Chamber and committees

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the legislative consent memorandum on the amendments that have been tabled to the UK Government’s Sentencing Bill. I thank the committee and the Parliament for their co-operation in expediting the work so that the Parliament’s view can be expressed before the final stages of the bill’s progress in early January.

The UK Government introduced its Sentencing Bill on 2 September this year to take forward recommendations that were set out in the independent sentencing review led by the Rt Hon David Gauke, the report of which was published in October 2024. The bill intends to make significant changes to the sentencing framework and the management of offenders in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. That includes making changes to the sentencing for lower-level offences, release provisions for some prisoners, community order requirements and restrictions that are available for post-prison supervision. The areas of law that are covered by the bill are largely reserved, or the provisions extend to England and Wales only.

However, on 14 October this year, during the bill’s progress, the UK Government tabled amendments that seek to extend the sentencing and release arrangements that currently apply to individuals who have been sentenced for terrorism offences to individuals who have been sentenced for a national security offence. That means that all such prisoners will be considered for parole after serving two thirds of their sentence, rather than those who are serving short sentences being subject to automatic early release after serving 40 per cent or 50 per cent of their sentence, or those serving long sentences being first considered for parole halfway through their sentence, as would otherwise be the case. As a result, several consequential and technical amendments are required to ensure that those provisions can operate as intended in Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent is required in relation to those amendments, as we consider that the changes that are being proposed will alter the executive competence of Scottish ministers in relation to their functions concerning the release of prisoners of that type. Operationally, both the Parole Board for Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service have confirmed that those changes will have little to no impact, as no individuals are held in Scottish prisons under a national security offence.

The legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is essential to ensure that there is consistency between Scotland and the rest of the UK with regard to the sentencing for national security offences. Reflecting those changes in Scotland will also ensure that Scotland cannot be seen as a more attractive location for state threat actors compared with England and Wales.

I therefore urge the committee and the Parliament to support the LCM.

I am aware of the ministerial code.

While I would be—

Not that I recall. I will go back and check, but I do not recall—

I am not saying that. I am saying that I do not recall having any specific discussions with Jenny Gilruth about Mr Kerr’s amendment. I restate that the amendment was not about the establishment of a grooming gangs inquiry. Officials—and, in particular, a bill team—will, of course, seek information from other parts of the Government about the work that is going on. I was aware of some of the work that was going on—well, I was aware of all the work that was going on in justice and of some of the work in education. All the information was provided to me in briefings.

With regard to which amendments are to be discussed in the chamber, that is not my, or the Government’s, decision—

No—I am talking about what I could have done differently on reflection and with hindsight, when I consider the matter in its entirety. I cannot remember which member said this, and I may be paraphrasing, but they were talking about what I would or should have done differently. Clearly, if I had not been away from Parliament on Government business I would have answered that question.

We are taking steps—I am trying not to get into the technicalities of legal aid or the statutory instruments, but I am happy to provide further information—to address what can be addressed in the time that is available in this parliamentary session, but I acknowledge that there is a bigger case for reform.

Without getting into the weeds of all this, I answered an urgent question from Ash Regan because it was specifically hooked into justice. Her question was essentially around the identification and disruption of networks that abuse people, on the back of a high-profile case that had been sentenced.

I suppose what I am saying is that, if I had been available, I would have answered Mr Kerr’s question—

I accept that different people will have a different interpretation of what I said.

I think that my position and reasoning are clear, Mr Rennie. As I intimated in my opening remarks, I accept that there should have been an earlier intervention by me to ensure that all information that people were requesting was available. It is unsatisfactory that information that was requested has taken so long.