Chamber and committees

It is a sad day for criminal justice, because today we are faced with the prospect of reducing the point at which prisoners who are serving short-term sentences will be released back into the community. They will be released at 40 per cent of sentence served, and, as Liam Kerr says, there will be no governor’s veto to provide a safeguard. That will be the case for the foreseeable future. Scottish Labour acknowledges that there is a crisis in our prisons due to consistently high numbers recently, but as we have said since the beginning, we do not think that it merits emergency legislation and a permanent change in prison policy.

We put on record our appreciation, as the cabinet secretary has done, for the remarkable work of prison officers, prison governors and Teresa Medhurst and her team for the work that they do on a daily basis. Early release was always a controversial policy because of public concern and the lack of understanding about what early release amounted to. Prisoners do not serve their full sentence, but now the public will be even more alarmed because prisoners will serve less of their sentence—only 40 per cent of it.

The issue of pre-release planning and reducing offending was an important part of the stage 2 debate, and I am grateful to those who took part in it. Although the Government did not accept my amendments, I will continue to press for progress on the issue. I am not convinced that the work that has been done is yet sufficient to make the system ready for the early release programme. I do not think that we have had enough time to consider the implications for victims and how they could be better notified of the release of those who have offended against them. The bill is a short-term fix for the current problems. We do not know how long the crisis will last, but the policy will remain.

Although the spike in the prison population is recent, there are longer-term issues that need resolving. For example, as I have raised many times in the Criminal Justice Committee, the capacity in Barlinnie prison in Glasgow has always been difficult to manage over the years, and prisoners have been doubling up in cells for many years. We must see the modernisation of the prison estate.

I want to address section 3 and the contributions by Martin Whitfield and Liam Kerr, which I whole-heartedly agree with. As Martin Whitfield said, section 3 relates to what we see as being two bills in this emergency legislation. The substantive part of the section gives powers to the Government to potentially radically change how we release prisoners serving four years or more. Scottish Labour and the Scottish Tories tried to remove that section on the basis that it requires much closer scrutiny and should have been subject to the normal three-stage process, according to the principles of devolution on which this Parliament stands.

When the policy on early release was changed in 2015, the change was probably not fully appreciated. I am one of those who did not fully appreciate that prisoners serving long sentences who were sentenced after 2015 would no longer be released at the two-thirds point, but at six months before release. However, we know that now.

Was it not obvious when the policy was changed that it would lead to an increase in the prison population and that less capacity would be an issue? It is obvious that prisoners would serve much longer sentences than they previously did, but no plans were made to address that.

There will be no in-depth stage 1 report that deals with the implications of how those powers have been used, and neither will there be a stage 1 report on how the release of long-term prisoners will change if we vote for the bill at decision time.

I do not accept that that is how we should do legislation in this Parliament. We do not know what is in the Government’s minds on how it plans to use the powers, if it plans to use them at all. Does the Government plan to use them to revert back to the policy of release after two thirds of sentence served, or to move to another release point?

As I said, the state of our prisons remains a live human rights issue. HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland has, year on year, reported concerns about conditions in Scottish prisons.

In fact, many prisoners have written to me to express their concerns about not being able to go on a rehabilitation programme. It appears that there are long waiting lists for such programmes, and I would like the Criminal Justice Committee to look at that subject, given the importance of rehabilitation in reducing reoffending rates.

In conclusion, Scottish Labour will continue to scrutinise the programme for early release from prison, should the bill be passed into law. We will oppose it tonight, but if it passes, we will still demand the resources that are necessary to ensure that early release of prisoners does not put our communities more at risk, and that victims get better notification, given the implications of the policy for their lives.

I think that Fulton MacGregor’s point, which the cabinet secretary also makes, is extremely valid. It goes to show the importance of a stage 1 report, because we might have had time to examine the important differences in structure of how we treat prisoners and offenders. Does the cabinet secretary appreciate where Jamie Greene is coming from? I have some sympathy with his position. We are letting prisoners out 10 per cent of their time early and 40 per cent through their sentence, with no supervision unless the court had previously applied that. Is there not another way in which those offenders who will be released early can be supervised, given the legitimate concern that the public would have about that?

I join Jamie Greene and the Parliament in commending our staff, the legislation team and all those who have made this emergency legislation possible.

I have been slightly frustrated by the rushed nature of the process, because I had intended to add my name in support of the amendment. I also intended to raise the question that Victim Support Scotland asked us to raise, which was about the insertion of information about the use of the policy and the number of offenders who are released. Due to the rushed process, I was unable to do that. Despite that, however, I support amendment 5.

Like Jamie Greene, we considered that a sunset clause would be appropriate in the case of this bill because, as was said at stage 2, a crisis is a short-term issue, but this is permanent regulation. We do not know when or if it will ever come to an end, so a sunset clause would have been appropriate. However, the amendment at least allows a future Parliament to reflect on whether the policy has achieved its aims and to analyse the information that the amendment requires. I welcome that.

As Jamie Greene said, it is important that a future Parliament has a close look at the legislation to see whether it has achieved its aims, and that it looks at the analysis of which prisoners have been released and what offences they committed, so that a future Government can decide whether to revert to the policy of early release at the 50 per cent point.

As I said in my opening remarks, only 2 per cent of victims were contacted. That figure seems extremely low, which is why I lodged amendment 10 to explore what more can be done.

I welcome and acknowledge the cabinet secretary’s detailed answer about how we can promote the scheme to ensure that more people enrol in the first place. However, with our amendments in this group, Sharon Dowey and I are keen that the Parliament should get full sight of the changes as they progress. As has been expressed during debates on previous groupings, the major concern about the bill is that we are going to be releasing prisoners earlier. If the Government gets that power for long-term prisoners, there is all the more reason for us to improve the victim notification scheme in relation to their release. We need to get that right.

In view of that, I would be content to work with Sharon Dowey and the cabinet secretary in the short time that is available to see whether we can lodge an amendment at stage 3 that reflects everyone’s concerns. I therefore seek to withdraw amendment 10.

Amendment 10, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 11 not moved.

The cabinet secretary said that rehabilitation work is almost impossible to undertake. I appreciate that point, but there is a wider debate to be had about the availability of rehabilitation in prisons in the first place, so I do not accept that as the basis of the argument.

I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about the difference between the bill and the 2023 act, but I did not fully understand the real difference.

We have to bear in mind that, because of the shortened stage 1 process, we do not have any insight into how the veto actually worked. I have to go with what I hear today, my own knowledge and what we have been furnished with in the past few days.

As Liam Kerr said, a safeguard is very important—it was in 177 cases in the previous release period. Later in our discussions on groups of amendments, we will discuss what concessions the Government is prepared to make to improving the notification scheme. If we are not to have a governor’s veto, we need to rely on a good communication scheme for victims, or, indeed, a good release process, which we will also discuss in later groups of amendments. I do not know what the Government will say about those amendments, but in view of my concerns—notwithstanding the points that I have acknowledged—I intend to press the amendments in Katy Clark’s name.

I press amendment 1.

I understand the point that is being made about prison populations being complex. I accept that we are discussing a measure to deal with the crisis now and that, ideally, you would not want to be here, because you would want prisoners to serve 50 per cent of their sentence, but you are asking Parliament to make a permanent change. Are you at all open to having a sunset clause that would say that you would revisit the changes in three or five years? If you are not open to that, that would mean that you are asking Parliament to change for all time the early release point from 50 per cent of a sentence to 40 per cent, and all because of a crisis that exists now and might not exist in three years’ time.

On behalf of Katy Clark, I will move amendments 1, 7 and 16.

Amendment 7 would include a governor’s veto for short-term prisoner releases, and amendment 16 would introduce a governor’s veto when ministers are in future modifying regulations for early release.

Victim Support Scotland has asked MSPs to ensure the inclusion of a governor’s veto in the bill. Without a governor’s veto, we believe that there is no safety valve to prevent the release of individuals who are known to be a risk. The governor’s veto is a crucial safeguarding element. During the emergency early release in the summer, the veto prevented the release of 171 prisoners who posed an immediate threat to individuals or the public.

We believe that, without the governor’s veto, the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Bill will not contain the vital aspect of risk assessment, which will potentially create more victims and endanger the wider public. The veto formed part of the previous early release programme, and it is an essential safeguarding mechanism to prevent those who are deemed unsafe from being released early.

We appreciate that the Prison Governors Association does not support the measure, due to heavy workload issues, but we believe that it is a necessary safeguard given the substantial change in prison policy, which will reduce the amount of time that some prisoners spend in prison.

I move amendment 1.

I press amendment 13.

I acknowledge the work that was done in the 2023 act. What is the Scottish Government’s thinking on the many prisoners who will be released a lot earlier than previously planned, and does she accept that it is vitally important that those prisoners have appropriate support on their release? Otherwise, there will be another revolving door.

It may sound like duplication of the work that you are doing in relation to the 2023 act, but surely there must be some way of giving public confidence in relation to those who are being released quite a bit earlier than their sentence.

Amendment 2A amends Sharon Dowey’s amendment 2 by adding that the Scottish ministers’ statement to Parliament must say

“what information will be available to victims about the change that the draft regulations would make (if approved) and the release of prisoners under the provisions amended by the regulations”.

I said at stage 2 that we wanted more information to satisfy the public, and victims, about the changes and about the impact that those will have on communities. I recognise that the Government has been prepared to work with me and with Sharon Dowey.

I move amendment 2A.