Hansard

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and, as you say, I speak as the convener of the Justice Committee. I will speak to the bill as introduced and therefore will not comment on the items that have been mentioned that result from our report, particularly those that might be raised in amendments at stage 2.

I thank all those who provided written submissions and gave oral evidence to the committee. In total we received 27 written responses to the call for evidence and took oral evidence across three meetings in January 2015. I also thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its report, which we endorse whole-heartedly. Finally, but not least, I thank my colleagues on the Justice Committee, who are a delight to chair. I look forward to that continuing.

Provisions to end automatic early release for certain categories of prisoner were previously due to have been introduced by means of stage 2 amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. However, the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice wrote to the committee on 27 May 2014, advising us that the provisions would be brought forward as a separate piece of legislation. The Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill was therefore introduced on 14 August 2014.

Some of what I say will undoubtedly repeat what the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has said, but there we go. He referred to section 2 and the early release for community integration, which is the lesser talked about part of the bill but is a very important practical part; that cannot be said of every nook and cranny of the legislation that we pass in the Parliament.

As well as seeking to end automatic early release, the committee felt that the measures giving flexibility on the date of release will have a real impact on stopping recidivism. As the cabinet secretary has said, those people who are due for release on a Friday, and sometimes a Thursday, when key services are about to close—the benefits office, housing services, even the GP practice—can be let out when they can access those crucial services. In practical terms, the other situation was ridiculous.

The early hours—not just days—of release are crucial. Things can go wrong when the prisoner steps straight out of the prison gates into what could be called a services vacuum; that is when reoffending recommences. Having timely access to services will help a person’s reintegration and ultimately reduce the chances of them reoffending, which is in everyone’s interest. It is a positive, progressive measure.

Although much of the focus of today’s debate will doubtless be on section 1, we should not lose sight of what is an important and practical move. At the outset, I want to put on record the committee’s whole-hearted endorsement of section 2.

I turn to section 1, on the restriction of automatic early release. I use the word “restriction” as I refer again to the bill as introduced, which was just going to end automatic early release for sex offenders receiving determinate custodial sentences of four years or more and other offenders receiving determinate—that is, other than life sentences—custodial sentences of 10 years or more.

The evidence that we received on section 1 was generally sceptical of the provisions of the bill as introduced, with witnesses such as the Risk Management Authority Scotland questioning the focus on sex offenders, given that—despite tabloid headlines—that category of prisoner is statistically less likely to reoffend, notwithstanding the fact that there have been some very serious and horrible exceptions. The committee was therefore pleased to receive, on 3 February, a letter from the cabinet secretary committing to lodge at stage 2 amendments to extend the bill’s provisions to all prisoners serving four years or more, thereby addressing the concerns that had been expressed about the focus on sex offenders.

Witnesses also questioned other aspects of the bill as introduced, such as whether it would achieve the objective of improving public protection. Academics such as Professor Cyrus Tata from the University of Strathclyde argued that the provisions would simply lead to an increase in cold release. That is because, if prisoners are released at the completion of their full sentence, there is no requirement for compulsory supervision—I know that the cabinet secretary has addressed that—hence the word “cold”, as in, I suspect, doing cold turkey.

Professor Fergus McNeill from the University of Glasgow described that as an act of “storing the risky”, as the types of prisoners who will be kept inside under the provisions of the bill are, by definition, those who have not engaged with the Parole Board for Scotland and who pose the greatest risk to the public. Witnesses worried that the bill as introduced would simply kick the can down the road and store up bigger problems for later years. It could also have a perverse effect, in that some prisoners might opt to do their full whack and thus avoid any supervision on release. The committee was pleased to receive the cabinet secretary’s letter, which committed to lodging amendments to provide a minimum period of compulsory supervision in the community, as he has described today, for each long-term prisoner at the end of their sentence. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s willingness to listen to the evidence heard at stage 1 and to act accordingly.

Having said that, the committee has some remaining questions, which are rehearsed in detail in our report. We are still unclear as to how the compulsory supervision will be imported into the sentencing process, what the compulsory supervision will look like in practice and when it will apply, although we have now been told for how long. We also still have questions about the cost of the proposals and the impact that they will have on the likes of the Parole Board and criminal justice social workers, to name two of the stakeholders involved. We have therefore recommended that the Government publish supplementary financial and policy information at stage 2.

During stage 1, we received evidence about the availability of prison rehabilitation programmes, with some witnesses claiming that there was a supply problem with certain programmes, as opposed to a lack of demand. The Scottish Prison Service acknowledged some of those concerns, but countered that issues around supply may relate to prisoners’ wants rather than their needs. However, we would welcome updates from the cabinet secretary and the SPS on the development and resourcing of programmes, given that the bill’s policy memorandum envisages that the provisions of the bill will incentivise prisoners to engage with programmes.

Connected to that, we were told by Professor Alan Miller of the Scottish Human Rights Commission that the bill’s human rights statement was inadequate. That concerned us, and we have called on the Scottish Government to revisit that statement. For example, if there is no access to rehabilitation programmes and that imperils a prisoner’s release, that prisoner might have a claim under the European convention on human rights.

We also have questions about the impact of the bill on the Parole Board. Professor Tata argued in evidence that the Parole Board was being set up for failure. That comment was disputed by the convener of the board, but the board subsequently wrote to the committee stating that

“it may need some support from Scottish Government to manage the impact.”

We therefore called on the Government to ensure that the Parole Board is sufficiently resourced.

Clarity in sentencing is important to the victims. Some witnesses told us that the bill muddied the waters in respect of sentencing. That was disputed by the cabinet secretary, who argued that the bill gives victims the certainty that the offender will not be released automatically two thirds of the way into their sentence.

Alternative approaches were suggested. Some witnesses suggested an alternative approach would be to commence an existing statute, namely the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010.

Other witnesses believed that the bill should be delayed until the Scottish sentencing council is set up in autumn this year. On balance, committee members were not persuaded of the merits of delaying the bill. However, we call on the Government to review legislation in this area to establish which wider reforms should be taken forward.

In conclusion, an overwhelming majority of committee members welcomed the general principles of the bill. There is no doubt, from the evidence that we heard, that reform of the court service is long overdue. However, in certain areas, as I indicated, we remain to be convinced that some of the measures will achieve what they set out to achieve. On behalf of the committee, I encourage the Parliament to support the general principles of the bill at decision time tonight.