Chamber and committees

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?

This week, The Herald has been running an excellent series to highlight the crisis in legal aid. It is not only in criminal legal aid that lawyers are abandoning their profession, but in civil legal aid. Four out of five lawyers who work in civil legal aid in Glasgow will no longer take on protective order cases for victims of domestic abuse. In 1999, lawyers accepted the principle of one fee of £500 for work on a single case; 25 years later, that fee is only £572, and more work is required, which has resulted in many young lawyers entering the legal profession with better options, including the Crown Office.

Does the First Minister accept that this is a crisis and that it would be reprehensible if domestic abuse victims could not access a lawyer? Does he agree that the way forward is for Scotland to invest in the whole legal aid system—in fact, the whole justice system—by an annual uprating of fees and by invigorating the trainee scheme to encourage young lawyers to choose that branch of the legal profession to demonstrate that there is a future for legal aid in Scotland?

The Parliament has been asked to agree that the Scottish Government can put before the Parliament emergency legislation—a bill that we saw only on Monday—to change the approach of Scottish prisons to the release of short-term and long-term prisoners. That is a substantial change in prison policy, and the proposed approach denies the Scottish Parliament and the Criminal Justice Committee their scrutiny role over a change in policy. The right to call witnesses, to take our time and to decide who we want to listen to will be denied if we agree to the emergency legislation procedure.

As Liam Kerr said, the Scottish Government is seeking a permanent change to the way in which we release prisoners—those who are serving a short-term sentence will go from serving 50 per cent to 40 per cent, with some exclusions—even though the temporary release programme seems to have its flaws and we are back to where we started in July this year, with the prison population back up to 8,300.

A number of prisoners who were released have been back in jail during that period. As predicted, there is a revolving door, which is a major concern for those who are interested in prison policy. I am sure that all parties agree that, for short-term sentences, it seems obvious that simply legislating to reduce time in jail without a more radical plan to tackle reoffending rates is a failure. We should have the right to discuss that and the impact that it will have on victims and communities in more detail.

Victims have the right to expect the Parliament to demonstrate that we put their concerns at the heart of the matter. By rushing the bill through this week and next week, we are not going to do that. Indeed, victims’ organisations are extremely concerned about the legislation and the fact that it would be fast tracked. The experience of victims so far is that we are yet to make significant improvements to our criminal justice system.

It is unacceptable that the Scottish Government is saying that this is emergency legislation. The emergency legislation that we have passed has mostly met the criteria, but this bill does not.

The most concerning aspect of the emergency bill is the regulation power, which indicates a significant change in policy that will apply to both short-term and long-term prisoners. Section 3 grants the Scottish ministers a power to make future changes to automatic early release for both short-term and long-term prisoners.

When a major change was made to the release of long-term prisoners in 2015 and 2016, that was done through standard primary legislation, because it involved a significant shift in prison policy, and it seems to have had an impact on the prison population. If we are going to change the policy, is it not obvious that such a change should again be done through standard primary legislation, to allow the Parliament to look at it? It seems odd that the Government is arguing that this is an emergency.

Scottish Labour opposes the motion for the bill to be treated as emergency legislation, because the bill involves a substantial policy change, so the Parliament and the relevant committee should have the right to examine in detail what impact it will have on the prison population and whether the proposal will in fact achieve its aim to sustainably reduce the prison population. I do not think that we can achieve that by looking at the bill tomorrow and next week. I urge the Parliament to give proper scrutiny to this important piece of legislation and to oppose the Government’s proposals tonight.

Let us talk about the policy in relation to long-term prisoners, which the main argument that we are putting to you concerns. Does the minister accept that, if the bill is passed in this way, we cannot scrutinise it in the same way as we would in a committee? Does he accept that we cannot amend a Scottish statutory instrument and that we must accept what you put before us? Would it not be more in tune with the Parliament’s principles for you to let us amend the policy when you decide to introduce it?