Chamber and committees

I will press amendment 2A.

Amendment 2A agreed to.

I thank Jamie Greene for lodging amendment 24, allowing discussion on what I think is a really important aspect of the bill. Current policy is that prisoners are released at 50 per cent of their sentence, which, if the bill is agreed to, will be moved back to 40 per cent, with no end in sight, as Jamie Greene has said.

I have big concerns about the bill, and the biggest is the one that Liam Kerr spoke to earlier in relation to section 3 and long-term prisoners. Probably the second most concerning aspect of the bill is that there is no prospect that, if we agree to it tonight, we will ever go back to the position of early release at 50 per cent of a sentence.

I do not know whether the Government is open minded, but I would have thought that it might be, because the rationale for the policy is to relax the numbers in our prisons to allow prison officers to manage the prison estate in a way that they think is safe.

Given that, there should be an opportunity at some point in the future to go back to the substantive policy that we have had for some time in Scotland, which is that prisoners should serve at least 50 per cent of their sentence if they are serving a sentence of less than four years. The problem with the lack of scrutiny is that we are all going to be scratching our heads about exactly what point in the future might be palatable to the Government in any stage 3 amendments that we lodge—right now, I have no idea about that. Jamie Greene’s suggestion of 90 per cent prison capacity is definitely worth considering. There should certainly be a sunset clause on the proposals, and we will be thinking about what time period would be sensible.

Labour members will vote against the bill, but, if it survives, we would at least like to amend it so that there is some end in sight in relation to that policy.

I regard this set of amendments as a vital part of not just the discussion on the bill but the wider discussion on how we support prisoners on release.

Amendment 13 deals with the management of the integration of short-term prisoners by local authorities. Amendment 14 is about access to housing for certain short-term prisoners to whom automatic early release has been extended.

Amendment 18 is about the reintegration of prisoners. It provides that Scottish ministers would have to

“publish their plans to support local authorities in managing the re-integration of prisoners released by virtue of the regulations.”

Under amendment 19, before making regulations, Scottish ministers would have to

“publish their plans to support prisoners released by virtue of the regulations with access to housing, health and rehabilitative support.”

As the Parliament has previously debated, one essential issue, particularly in relation to short-term prisoners, is the revolving door and the tendency for such offenders to reoffend. That is pertinent in the wider debate, of course, but the emergency legislation is a perfect opportunity to ensure that we make provision for offenders who are released into the community, many of whom would not be back in prison if they had the right support, particularly in relation to their housing and medical needs.

I therefore hope that Scottish ministers will give a positive welcome to at least the content of the amendments—if not, I am sure that they could be redrafted, to make sure that they are competent for stage 3. They are an important aspect of the debate.

I move amendment 13.

Amendment 10 would have the effect that the Scottish ministers

“must notify any person who is or appears to be a victim in relation to the offence of the date of the prisoner’s release”,

for those short-term prisoners who are affected by the bill. The effect of amendment 17 would be that future regulations

“must provide for the Scottish Ministers to notify any person who is or appears to be a victim in relation to the offence of the date of the prisoner’s release.”

Under amendment 20, the Scottish ministers would have to

“make a statement to the Parliament setting out improvements that have been made to the victim notification scheme in respect of prisoners to be released by virtue of the regulations.”

The bill proposes to use the same mechanism to contact victims as was used with the previous emergency early release measures, under which only 2 per cent of victims were contacted—of course, the remaining 98 per cent were not. Victim Support Scotland is calling for legislation to allow victim support organisations to proactively notify people who are impacted by crime, thereby removing the onus for victims to identify themselves and come forward for support.

This is an important group of amendments. If the Parliament passes the legislation to allow offenders to be released early, it is important that there is provision for victims to be properly notified, as the previous arrangements were not good enough.

Amendment 26, in the name of Sharon Dowey, is also important. We will support that amendment to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the arrangements.

I move amendment 10.

I cannot deny that the cabinet secretary has been consistent about that, but my point is that we do not know whether taking these emergency powers will result in a long-term, sustained reduction in the prison population. I acknowledge that one measure in itself will not make the change that we would all like to see.

There have been signs over the past 10 years—changes in policy that would add to the prison population—so it is concerning that that work did not start some time ago. Overcrowding has been a serious concern for a long time—prisoners in Barlinnie have been doubling up for a very long time—so it is not as if the problems were not known about.

We have some sympathy with the Government’s position. We want to work with the Government, because we all want to manage our prisons more effectively and reduce reoffending rates. However, we will not accept that that should be done by emergency measure, so we will oppose the motion on the bill at stage 1 this evening.

In 2015, Parliament passed primary legislation to substantively change the release point for long-term prisoners. Regardless of the difference of opinion that we might have on the substance of the policy, does the member agree that it seems extraordinary that the Government would give itself powers that could take us back to exactly the same policy as existed pre-2015, arguing that that should not be done by primary legislation and that its distinctive Scottish policy is quite different from the policy at Westminster?

The bill would enact a huge change in prison policy, and it is being pushed through as emergency legislation. Therefore, we have no stage 1 report to read before we make our contributions.

I thank the cabinet secretary, who has always been excellent at keeping Opposition members informed of the challenges that she faces. I accept that there is a crisis in our prison system with regard to managing prisoner numbers. However, public safety cannot be jeopardised. If we do not have the chance to scrutinise the bill, we might get it wrong. Can we really say that this is an emergency as such—to the extent that the Parliament is to be denied its proper scrutiny of how we deal with the release of prisoners? When I think of the emergency legislation that we have passed fairly recently—with regard to the Post Office, for example—I do not believe that it meets the criteria.

Victim Support Scotland has expressed concerns about the fact that the bill proposes to keep the same mechanisms for contacting victims. VSS calls for organisations to be enabled to be proactive in contacting victims, removing the onus on victims to identify themselves. However, we do not have the opportunity to make such amendments.

In 2015, when Nicola Sturgeon was First Minister, the policy on the release of long-term prisoners was changed so that the release point would be a minimum of six months before the end of their full sentence. That change was made by primary legislation, so it seems odd that we are being asked to potentially reverse that in secondary legislation. The Parliament is being asked to agree to giving ministers the power to determine when long-term prisoners will be released through regulations to be presented to Parliament. As I said yesterday, we will not have the opportunity to amend such regulations. We might agree with some elements of the Government’s approach, but we will not have a say in the creation of the statutory instrument.

That is the most objectionable aspect of the policy, and it is why we will oppose the motion to approve the general principles of the bill at stage 1. As an elected member of the Parliament who came here to scrutinise—as a back bencher and a front-bench spokesperson—I demand the right to have a say in how that power is exercised. I say that because, even in relation to the less controversial provisions on short-term prisoners, about which I do not, in principle, have huge concern, the exception of domestic abuse cases is arbitrary, as the Law Society of Scotland said. It gave the example of two offenders, one of whom is sentenced for domestic abuse and who will be excluded from the policy. There is an issue with regard to whether such prisoners would be doubly punished, as my colleague Martin Whitfield mentioned. That is a clear example of why there needs to be close scrutiny to ensure that aspects of human rights law are applied.

I think that we have time.

If I were a member of the Westminster Parliament, I would be arguing the same thing, which is that I should have the right to determine whether prisoners should be released at a different point. We do not know whether the Government will take the view that long-term prisoners should be released halfway through or 40 per cent of the way through, but whatever it decides, I will only get the chance to say yes or no to that.

If the Parliament passes this emergency legislation, I genuinely think that we will be setting a precedent that I am not happy about, for the reasons that I have given. For every crisis—there are a number of crises in our society and, arguably, under the devolved settlement—this will set a different bar for emergency legislation. That gives me cause for concern.

In 2015, when the relevant legislation was passed, some analysis was done to assess the extent to which it would serve to swell our prisoner numbers, as it would clearly have added to the increasing numbers that we see now.

Will the bill work? Labour is concerned—I think that Liam Kerr spoke to this—as to whether the bill will achieve what it is supposed to achieve. In May, there were 8,365 prisoners in Scotland, which is the highest number since 2012. We know that, during the emergency release over the summer, 477 prisoners were released. Since that emergency early release, the prison population has returned to 8,300.

The Scottish Prison Service does not appear to think that the releases have worked. It said in its submission to the Criminal Justice Committee earlier this month:

“The Emergency Early Release scheme agreed by the Scottish Parliament, which operated during June and July of this year provided some respite for our staff and partners, people in custody, and our establishments, but unfortunately, it was far briefer than we had hoped and we have seen consistent week on week rises in admissions to prisons across Scotland.”

Where is the evidence that the bill will have the effect that it is meant to have? The reoffending rate for prisoners with short-term sentences is extremely high. For some short-term sentences, reoffending rates are more than 60 per cent. We all agree that there has to be a strategy that accompanies any change to short-term sentences that, once and for all, seriously tackles reoffending rates.

If the Parliament were to agree next week to give the cabinet secretary the early release power, particularly in relation to long-term prisoners, how might she use it? Would she change the six-month release point? What is in her mind as to how she might use that power?