Chamber and committees

Yes. I thought that I would raise these matters now to give you a chance to address them in summing up.

I have a similar concern in that sentencing policy is a massive area, and I want to be sure what we would be setting up for if we were to vote for the amendment. The automatic release of short-term prisoners halfway through their sentence is an on-going topical issue. I welcome the fact that it has been brought to the committee, but, as we did not take any evidence on it, we need to be clear—I take Jamie Greene’s point and I will let him intervene in a moment—that, if we agree to the proposal because we think that it is right in principle, it will be for the system to resource it properly.

I am trying to understand the amendment. It would mean that every single case would go to the Parole Board for the final decision and the person would be released on licence in every case. I will give way if you want to address your point about the parity of short-term and long-term prisoners, which is not something that I had considered before you raised it. Perhaps that could be addressed in the summing up, although it was Jamie Greene who made that point.

I do not know whether it is Russell Findlay’s position that there should be no difference between the release of short-term and long-term prisoners. I am not offering an opinion; I just want to know what the rationale is for saying that there should be no difference between short-term and long-term prisoners.

I confess that some of this is technical, and you will appreciate that it is difficult to follow all the dots and commas and work out which prisoners are excluded and who has the powers. However, I do not know whether you have addressed why you want to introduce the measure. What is the philosophy behind it? I read the purpose and effect note, which is quite thorough. However, I still want to know what the philosophy is. Is it because you think that it is time to change the way that we do things in releasing prisoners? Is it time to give certain prisoners the opportunity? Is there another reason? I am still struggling a little with the question of why.

This is an important group and discussion. Like Katy Clark, I would be sympathetic to any Government having permanent powers if it thought that that was justified, given that we cannot know all the emergency circumstances that we might ever face. I would not want to think of an emergency situation arising in which the Government’s powers were inadequate.

Like Katy Clark and Jamie Greene, however, I am interested in drilling down into the regulatory framework, the extent of those powers and the language in the bill. One provision refers to an “emergency”, but that is not defined, whereas proposed section 3D uses the term “urgency”. I would like clarity on whether that would amount to the same thing in the ordinary meaning of the words.

I appreciate that intervention from Jamie Greene, which speaks to his own amendment in so far as it seeks to allow Parliament to properly scrutinise the use of any powers or adjustments.

I have three further points. Am I right in saying that there is a provision that gives prison governors additional powers for release? I would like clarification on that. Why is that necessary? Is the rationale the same?

Jamie Greene’s further point about the early release of prisoners during Covid speaks to the need to give thought—as I am asking the cabinet secretary to do—to whether, in any of the situations in which there is provision for early release for emergency reasons, there are conditions attached to that. There must surely be conditions to protect and notify victims, but I am not sure whether those are contained in the bill.

It also speaks to the fact that, as with a lot of other provisions, we have not really scrutinised large elements of this one. I feel that, at stage 2, I am having to draw conclusions on big issues around what powers to give the Government on sentencing and early release. I have concerns about that now.

Finally, I turn to Rona Mackay’s amendment 90. I am sympathetic to it but I am not sure—I do not know whether Rona Mackay will want to intervene here—about the requirement for a person to be released not

“more than 180 days earlier than the Scottish Ministers would otherwise be required”

to release them.

If someone is serving a year’s sentence, would the 180-day rule still apply? Would it apply regardless of what sentence someone was serving? It would seem disproportionate to apply the 180-day rule if someone was serving a sentence of two years. Perhaps I have misunderstood it. I want to be clear, before we come to the vote, as to what that would actually mean. I support the notion behind it, which is to give victims safety and certainty. These are all important issues of principle.

I am happy to give way to the cabinet secretary.

Would the effect of amendments 68 and 69 be to revert to the original law?

In other words, the effect would be to isolate the Friday. The committee report spoke to the Friday being the problem. That is the effect of your amendments.

Jamie Greene and Russell Findlay have raised some pertinent questions about the sentencing of short-term prisoners. My understanding is that short-term prisoners are those serving four years or less. I am still not too clear about what Russell Findlay’s amendment would do, so it would be useful to hear about that when he sums up. However, my reading of it is that it would require that short-term prisoners could be released on licence only if recommended by the Parole Board. Would that change the current arrangements so that every short-term prisoner would need to be released on licence, meaning that, if they offended, they would go straight back to prison? That is what it means to be on licence, is it not?