EARLY RELEASE (Hansard, 29 January 1997)

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 28, line 27, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.

§ Madam Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 38, 39, 241, 233, 40, and 102, Government new schedule 2, and Government amendments Nos. 121 and 103.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 have been tabled to address a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). He was concerned that if the new early release scheme applied only to those serving three months or more, someone serving a slightly shorter sentence would have to serve longer than someone sentenced to exactly three months who earned full early release.
We have dealt with that point by providing in amendment No. 37 that all those serving more than two months will be eligible to earn early release. At the same time, we have made it clear in amendments Nos. 38 and 39 that no prisoner can be released earlier than the day after his assessment.
Amendment No. 233 was drawn up following discussions in Committee on the procedure under which a prisoner may make appeals in relation to awards of early release days. Since consideration in Committee, we have given full consideration to that procedure. The details will be spelled out in the prison rules.
We now envisage a three-stage process. The amendment makes it clear that there will be more than one level of appeal. The process will be based on the existing complaints procedure. A governor or other senior manager will convene an internal assessment board to make initial decisions on the award of early release. If the prisoner is dissatisfied with the decision, his first avenue of appeal will be to the prison internal complaints 422 committee. Each prison has such a committee, chaired by a senior prison manager, with a minimum of three members. Membership is flexible, so that staff who were previously involved in the case will not become reinvolved at this stage.
If, following consideration of the case by the complaints committee, the prisoner remains dissatisfied, he will have a further appeal to the governor in charge, who will reconsider the case. It should be noted that half of all general complaints under the existing complaints procedure put to internal complaints committees are resolved at that stage and do not need to go to the governor, reducing the burden on him.
If the prisoner is still unhappy about the decision following reconsideration by the governor, there will be an appeal to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 233 makes it clear that the rules may prescribe the Secretary of State for that purpose. The Secretary of State's functions in relation to the appeal will be exercised by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, acting in the name of the Secretary of State. The Scottish prison complaints commissioner will become involved at that stage. Under the terms of the amendment, the rules will empower the Secretary of State to appoint a person to consider the appeal and report to him. He will, in all normal circumstances, ask the commissioner for a report on the case.
The prison rules would, therefore, formally specify the internal complaints committee, the governor in charge and the Secretary of State as the persons prescribed to consider appeals. The commissioner would provide the independent element in the process. He would not have the power to overturn the governor's decision at his own hand—which is what we had envisaged in Committee. However, we would expect the chief executive to take serious account of any factors that the commissioner may identify in his report in making his final decision on the case. I invite the House to accept the amendment.

§ Mr. McFall
I thank the Minister for saying that the amendment was tabled to address my proposals in Committee. Under the current arrangements, a prisoner sentenced to 12 weeks could be released before a prisoner who had been sentenced to 10 weeks. Therefore, a judge could sentence someone to 10 weeks in prison and the prisoner could say, "Give me 12 weeks as I will be out sooner." That was absurd. However, I have news for the Minister: the amendment fails to rectify the position completely.
I shall be brief, but constructive. In his letter to me dated 12 December, the Minister wrote: I agree we should avoid any possibility of a situation where an offender sentenced to a period above the threshold can, by earning early release, reduce his sentence below that of a person who falls just below the threshold and who is therefore not eligible for early release. I aim to table amendments to achieve this on report. However, lowering the threshold has not achieved the desired result. For example, a prisoner sentenced to 70 days could be released after 56 days, whereas a prisoner sentenced to 59 days could be released only after 59 days.
The amendment brings those serving between 60 and 89 days into the same position as those serving 90 days or more. In 1994, 1,366 prisoners came into that category, which represents about 58 per cent. of those serving fewer than 90 days. So the amendment would give large numbers of prisoners some prospect of early release that would not 423 have been available to them in the original Bill. What about those serving up to 59 days? Are they still to be denied any early release? That anomaly persists. In 1994, 901 or 91 per cent. of the 990 prisoners in that category were serving 30 days or fewer.
The Government have some thinking to do, perhaps in another place. They could table amendments to rectify the anomaly or they could revert to their previous approach, with automatic release at two thirds of the sentence for those serving up to 59 days. Alternatively, they could introduce a different basis, such as a banding system, for calculating early release for those serving fewer than 60 days but more than seven days.
Any such solution would allow consistency with the concept of earned as opposed to automatic release. It would give short-term prisoners the opportunity of early release analogous to long termers; it would give short-term prisoners an incentive to good behaviour; and it would allow relatively easy calculation of release dates, because there would be no need for assessment. In that constructive vein, I ask the Minister to re-examine the issue to provide some consistency.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I shall certainly look closely at the details of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I should explain to him that the purpose of the amendment in meeting the point that he raised in Committee is that a prisoner serving two months and three days, for example, would be able to earn two days early release. Similarly, a prisoner serving two months and four days would be able to earn three days, and so on. So there would be a tapering effect around the threshold, which would ensure that no one would serve less time in prison than someone sentenced to a shorter period who is ineligible for early release.
My understanding of the present position is that no assessment will be carried out until after two months have elapsed. As a prisoner serving two months or more cannot be released until after the date of his assessment, he cannot in practice be released earlier than a prisoner serving less than two months. That tapers the effect. I shall examine the details of what the hon. Gentleman said and come back to him in due course.