Official Report 875KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20174, in the name of Angela Constance, which is a legislative consent motion on the Sentencing Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
14:00
I extend my thanks to the Parliament’s authorities for their co-operation in expediting the work on this motion, which will enable the Parliament’s position to be communicated to the United Kingdom Government before the conclusion of the bill’s progress at the House of Lords in early January. I also thank members of the Criminal Justice Committee for their input yesterday, and I look forward to the discussion this afternoon.
I seek the Parliament’s approval for this motion to provide legislative consent to the UK Government’s amendments to its Sentencing Bill. After on-going engagement with the UK Government on the relevant provisions and further engagement with the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board for Scotland, the Scottish Government recommends that the Parliament agree to the motion for legislative consent in relation to the UK Government's amendments.
The UK Government introduced the Sentencing Bill on 2 September 2025 to implement the recommendations set out in the report of the independent sentencing review led by the Rt Hon David Gauke, which was published in October 2024. The bill intends to make changes to the sentencing framework and the management of offenders in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. That includes changes to the sentencing of lower-level offences, release provisions for some prisoners, community order requirements and the restrictions that are available for post-prison supervision.
The areas of law that are covered by the Sentencing Bill are largely reserved. Otherwise, its provisions extend only to England and Wales. However, on 14 November 2025, during the bill’s progress through the UK Parliament, the UK Government tabled amendments that seek to change the sentencing and release arrangements that currently apply to individuals who are sentenced for a national security offence to match those that apply to individuals who are sentenced for a terrorism offence. That means that all such prisoners will be considered for parole after serving two thirds of their sentence, rather than short-term prisoners being subject to automatic release at 40 per cent of their sentence—as they normally would be—or long-term prisoners being considered for parole for the first time at half of their sentence.
As a result of that change, several consequential and technical amendments are required to ensure that those provisions could also operate as intended in Scotland. The legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is required in relation to those amendments, because we consider that the changes that are being proposed would alter the executive competence of the Scottish ministers in relation to their functions that concern the release of that type of prisoner.
The changes are expected to have little to no operational impact on the Scottish Prison Service, the Parole Board for Scotland or justice social work services in Scotland due to there commonly being a low number of prisoners with that sentence type held in Scottish prisons. The SPS has reported that there are currently no such prisoners in the Scottish prison population.
However, although the impact might be minimal, I strongly advise the Parliament to consent to the changes. It is sensible to ensure alignment with England and Wales with regard to the sentencing of offenders who are convicted of a national security offence. National security offences are considered on a UK-wide basis. Thus, consistency in the treatment of such offenders is important with regard to sentencing and release. In fact, non-consent to the amendments might mean that the regime for the management of national security offenders in Scotland could be considered to be less stringent when compared with that in the rest of the UK. That would leave Scotland at risk of being considered a more attractive location for state threat actors and other offenders in the national security category.
Thus, the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is essential to ensure consistency between Scotland and the rest of the UK with regard to the sentencing of national security offences and to also ensure that Scotland does not become less stringent in the treatment of such offences. In light of those points, I urge the Parliament to support the legislative consent motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that all relevant provisions of the Sentencing Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 2 September 2025, and subsequently amended, affecting changes which align the treatment of national security offenders with terrorist offenders under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, so far as these matters alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
14:04
I rise to speak to the motion on legislative consent. The legislative consent memorandum on the same bill was considered and scrutinised in committee yesterday.
As the cabinet secretary set out, this issue arises due to the Crime and Policing Bill that is going through the UK Parliament; its clause 8 and schedule 2 contain provisions that require the consent of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government has recommended that the Parliament consent to the relevant provisions in the bill and has clearly set out the reasons for that in the detail of its legislative consent memorandum.
I also found the cabinet secretary’s evidence highly persuasive, both yesterday and just now, particularly on the need to ensure that Scotland is consistent with the rest of the country in its treatment of these offenders. I find it persuasive that, without legislative consent, Scotland could be seen as being less stringent and therefore a destination where the sentencing of such offenders is less rigorous.
Having given due consideration to the legislative consent memorandum and the representations that were made yesterday and today, I find myself in agreement with the Scottish Government’s recommendation. I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will vote in favour of the motion at decision time tonight.
I call Pauline McNeill to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour.
14:05
As members have heard, the UK Government introduced its bill on 2 September, and the bill will make changes to the sentencing framework and the management of offenders in England and Wales. Most of that bill applies to England and Wales, but, sometimes, when Westminster deals with criminal law matters, that means that something has to be done in this Parliament, too. As the cabinet secretary has said, Scotland cannot be less stringent on matters of national security and counterterrorism.
I have written a speech, but its contents have been covered pretty much word for word by the cabinet secretary. I do not think that there is any point in repeating those words, because the issue is quite clear.
It is unusual for a committee to deal with a legislative consent memorandum and for the Parliament be asked to vote on the motion the very next day, but the committee was pretty satisfied that there is no controversy in relation to the LCM. As members have heard, the essence of it is that long-term and short-term prisoners will be treated the same, as far as national security is concerned, and they will be released two thirds of the way into their sentence.
Scottish Labour will vote in favour of the motion this evening, and there is nothing more to add.
I call the cabinet secretary, Angela Constance, to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.
14:07
I am grateful to members for their contributions this afternoon. I reiterate the Scottish Government’s recommendation that the Parliament should consent to the amendments that are being tabled to the Sentencing Bill—not the Crime and Policing Bill, as Mr Kerr referenced at the start of his remarks.
As detailed in my opening statement, the changes will mean that all individuals who are convicted of national security offences will be considered for release by the Parole Board only after serving two thirds of their sentence, mirroring the arrangements that are already in place for terrorist offenders. This approach reflects the seriousness of such crimes and the need for robust and consistent safeguards in managing such offenders across the UK jurisdictions.
The immediate practical effects will be limited. The amendments will require only minor technical adjustments in the work of the Parole Board and the Scottish Prison Service to ensure that the provisions are applied effectively in our system. As previously mentioned, there are no prisoners currently in our prison system for committing those national security offences.
However, the strategic importance of consent is clear. Failure to consent would create an unnecessary divergence between Scotland and the rest of the UK regarding these offences in future. Applying a less stringent sentencing regime could even make Scotland appear to be a more attractive location for such activity in the UK.
For those reasons, I strongly urge members to support the motion for legislative consent, and I commend the motion to the Parliament.
Presiding Officer, it just remains for me to wish you a very merry Christmas and, of course, every member in the chamber a happy Christmas and a guid new year. We all want to pay tribute to our hard-working staff who support us in the Parliament and in our offices up and down the country. [Applause.]
That concludes the debate on the motion on legislative consent for the Sentencing Bill, which is UK legislation.
There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.
Air adhart
Motion without Notice