Hansard

In historical terms, parole is quite recent, and the Parole Board for Scotland was set up only in 1968. Parole was subject to an important review by Lord Kincraig in 1989, in which he stated:

“the proper objective of parole is to ensure that the release of all long-term prisoners takes place under such conditions and at such a time (within the overall sentence of the court) that the risk to the public may be minimised; and that decisions on the conditions and timing of release take into account, amongst other things, any changes in the offender or his circumstances and any increased knowledge of the offender since the passing of the original sentence.”

That was the position then. In my view, it remains true today.

Of course, the Conservative Government of the day put in legislation the changes that were proposed by Lord Kincraig. It is interesting to read Ian Lang’s comments from the time on what became known as the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. He argued in support of the then new early-release provisions and in opposition to those who argued that the sentence of the court should be precisely that. Times have moved on. The modern Conservative Party appears to take a different view, although I must say that I find it rather difficult to accept that a party that is opposed to, and which believes in ending, automatic prisoner release across the board can dissent from the bill’s general principles.

On the Justice Committee’s report, it is fair to say that in the course of our evidence sessions there was disquiet that sex offenders serving four years or more, rather than all offenders serving four years or more, were highlighted in the bill. It is certainly more appropriate to concentrate on the length of sentence than on the type of offender. Therefore, I warmly welcome the proposed stage 2 amendments in that regard.

We also need to bear it in mind that the bill is in addition to existing powers that are available to the courts in relation to extended sentences in which, at the time of sentencing, offenders are thought to be likely to pose a continuing risk. Even under the likely stage 2 amendments, what we are talking about will apply only to a small cohort of prisoners—about 3 per cent of offenders receive a determinate sentence in any one year.

The full impact of the bill will be measured over several years. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions since the McLeish commission reported, until overall prison numbers are significantly reduced it will not be possible to extend provisions more widely in relation to the ending of automatic early release. However, it is a start, especially when—as the cabinet secretary has said—we know that someone who is released automatically at present is about seven times more likely to breach their licence conditions than someone who is released after a Parole Board decision.

As the cabinet secretary said in evidence, in 2012-13

“The rate at which non-parole-released prisoners breached their licence conditions was 37 per cent, compared with 5.5 per cent for parole-released prisoners.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 3 March 2015, c 35.]

I hope that that will enable proper focus on rehabilitative programmes, which go hand in hand with the ending of automatic early release. As the policy memorandum makes clear, the absence of automatic early release may encourage greater interest in participation in the programmes. How great an incentive it will be remains to be seen, but I am encouraged that Professor Alan Miller of the Scottish Human Rights Commission accepted that it will provide an incentive to participate.

The important thing must surely be to ensure that we have the resources available for rehabilitation. As Colin McConnell of the Scottish Prison Service said in evidence, we need to

“prioritise and sensitise the opportunities that best match the needs of the individual”,

while recognising that

“we do not always match their wants.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 20 January 2015; c 20.]

As the Government points out in its response, however, the Scottish Prison Service is shortly to put in hand a review of SPS programmes that is to be conducted by an external expert. Clearly, that should be a priority. Protection of the public must remain paramount. We heard in evidence concerns about what was described as “cold release”, and the Government has been wise to respond to those concerns.

In its written submission, Sacro suggested a period of compulsory supervision of three months before the end of a sentence. Colin McConnell said that, in his experience, the first six to 12 weeks after release can be extremely risky. The Government has indicated that it is minded to provide for a mandatory control period of six months as a minimum, in order to provide sufficient time to balance any necessary protective conditions with work by criminal justice social work departments in assisting the prisoner with their reintegration and rehabilitation in the community. I believe that that is a considered response to the concerns that we heard in evidence, and I warmly welcome it.

We also heard evidence about the need for clarity in sentencing, which was a particular concern of Victim Support Scotland. It is clear from the bill, however, that that is not the purpose of the legislation. Nonetheless, we should wish the new Scottish sentencing council well in its task, particularly in promoting greater awareness and understanding of sentencing policy and practice.

On section 2, which relates to the date of release, I simply echo what has already been said. Like the committee in general, I fully support the provision.

The bill will change significantly at stage 2. In my view, the Government has seized the initiative and has signalled its intentions in that respect already, which is to be welcomed. We ought to consider taking further evidence at stage 2, but I do not share the views of those who think that we should abandon the bill and that the matter is best left to others such as the new sentencing council. I believe that we need to continue to respond to public concerns and not to delay further a significant change in response to those concerns.