Long-term prisoner release process: consultation analysis

Introduction

Background

This report presents an analysis of the responses to the Long-term Prisoner Release Process: Consultation,^[1] and sets out the Scottish Government’s next steps. We would like to thank all respondents for their contributions. Where permission has been granted, responses have been published in full on the Scottish Government Consultation Hub website.^[2]

As a result of the rising prison population, substantial pressure is being placed on the prison estate. This has resulted in increased risks to the safety and wellbeing of prisoners and Scottish Prison Service (SPS) staff, and a reduction in the ability of SPS to provide and facilitate the purposeful activities that support rehabilitation.

Achieving a sustained reduction in the prison population is necessary to mitigate these risks. The consultation paper set out the range of actions that have already been taken to address and mitigate the rising prison population. Additional measures and actions are now being explored to alleviate population pressures, and reviewing the point of release for long-term prisoners is a key component of that.

Consultation Proposal

Long-term prisoners are those sentenced to 4 years or more in custody. Under the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993,^[3] most long-term prisoners become eligible for release on parole licence at the halfway point of their sentence. This does not mean that they are automatically released at that point, but rather that their case will be referred to the Parole Board for Scotland for consideration.

If a prisoner has not been recommended for parole, at that point or any subsequent parole review, long-term prisoners sentenced on or after 1 February 2016 must be released as soon as they have only 6 months of their sentence left to serve. This is known as release on non-parole licence (NPL). The purpose of this is to ensure that most individuals spend a minimum period of time on licence and under supervision in the community before their sentence expires, allowing for supported reintegration following custody.

These release arrangements do not apply to those who have been previously recalled from licence; those on a life sentence; those on an extended sentence; and those serving terrorism related sentences.

Those released on NPL are subject to individualised risk assessment to plan for their release, and licence conditions reflect the conclusion of that risk assessment and the recommendations of the Parole Board. They are also subject to recall to custody. Supervision is provided in the community by Local Authority justice social work services.

The consultation proposed that the point at which long-term prisoners, who are eligible, are released on NPL be at an earlier point than currently. The consultation suggested this earlier point could be following two-thirds of a sentence (consistent with the pre-2016 position).^[4] Release on NPL at this point, as is currently the case, would be automatic and would not be conditional upon the outcome of the risk assessment or the prisoner having completed specified offence focused work or programmes.

This would mean that long-term prisoners would spend less time in custody and more time in the community before the end of their sentence which would result in a reduction to the prison population.

The proposed changes are also intended to better support the reintegration of long-term prisoners by providing those leaving prison with a more managed return to their communities, with access to the support and rehabilitation they need for a longer period. Assessed risks would be managed in the community with the aim of supporting reintegration and reducing reoffending.

This consultation subsequently invited comments on the proposed changes to the long-term prisoner release process.

The Consultation Process

This consultation was open from 8 July 2024 to 19 August 2024. Respondents were invited to respond in a number of different ways, including online, via email and via post. The majority of responses were received via Citizen Space, the Scottish Government’s online consultation platform.

Four open questions were asked, as follows:

• Question One: Please share any views you have on the general proposal that the point of release on non-parole licence for long-term prisoners should be at an earlier point.
• Question Two: Please share any views you have on the general proposal that the point of release on non-parole licence should be proportionate to sentence length (as opposed to a fixed point).
• Question Three: Please share any views you have on the specific proposal to release most long-term prisoners on non-parole licence following two-thirds of their sentence.
• Question Four: Would you like to offer any additional views or evidence in relation to these proposals? This could include consideration of the operational impacts of the proposed changes.

Two virtual workshop sessions were held on 26 July and 6 August 2024 to encourage participation of key stakeholder organisations in the consultation. The events provided attendees with the opportunity to find out further information about the consultation from officials, and to provide feedback to help shape policy next steps.

The events were attended by a broad range of stakeholders from across the justice sector. A list of the attendees and a summary of the outcomes from these events is included at the end of this report.

Who Responded

There were 161 responses^[5] to the written consultation. Of these the majority were received from individuals (119), and 42 were received from organisations.

Among the organisations that responded, the largest number of responses were from local authorities, social work services and health and social care partnerships, and community justice partnerships/services (18). There were 11 responses from third sector, research and campaign/advocacy organisations. 9 responses were received from women’s aid and victim support organisations, and 4 responses from organisations involved in the justice system. A list of respondent organisations is available in Annex A.

A number of women’s aid organisations, and a number of individual respondents with a family member/close friend affected by the proposal, submitted responses which included much of the same content. All of these responses were included in the analysis.

Methodology

All responses were collated into an Excel database for analysis. The approach to analysis was qualitative in nature due to the four open consultation questions asked.

Qualitative thematic analysis was undertaken with the aim to identify the main themes, as well as the full range of views submitted. The main purpose was not to identify how many people held particular views, but rather to understand the full range of views expressed and any concerns respondents may have.

It was not possible to consistently and accurately count the number of respondents who were supportive or not with the proposals, or who talked about different issues.

That said, to provide a sense of the scale of supportive and non-supportive responses, and the prevalence of issues that were discussed, the themes raised most frequently are generally discussed first, and an indicative number of respondents is noted through the report as follows:

• Majority/Most – generally around or more than two-thirds
• Many – generally around a half
• Some – generally around one-fifth/a quarter
• Several or a number – less than some but more than a few
• A few – a small number up to and around 10
• A handful – the smallest number of respondents, up to around 5.

It has not been possible to detail every response in this report; organisations and some individuals shared lengthy responses reflecting their specific subject matter expertise and interest and/or personal experience. These responses are referred to where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on Citizen Space.

Where differences between types of respondents were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted, then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents.

In a small number of instances where alternative format responses contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgement about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Caveats

As with all consultations it is important to bear in mind that the views of those who have responded may not be representative of the views of the wider population. Self-selection to respond to a consultation means that the views of participants cannot be generalised to the wider population.

Report Structure

In responding to the consultation, respondents often made the same points in relation to all four questions asked. In order to avoid repetition, the report has been structured to first look at the specific points made in relation to Question 2 (change to a proportionate release point) and Question 3 (change to a two-thirds release point).

The report then discusses in more detail the broad points arising from across all four questions that are directly relevant to the proposal to change the release point under Question 1 (views on an earlier release point). This section outlines the reasons respondents were supportive or not supportive of a change to an earlier point of release/or a proportionate release point of two-thirds and their operational concerns.

Finally, under Question 4 (any additional views or evidence) the report discusses the wider issues of penal policy and sentencing that were raised in the consultation responses.

As noted above, at each section of the report, the main themes that emerged are discussed, with the themes identified most frequently generally discussed first.

Where appropriate, quotes from a range of respondents are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.