Hansard

First, I would like to thank all the Justice Committee members and the organisations and individuals who came to give evidence. It was a long session and our chair did great work. It was very interesting to see how much the committee influenced what happened right after and how it influenced the decision of the cabinet secretary. In fact, it was the organisations and individuals who gave evidence—more so than the members perhaps—who changed the report and made it what it is.

The committee supported the general principles of the bill at stage 1. As the cabinet secretary said in his letter to the Justice Committee convener on 3 February, the

“bill provides a step towards achieving”

the aim of

“ending the current system of automatic early release of prisoners, brought in by the then UK Government in 1993.”

John Major’s Conservative Government brought in automatic early release to tackle concerns about prison overcrowding; it was under a Tory Government that criminals were let out of prison after serving only half of their sentence, no questions asked. It was an admission of many failures if ever there was one—of sending too many people to prison, of failing to accommodate them and then of failing to release them under supervision. That is the situation that the SNP Government wants to address, particularly the so-called cold release that the Conservative Government introduced in 1993. With this bill, the SNP Government is taking the first step to end automatic early release.

The bill is all about the right of prisoners to be supported when coming out of prison and the right of families of victims to know that offenders should be assessed before they are released. In other words, it is about public safety. That issue is not only at the core of section 1; section 2 will give the Scottish Prison Service the power to release prisoners up to two days early to facilitate community reintegration. How important is that? We heard in evidence that it is, in fact, very important. A couple of days can make a lot of difference. If a prisoner is released over a weekend, they will not be able to access services and might not have anywhere to stay. We must make release as easy as possible for various prisoners; in fact, we are talking about a huge number of prisoners, given that the provisions apply to all prisoners serving more than 15 days. This measure, which will certainly make a lot of difference, is only common sense, and I have to wonder why it was not introduced before.

Section 2 deals with the last few days before release, and section 1 deals with the last few weeks and months in the same spirit. It is all about supporting prisoners when released, recognising the right of families of victims and improving public safety. In his February letter, the cabinet secretary confirmed to our committee that the Scottish Government intended to lodge amendments at stage 2 to extend the provisions of section 1 and end automatic release for all long-term prisoners, regardless of category.

Let me make it clear: the quality of the evidence that we received has helped the cabinet secretary to be able to amend the bill at stage 2. I note that Elaine Murray has commended the cabinet secretary for his approach, and I think that his pragmatism is to be applauded. He recognised that this first step towards ending automatic early release of prisoners was too small, and he is acting on it by extending the remit of the bill to cover all long-term prisoners.

As paragraph 45 of the committee’s report points out, witnesses told us that prisoners might still be released into the community without mandatory supervision—what has been called “cold release”—and paragraph 46 quotes Professor Tata from the University of Strathclyde as saying:

“We need to explain to members of the public that eventually prisoners have to come out and that if someone is released cold they are more likely to reoffend.”

It is an important point, and I must thank Professor Tata for his contribution. His was one of the strong voices highlighting to committee members the danger that the bill would not eradicate all the problems of cold release. When describing the changes that could come about, he also said:

“Effective reintegration is a prerequisite for public safety.”

I certainly more than agree with that observation. Furthermore, with regard to the powers of the Parole Board and how much of a difference it can make, Peter Johnston of the Risk Management Authority said:

“The Parole Board ... has huge expertise in looking at the risk that the released offender”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 20 January 2015; c 3, 7, 6.]

presents.

I am delighted that stage 2 amendments will address all these important concerns, because the fact is that we have been here before. In welcoming the committee’s report, the Law Society of Scotland pointed out the shortcomings of previous legislation such as the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007. The Law Society is right: seven years after that act was passed, the parts of it that relate to sentencing have still not come into force. The reason is simple: the expectations of the act were too high. Indeed, they were so high that it soon became apparent that it would not be possible to implement the provisions.

As Jayne Baxter has said, we are where we are. We have to move on. We have learned the lessons of the past, and the pragmatism demonstrated in the bill has to be commended.