Hansard

I apologise to members in advance, as I have a sore throat.

If automatic early release for long-term prisoners is to be abolished, the alternative must pass three key tests. The first is that the risk that is posed by an individual must determine the proportion of the sentence that they serve in prison. Secondly, it must prioritise public safety. Thirdly, it must guarantee supervision and support on release.

As it lies before us today, the bill fails the last two tests and it is fundamentally flawed. Once again, the justice secretary has had to pick up the pieces and promise to overhaul his predecessor’s ill-considered plans. As witnesses commented to the committee, making significant Government amendments at stage 2 is hardly best practice. In this instance, however, I agree with the proposals that the cabinet secretary outlined to the committee and they allow us to support the bill at stage 1 today.

Ending automatic early release for all those who are serving sentences in excess of four years is more coherent with the evidence on risk and reoffending rates. Widening the scope of the bill so that all long-term prisoners are subject to a period of compulsory supervision in the community is equally important.

There was genuine concern that the bill would fail those whom the Parole Board deemed should serve their full sentences. The Scottish Parliament information centre—the Parliament’s independent information service—concluded that

“the period of supervision in the community under licence conditions could be reduced (potentially to zero)”.

Victims organisations, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and more warned of risks to the public and increased reoffending, which would defeat the objective of the policy. Some of the analysis was scathing. Dr Monica Barry feared that the “most potentially high-risk people” would be leaving prison with no support. Howard League Scotland said that it would lead to prisoners being “spat out of prison”. It was even suggested that some prisoners would seek to max out their sentences so as to avoid restrictions on release. If they are used as fragmented workarounds, MAPPA and extended sentencing arrangements would not sufficiently ensure that someone cannot walk free completely unsupervised. That is why a minimum guarantee needs to be in the bill and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s assurance that it will be.

Some people will legitimately ask whether the introduction of post-sentence-end controls, or a mandatory control period, is automatic early release in all but name. It will be factored into sentencing decisions. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will address that concern in his closing speech. I am minded to agree that so-called end controls should last a minimum of six months, but I am also open to the possibility of their lasting nine months.

I can also confirm that Scottish Liberal Democrats whole-heartedly support section 2 of the bill. It is entirely sensible for prisoners to be released just a day or two early if it means that they get the support that they desperately need to successfully return to the community. Public and third sector services such as housing, social work and employment are simply not available 24/7.

In 2011-12, 40 per cent of prisoners—some 4,000 people—were released on a Friday or just before a long public holiday weekend. The measure in the bill is a small change that could make a big difference during the transition. It is a small change that could dramatically reduce the likelihood of thousands of people reoffending and causing any further harm.

In the short time that I have remaining, I would like to highlight some other outstanding issues. The revised proposals will, of course, have resource implications for the Prison Service. Each year, 450 more people will receive sentences under whose terms they are not eligible for early release. Before the categories were extended, the number affected was expected to be about 140.

In addition to the general costs of accommodating more prisoners, there will be increased demand for purposeful activity and programmes that address the underlying causes of offending behaviour. However, I note that the cabinet secretary has not explicitly committed to bringing forward supplementary policy and financial memorandums as the committee requested. I urge him to do so. We need to carefully consider the additional costs and demands.

There is public appetite for greater clarity and transparency in the meaning of sentencing. I would not blame the public for thinking that we were talking in riddles when discussing the various release options: automatic and unsupervised, automatic and supervised, discretionary and supervised.

Victims and witnesses are often bemused or even angered by stories of serious offenders being automatically released part way through the sentence that was handed to them by the sheriff or the High Court, regardless of any assessment of whether they continue to pose a threat. That feeling is understandably intensified in high-profile cases or if the individual proceeds to reoffend.

The bill could help begin to enhance understanding and public confidence. However, it could have been informed by the Scottish sentencing council’s work. Improving policy, practice and understanding of sentencing is squarely within its remit but, five years after the Parliament legislated for it, it is still not up and running. The body could have played a role in considering how best to manage early release.

Indeed, there is a risk that the bill is being progressed in isolation. Other long-overdue reforms and apparently shared aspirations have stalled: the commencement of the early release provisions already backed by this Parliament through the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007; reducing the bloated prison population; ending senseless short-term sentences; and shifting the focus of sentencing from punishment to rehabilitation.

This short bill is therefore another example of a piecemeal approach to penal reform. Scottish Liberal Democrats are clear. Although the bill is set to be improved, and we will support it on that basis, justice policy should always be complementary and guided by the evidence of what works, not the quick pursuit of cheap headlines.