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.

Will the member take an intervention?

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.