yet they take up the SPS’s time and effort and limit its ability to engage with the most serious long-term offenders. It is perverse that young short-term offenders, who are most at risk of reoffending, still do not benefit from statutory throughcare.
I therefore urge the cabinet secretary to develop a clear, overarching and generally progressive strategy that is bold and ambitious. We need to focus on how to bring an end to the primitive punitive approach that causes so many people to be sent to prison in the first place when it clearly is not the best place for them or the communities to which they return.
15:57