Chamber and committees

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.

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?