 E plante iawn yn gweithio i ddau. Mae'r ddaeth yn gweithio i ddau i mneugiad, credu ond i ddau i 1573 am Ballunog Unigodd i unrhyw gael Ymgyrch yn Ymgyrch, mewn ysgolwyr Iefencechol Cymru. Rwy'n ddau i ddau i ffreddi'r defnyddol, Ryfans, rwyf yn gweithio i ddau i ddau i profi hynny. Rwyf yn gweithio i ddau i把ddiannau ddiogelwyr Cymru, yn oedgolwyr Iefencechol Cymru, That's what I mean. I'll be very welcome to discuss this debate. Of course, I've moved the management of offenders. Scotland Bill in my name. I'm very pleased to be opening stage 1 debate on the management of offenders. The Bill brings forward a number of reforms designed to deliver on the Scottish Government's commitment to reduce rearfending and to ensure that Scotland's justice system retains its focus on prevention and rehabilitation, while enhancing support for victims. In terms of the various elements of the bill, part 1 of the bill, as members no doubt will know, provides for the expansion of electronic monitoring as part of our continued development of community-based alternatives to prison. The electronic monitoring provisions of the bill provide an overarching set of principles for the imposition of electronic monitoring. The bill itself provides clarity as to when and how electronic monitoring can be imposed, either by the courts in relation to criminal proceedings or indeed by Scottish ministers in relation to release on licence from detention or indeed imprisonment. The bill also creates a standard set of obligations, which clearly describes what is required of an individual who is subject to monitoring. The bill also empowers ministers to make regulations to specify the types of devices that can be used for the purpose of monitoring. The introduction of new technologies, such as global positioning systems and GPS technology, presents opportunities to improve the effectiveness of electronic monitoring, for example, through the use of exclusion zones that could offer victims significant reassurance and indeed respite. Part 2 of the bill provides for progressive reforms to the system of disclosure of previous convictions. Those reforms, in part 2, aim to provide a much better balance between improving the life prospects of those with convictions balanced, of course, with the important need for public safety. The reforms proposed in the bill will reduce the length of time that most people with convictions have to disclose the defending history, bringing more people within the scope of the protections not to disclose at all and making the regime more transparent and easier to understand. Those reforms will help to unlock untapped potential in Scotland's people, helping them to move on more quickly from their offending behaviour to assist the economy, improve their life chances and help to reduce re-offending rates. Ultimately, that will hopefully mean less victims as well, of course. I accept the points that the cabinet secretary makes about disclosure and electronic monitoring for those points. I was wondering if you might reflect that, in order to truly achieve those things, a much broader suite of assistance must be provided with people leaving prison if we are going to achieve that rehabilitation beyond simply disclosure and electronic tagging. I heard Daniel Johnson make similar points in various committee sessions. I think that he is absolutely right that there is an onus on government and all the stakeholders to think about the wider support. All those measures from the bill that we discussed on Tuesday in relation to the vulnerable witnesses right the way through to this particular bill can never be seen in isolation. They are always going to be part of a wider suite of measures. Yes, I agree with the point that he makes well and articulates well. I move on to part 3. The pro-board is the focus of part 3 of the bill and the pro-system is the focus of part 3. The pro-board reforms delivered on the Scottish Government's commitment to improve the effective rehabilitation and reintegration of people who have committed offences and complete the implementation of the pro-board reform project to modernise and improve support for the vital work of the pro-board. The bill also aims to simplify and modernise processes and support a consistency of approach in relation to pro-matters and the pro-board for Scotland. I specifically amend the tenure of board members that brings them in line with other tribunals, reinforce the independence of the board and provide for the administrative and accountability arrangements for the board to be set out in secondary legislation. I welcome the very comprehensive report of the Justice Committee. I would now like to set out our thoughts, the Government's thoughts on some of the important matters raised in the committee's report. The committee asked for early review as to whether the HDC guidance for Governors is striking the right balance and sought reassurances from the Scottish Government that lessons learned from the inspectorate reports will be applied to other areas where electronic monitoring may be used. The chamber will be aware that, following the tragic murder of Craig McClillan, the police and prisons inspectorates made 37 recommendations in relation to home detention curfew. They were primarily for the Scottish Government, the Scottish Prison Service and Police Scotland. All three bodies and all three organisations have accepted all those recommendations in full. Guidance on HDC was updated in October 2018 following the recommendations. There was an initial decrease in the number of those being granted release on HDC. We responded immediately to the issues raised in the independent reports by the inspectors. The balance for our responses was in favour, of course, of public safety. We are continuing to assess the impact of the presumptions introduced in that guidance. An extensive review of the guidance around HDC, which was one of the inspectorate recommendations, is very much under way. HDC release decisions must have regard to protecting the public at large, preventing re-offending by the prisoner and securing the successful reintegration of the prisoner into the community. We are led by the best available evidence about how to weight those considerations, and some are complementary. Rehabilitation is an important way of protecting the public from re-offending. I am happy to reassure the chamber that any lessons from other areas of the system will be applied as the electronic monitoring service develops. Public protection is of course a key element of the criminal justice system. I will, as the committee requested, consider whether key principles and weight given to public protection should be given greater prominence in the bill. However, the need to consider public protection is already set out in legislation, underpinning HDC and, indeed, in the HDC guidance. It is therefore an existing legal requirement that a risk assessment must always be done prior to the grant of HDC and the electronic monitoring of an individual under an HDC licence. I have already written to the committee with further information about the on-going work on risk assessment tools. I am also happy to take forward the suggested discussions—I will just finish this point and I will let Diana Johnson in. I have written to the committee with that further information. I am also happy to take forward the suggested discussions with colleagues from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and social work colleagues as to what further information may be made available. I am very clear that, though any changes must be informed by the risk management authority advice on the relationship that such information presents to the risk of harm—of course, I give way to Diana Johnson. I thank the cabinet secretary again for giving way. Recommendation 5 from the HMI-PS report stated that, given the additional HDC licence conditions were not monitored, it was doubtful that they serve any purpose. I hear what he says about risk management and the considerations, but surely monitoring is just as important. Is he satisfied that monitoring is now in place? Yes, I am satisfied that the appropriate lessons from the inspector's report are not just learned but are very much being taken away and are under way. Those changes are very much being made by the organisations, primarily the SPS and, of course, when necessary, Scotland. You do not have to take my word for it. I have been very keen to stress on the back of those reports that, at the six-month mark, my expectation and my request to the inspectorates is that they follow it up as independent inspectorates. Of course, I am happy to present to the Parliament on that. I have written to the committee with details of the revised guidance for criminal justice and social work in responding to breach. That guidance clarifies a number of key roles in terms of the process. I have also indicated to the committee that I will give them further information to make that available during stage 2 of the bill about our plans in respect of creation of an offence of unlawfully at large. The committee sought our view on whether the extension of electronic monitoring will result in more punitive sentencing. We do not believe that it inherently will. Ultimately, sentencing decisions are, of course, for the courts. The new GPS and remote substance monitoring capabilities extend the range of options open to the courts. We will continue to collect data on how, of course, the new capabilities are and will be used. The committee also asked what additional resources have been made available for the implementation of the bill. It is not anticipated that the bill that is currently drafted will immediately lead to a large-scale change in the manner in which electronic monitoring is used by the courts. However, when and if any new pilots of the new technology are taken forward, appropriate funding will accompany those pilots. I can confirm that the budget for electronic monitoring has increased to £6 million in anticipation of those changes. In part 2, a specific recommendation highlighted a concern raised by Scottish women's aid in the context of ensuring continuing appropriate levels of disclosure for those convicted of domestic abuse fences and similar type of fences. I can confirm that steps are being considered for the future disclosure bill, which is concerned with the higher-level disclosure system to ensure that appropriate disclosure continues with no unintended consequences on higher-level disclosure from changes to the system of basic disclosures in this bill. MSPs can be reassured that consideration will be informed by the feedback offered, including on the feedback in the debate. On part 3, I note the committee's view that victims should have a role in the parole process and its comments that the bill is being considered when a detailed consultation of the parole board is under way and is due to be published on 19 December. Does he share the view that cutting off a tag should be an offence? I will listen to what Scottish women's aid and other members have to say. It was the Conservatives that gave absolute credit, but it is due here that it pushed the Government and others to look at a lawfully at-large offence. I have just said in my speech that serious consideration is being given to bringing that forward as an amendment at stage 2. We just have to be careful about terminology when, technically, somebody goes on lawfully at large versus the moment that they may well cut off a tag. There is a nuance there, but if Scottish women's aid has views on that, I have a good relationship with them. I will listen carefully to what members have to say in the chamber about that. I intend to bring forward an amendment from the Government to stage 2 on a lawfully at large offence. John Finnie. I will get for the cabinet secretary taking an intervention in the parole board. Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, at the moment, there is a role for victims in the parole system? It is not that this is going to introduce something that is not already there. Before you respond, cabinet secretary, I say to members—if you would sit down please—to say that there is some time in hand, so do not be anxious if you are taken to vengeance. You will still make up your time. John Finnie is a really important point made by John Finnie. Depending on the case, that representation can take different forms. Of course, we know that, but there is, of course, the opportunity for victims to make representation to the parole board. I should record my thanks to the parole board Scotland and the team, because that is a really difficult job. All of us who are in the chamber recognise that making those decisions is not an easy thing at all to do, but they do it and it is to their credit the manner in which they do it. That does not mean that I have spoken to many members of the parole board in my time as cabinet secretary, and they all recognise that there can be significant improvement, including in terms of the voice of the victim. John Finnie makes a hugely important point. On that point, I have held a number of meetings with victims and victims' families. For speaking to them, it is clear that they want a greater voice within that parole system. We are always looking at ways to improve things, and that is why parole processes are continually kept under review. Those meetings are directly informed by the content of the current consultation and under way. I listened carefully to the evidence given committee's views on the removal of the psychiatrist member of the board. However, I feel that the parole board currently has the expertise that it needs to assess cases appropriately without a statutory requirement for a specific type of member. I will, however, seek the views of the parole board in ways that we can further enhance the role of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in parole board assessments. Turning briefly to the test for release, statutory tests exist, as members probably know, for life sentence prisoners and equivalent sentences, including orders of lifelong restriction and for recalled extended sentence prisoners. However, I am not convinced that a standard test is necessary for all other categories of the term in its sentence prisoner. Any common test would have to work for each category of prisoners, considered by the board, such as those subject to transfer under the Mental Health Scotland Act 1984 or younger offenders and children subject to a period of detention. There are reasons for having a test for the release of life prisoners and extended sentence prisoners who have been recalled, namely that they are potentially held in custody beyond the punishment part or custodial part that the court has set. I do not believe that we should assume that a statutory test exists for the release of some categories of prisoners. One must exist for all prisoners and be in identical terms. The nature of a life or extended sentence is different to that of a determined sentence. In response to the parole reform consultation, the Law Society of Scotland itself was against the introduction of a common statutory test for all prisoners and highlighted the reason why certain types of sentences must be treated differently. The test for the release of each category of prisoners set out in legislation would determine the scope of any decision by the parole board. However, I believe that the parole board should be able to consider and wait any factors that it thinks are relevant. Rule 8 of the parole board Scotland rules 2001 sets out in legislation matters that can be taken into account by the board in dealing with a case. It does not, however, provide a definitive list and the parole board may take into account any other factors that it considers relevant. So, while I agree that further information being available as to the rare factors the parole board takes into account may be useful that it could indeed be published elsewhere such as guidance, I do not believe that setting out a test in statutory legislation for each category of prisoner is the best way to achieve this. In conclusion, the bill takes forward a number of important changes to improve the criminal justice system in Scotland. I am pleased to note that the Justice Committee recommends that the general principle of the bill be agreed to at stage 1. Once again, I move the motion in my name. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee in today's stage 1 debate on the management of the Fender Scotland Bill. I thank all those who gave written or oral evidence, and the committee also thanks both the wise group and G4S for hosting a visit, which helped members to understand more about the use of electronic monitors or tags and the impact of disclosing prior convictions. That provided an opportunity at the very beginning of our consideration of the bill to hear first hand about the challenges that people with prior convictions face in trying to reintegrate into society. Finally, I thank the Justice Clerks and to past and present committee members for their work in producing the report. Before moving on, the committee again wants to record our condolences to the family and friends of Mr Craig McClelland. Craig's tragic murder led to two independent reviews by the inspectorates of prison and constabulary. Thereafter, in June 2018, the committee suspended its stage 1 scrutiny until the publication of the important review findings were available. Our thoughts were very much with Craig when finalising our recommendations. I confirm therefore that this stage 1 report takes into account both the review group's findings and recommendations. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has stated that he fully supports and will implement all the review's recommendations. The committee has made clear that it will hold him and others such as the Scottish Prison Service and Police Scotland to those commitments and, crucially, press for swift implementation of those recommendations. Turning now to part 1 of the bill, this proposes changes to electronic monitoring, allowing the Government to expand its use to bring in new technologies such as global positioning system and GPS and transdermal technology, which can help to monitor those with drug and alcohol problems. Where electronic monitoring, E.M. for short, is used as an alternative to custody, the committee recognises the necessity to balance any potential benefits and public protection. While the committee unbalanced supports part 1 of the bill, in doing so, members added the following vitally important qualifiers to that support. The committee recognises that the weight given to the considerations of public protection, punishment and re-implotation may vary depending on the different situations where E.M. might be used. The committee is decisively of the view that electronic monitoring should only be used after a comprehensive risk assessment, particularly in relation to home dissension, car fuse and other orders in which the individual would otherwise be incarcerated. I thank Margaret Mitchell for giving way and I do not disagree with the committee's recommendations. Would she agree with me that, even if all those recommendations are put in place and there is a further robustness to the HDC regime and other electronic monitoring regimes, that does not necessarily eliminate the risk completely and entirely? There is never a situation in life where risk can totally be eliminated, but having said that, the point is that the assessment test that we put out and the measures around that have to be absolutely robust, especially in the situation of ADCs. So, robust assessment procedures are therefore critical to the use of HDCs and electronic monitoring. Furthermore, the committee calls on the Scottish Government to laze with the Scottish courts and tribunal service about providing criminal justice social workers with summaries of evidence from court cases to inform the preparation of any risk assessments. I think that it was a little worrying that sometimes they had to rely on information from the offenders themselves. A robust professional needs risk assessment on the suitability of an individual for EM as part of their sentences is critical, and that there is careful risk assessment practice, including home visits, to inform decision making regarding EM curfew arrangements. The committee also calls on the Scottish Government to consider whether key principles and the weight that should be given to public protection and risk assessment should be given greater prominence. That includes assessing whether the provisions on risk assessment should, as with the monitoring of people on electronic tags, be in the bill. I think that the cabinet said that he was prepared to look at that in his statement. Monitoring and evaluation are important issues, particularly given the HMIPS's findings that noted that, where an individual released on HDC was made subject to additional conditions, there appeared to be no monitoring of compliance. The committee considers that unacceptable. Consequently, it recommends that additional conditions need to be accompanied by monitoring arrangements and that those are agreed to and put in place in advance and clearly annotated on the licence. If that is not possible, the committee recommends serious consideration and consideration should be given to not granting the HDC. The committee calls on the Scottish Government to consider making provision for statutory guidance in the bill, requiring the Government to consult, maintain and make guidance on the roles and responsibilities of relevant agencies with regard to risk assessment and monitoring or conditions relating to the use of electronic monitoring. Turning now to breaches of electronic monitoring orders, the committee recommends that any breaches have to be swiftly investigating and when found to be substantive, for example, not due to a technical fault, are responded to quickly and effectively. The committee notes the powerful evidence from Scottish Women's Aid and others expressing concerns over the use of GPS and exclusion zones in cases involving domestic abuse or sexual offences. Those concerns focussed on how breaches will be responded to in real time, where an offender has entered an exclusion zone. The public will not have confidence in the use of EM if the relevant authorities are not seen to investigate all breaches swiftly and respond without delay to substantial ones. In response, the committee wants progress made on the development of the new risk assessment tool and seeks details before stage 3 and statutory guidance on the roles and responsibilities of the different agencies and how they work and communicate together. The committee supports in principle the introduction of the new and lawfully at large offence whereby someone has breached their home detention curfew and perhaps removed their tag. However, given the divergence of opinion between Police Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland about the merits of this new offence and the wider police powers of entry and search and other related issues, the committee will consider the amendment that the Government proposes to the Lodge at stage 2. That would not preclude taking further evidence. Part 2 of the bill deals with changes to the basic regime of disclosures of convictions. Those changes do not affect high-level disclosures, which checks are made for some categories of employment and proceedings that require greater scrutiny of an individual's background. However, the committee calls on the Scottish Government to respond to comments by Scottish Women's Aid that clarity is needed on the impact of the changes on high-level disclosure for some categories of domestic abuse offences. Adelic balance needs to be struck between risk and the need to integrate people with prior convictions back into society. Those are very real challenges faced by people in relation to disclosure. Getting beyond the initial application itself is a challenge. The committee therefore welcomes efforts to tackle people, not even being interviewed for employment, to see if they are suitable merely by dint of ticking a box disclosing a prior conviction. Finally, during our visit to the wise group in Glasgow, we heard evidence from people with prior convictions and from their prison mentors that putting a monitor on someone and then releasing them into the community with no money, no job, nowhere to live, no access to GP services or drug or alcohol support if they need it is simply just setting them up to fail. In conclusion, the committee considers that there is a danger that the good intentions of the Scottish Government in relation to increased electronic monitoring will not succeed if those wearing the devices are not fully supported and adequately monitored, including rapid and effective responses to breaches. Insufficient resource provision may result not just in a failure for individuals wearing the advice, but could also represent an increased risk to community. Notwithstanding the cabinet secretary's comments today, therefore, the committee urges the cabinet secretary to look at resourcing and all members agreed that the Government must make it clear what additional resources can be set aside in 2019-20. The committee supports the general principles of the bill. Thank you very much. I now call Liam Kerr to open for the Conservatives. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for the Scottish Conservatives on the management of offenders bill. Today, we will vote in favour of the principles of the bill, but I need to be absolutely and unequivocally clear. Our stage 1 vote comes with significant caveats and any further support is highly conditional. The bill is in three parts, dealing in reverse order and ease of disposal. Part 3 makes small reforms to the parole board, removing the requirements to include a high court judge and a psychiatrist, as well as moving to a five-year time for members. I do not have any problem voting for that, but I respectfully suggest that it is a missed opportunity. Last summer, in response to a number of tragic events, I joined a Stuart family in calling for Michelle's law. Indeed, I led a member's debate in this chamber, where I set out the three demands of the campaign. Those included that parole reform must go further to give victims a greater say over temporary release from prison and parole. In response, the Government announced in December that it planned to consult on the openness and transparency of the parole board and the involvement of victims of crime in its work. I also recall that the committee heard evidence from Petal, who suggested that victims of crime might have a place on a parole board and a hearing. The committee also recommended further work to be done to consider the tests used by the parole board when releasing a prisoner. However, all of that will be undertaken separately. We will support what is being done in part 3, but I cannot help but feel that this was an opportunity to take a step back and review the whole parole board and its operation and bring forward a bill directly related to that area. I think that we are still waiting for any movement from the Government on the process, the parole process, of temporary release. Hamza Yousaf? I thank Liam Kerr for giving way. He knows that I take what he says very seriously on this issue, and I have met with the Stewart family also. I think that part of the concern, and I wonder if he accepts this, is that we already delayed the bill, understandably so, because of the HCC's expected reports that were taking place. To delay it further for parole board consultation, I think that much of which has been asked for by the Stewart family and other matters in that constitution do not need legislation. Does he not agree that perhaps delaying the bill even further at a time when the committee is already under legislative pressure? Would it have been the wrong move if we can achieve what he wants, what families want, but it is without delay of legislation at a time when we do not have much time in this Parliament at all? Liam Kerr? I understand the point being made, cabinet secretary. It is a reasonable point. Equally, I am sure that he will understand the point that I have, and throughout my presentation today I will make this point several times, that perhaps there has been a missed opportunity here because we have three separate stand-alone things happening within one bill that perhaps might have been dealt with separately and perhaps better by doing so. Looking at part 2 of the bill, which I think could have commanded its own separate inquiry, the length of time that is required to disclose convictions makes sense, as does the improvement and clarity of legal terms. We know and I recognise the cabinet secretary's comments in his regard that getting a job and making a contribution to society in that way is one of the best routes out of offending behaviour. Striking the appropriate balance between societies or an employer's right to know about prior convictions with the ability of a person with convictions to move on is a very difficult one. It was right to refer to the regime change in England and Wales for reference to this. I think that it is right that it only applies to the basic disclosure regime. It is right, as the convener said, that a higher-level disclosure system is not being looked at at this stage. I note with some concern that the cabinet secretary said that there is reform planned around this area. I flag to the cabinet secretary that the report states that the absence of any proposed changes to the higher-level disclosure system was welcomed by a number of witnesses. It was, and I am bound to say that I will take quite a deal of persuading to downgrade any such protections around higher-level disclosures if that comes before us. Turning to the crux of the bill, which, again, I find it a little unfortunate that this is not a separate bill in itself. Part 1 concerns the use of and provision of electronic monitoring of offenders. I reiterate that we will support this bill and, by extension, part 1 at this stage. Cabinet Secretary, I must be absolutely clear and unequivocal that this was not a decision that I took lightly. I know that my colleagues will not take it lightly this afternoon. We can only support this bill at stage 1 on the strict understanding that it is because we see an opportunity to improve it at stages 2 and 3. I need to put down this marker if we do not see at stages 2 and 3 amendments that go far enough, we cannot support it. The law society put it succinctly. Maintaining public safety is essential in whatever way electronic monitoring is intended to be used. That must surely be the starting point to ensure that we enhance and protect public safety. I do not need to remind anyone in this chamber of the reasons why the original bill was postponed and further evidence taken. The shocking, unprovoked and devastating murder of Craig Macleill and by James Wright, who was an individual with 16 previous convictions out on home detention curfew, wearing a tag with which he had tampered, roamed around uninhibited for six months, provides vital and awful context to this debate and to this bill. It raised issues not just on home detention curfew, but on the wider use of tagging for all underlying orders and licenses. If I may, I will digress slightly. The cabinet secretary will recall that Daniel Johnson, Willie Rennie and I wrote to him demanding an independent inquiry into this case in November last year. The family have written to the Lord Advocate just yesterday, as I do not think that they have heard anything on that. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will take the opportunity in closing to update the family and the chamber in that regard. Against that background, as we have heard, two reviews of the home detention curfew regime were conducted that recommended various items, including the risk assessment process for HDCs being strengthened. The cabinet secretary told the committee that he had ordered a presumption against violent criminals getting HDC, and that he would consider the option of putting that on a statutory basis. The report picks up that there will be an examination of whether those presumptions should be statutory exclusions before May 2019. I find that too long, cabinet secretary. The bill is going through now, and we have been asked to pass it without knowing what is coming and whether the full protections are in place. Furthermore, I understand that any new offence will only apply to home detention curfew. As the bill stands, an offender on another underlying order or licence can cut off their tag without automatically committing an offence, because it hinges on the underlying order. I do not think that victims will accept that, and I think that it needs to change. Victim support Scotland, community justice Scotland and positive prisons were crystal clear to the committee that there must be a swift, visible, zero-tolerance approach to breaches. We believe that, when a breach constitutes the removal of or tampering with the electronic tag, it must be an offence in itself, regardless of whether it is a custodial or community sentence. I heard your comments that we will learn more in stage 2, but I think that those amendments must be brought forward and be suitably scrutinised on the public safety angle and be passed at stage 2. On which note, I was terribly exercised in committee, and I do not think that I am alone in this by the lack of the risk assessment at this stage. We heard that the Government agrees that the guidance document required extensive review to provide those charged with undertaking the assessment to release prisoners with more assistance, but it is not ready. The cabinet secretary will remember that the committee looked at this. I cannot understand it, because surely before we do anything that increases the numbers on electronic monitoring, we must have a robust and trusted assessment tool. We need to see that covered before the bill passes. On that decision-making process, something that I struggled to understand throughout was that no matter to whom or to which agency I posed the question, what is most important in considering the lease on HGC? Is it public protection, punishment or rehabilitation? I got an equivocal answer back, because no one was saying to me that public protection is paramount, and I do not understand that. I heard the cabinet secretary say that he will consider if public protection should be given greater prominence in the bill. I can help. It really should, cabinet secretary. My overriding concern, particularly because the bill remains unchanged from its initial form before all the learnings came from tragedy, is that the bill was brought forward by the cabinet secretary's predecessor in an atmosphere of complacency and with a view to extending tagging into inappropriate cases, perhaps driven by a simple wish to empty prisons. The landscape has changed fundamentally, and our continued support predicates on reassurance that this is about getting the regulation of tagging right and protecting public safety, to put electronic tagging on a basis that can command public support, to learn the lessons of tragic cases such as Craig McClelland. The committee heard a great many promises from the cabinet secretary following what I thought was a very good committee inquiry. Those promises must be kept and we must see the further changes that we are calling for. If, over the course of parliamentary scrutiny, it looks like the opposite, we will vote against. I call Daniel Johnson. Seven minutes, please. Deputy Presiding Officer, I begin by thanking the clerks and my fellow committee members, and that is always something that is important to do. In particular, in those circumstances, I think that the committee had a difficult set of circumstances, and I treated them appropriately, delaying and taking further evidence. I think that that was important. I pay particular tribute to the clerks. I do not think that this was an easy report for them to compile, but they really did a truly excellent job. However, this is an important debate about how we manage people who we sent to prison, but more importantly, what happens to them when they transition back into our community. The expansion of electronic monitoring has the potential to make community justice more effective by increasing the options available to manage and monitor those people leaving prison. Significant rehabilitation and public safety benefits can be gained by transitioning someone back into society with the ability to monitor them through electronic monitoring. However, those benefits can never be allowed to overshadow the public's right to be protected. Public safety must be paramount and it must trump all other considerations. I think that that was tragically demonstrated by the circumstances of Craig McClellan's murder. The failure and the management of offenders can have devastating and disastrous consequences, so it is vital that we learn the lessons from the McClellan case. When the cabinet secretary was before the committee, I reflected my own feelings of having failed to ask the right questions when we were first considering this. I failed to ask the question of what happens when people currently breach those orders when they are on electronic tags. I think that that was a significant omission. One, I think that the committee corrected it, but I think that the Government too must recognise its failure to consider some of those elements in this bill and the need to re-examination how effectively those orders are being used and indeed how effective electronic monitoring is. It is clear from the HMICS and HMIPS reports that there were profound systemic failures in terms of process, interagency communication and, most fundamentally, monitoring of people on HDC within the current system. The HMIPS report indicated that a robust assessment process to help to identify which prisoners are most suitable for electronic monitoring was not in place and that SPS was not funded or staffed to undertake a more detailed multidisciplinary approach that was required. It highlighted that those making decisions to release an individual on HDC did not have access to all the relevant information, making it difficult for them to come to an informed decision. Let me be clear. While we support the broad aims and principles of the legislation from those Labour benches, I feel that it would be a dereliction of our duty as Opposition members not to fully scrutinise whether the bill has adequately addressed the issues raised by both reports as the bill progresses. Importantly, I am unconvinced that the changes as a matter of policy or indeed the new offence that the cabinet secretary has proposed will be sufficient. I think that there are a number of recommendations made both by HMICS and HMIPS that may well require provision on the face of the bill or certainly that will be enhanced by further legislative means. In particular, action on recommendations 5 and 14 of the HMIPS report and recommendations 1 and 9 of the HMICS need to be examined as to whether statutory guidance and clarification of statutory rules of agencies would help to make the system more robust. I would argue that there needs to be a robust reporting regime, not just of the use of those measures but of the offences that are committed by those who are subject to them. That need for improved data is underlined by recommendation 21 in the HMIPS report. Furthermore, recommendation 11, suggesting that a suspension of HDC for those who are giving an address outside Scotland must also give cause for thought as to whether that is ever appropriate, given the inter-jurisdictional issues that have been identified. The improvements that we need to see will not solely be addressed through legislation, but, likewise, there is a responsibility on all of us following the tragic circumstances of Craig McLean's death that we ensure that this bill is as robust as it needs to be and acts on the very serious faults that were found through these investigations. However, as a whole, I also believe that this bill represents something of a missed opportunity. Much as my colleague Liam Kerr set out, there are three separate components that I think may have been better to be examined on their own and more holistically. Evidence strongly suggests that managing and monitoring offenders in the community can only ever be successful if it is part of a broader rehabilitation support package. A simple extension of electronic tagging by itself is far too narrow. The success of electronic monitoring will depend on adequate budgets being in place for criminal and social work and the availability of wider services that support people who are subject to such measures. It is extremely disappointing, in my view, that this bill does little to address the underlying causes of re-offending. It fails to look at the broader issues of housing, healthcare, employment and other support measures that should be made available to those leaving prisons. My conversation with prison services and organisations such as the Wires Group and Positive Prisons, in particular, I pay tribute and thanks to the Wires Group for making it possible for me to shadow one of their prisoner mentors, which was certainly a very revealing experience for me, but they support the view that we need to have a broader set of changes if we are serious about reform. That is why Labour will be bringing forward—of course. Liam Kerr. I am very grateful and I will be brief. In terms of what we do going forward, does the member agree with us that it should always be an offence for cutting a tag off? Daniel Johnson I think that there are some very compelling reasons to consider that point. The fundamental point is that those who are released subject to a condition such as those set out in HDC, i.e. where electronic monitoring is a substitute for incarceration, we have to treat the conditions of that as similar to that prison, i.e. we have to treat someone in breach as though they have gone over the prison wall. That is the seriousness with which we should treat breaching of those conditions. In terms of the wider reform aspects, we cannot simply expect people to leave prison without knowing where they are going to live or how they are going to access medical services or how they are going to support themselves and assume that they are not going to re-offend. To do so is simply to set them up for failure. That is an absolute dereliction of our responsibilities. In conclusion, the expansion of electronic monitoring has some significant potential to improve our justice system, but we must go much further than the bill currently does in order to achieve that. Let me be clear, Scottish Labour will be supporting the bill at stage 1, but that support is not unqualified nor is it unequivocal. That legislation requires further testing and further scrutiny to ensure that it upholds the recommendations that the two reports from HMICS and HMIPS have made very, very clear. John Finnie, six minutes please. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. The Scottish reading party will be dorshing the principles of the bill tonight. Indeed, it is very supportive of the direction of travel and the growing acknowledgement of the ineffectiveness of short-term prison sentences. Of course, we all agree that there needs to be credible alternatives, first and foremost, to prosecution and then to custody and that we are making sure that the appropriate people are locked up and those who might otherwise not require to be in custody have alternatives. Of course, the key to that is the resource. One of the challenges that I accept, and I think with good grace the other opposition parties will accept too, is that albeit we have asked, it is going to be very difficult to quantify when that resource transfer takes place. Do we take one prison out of the equation and alter it? As long as we have the bricks and mortar, then we are going to have that challenge. That challenge is also about the volume of court work that takes place. The comment about the pivotal role that criminal justice social work plays in issues in which we talk about getting a summary of the reasons why a conviction has been upheld. Of course, that would be unnecessary if we had a criminal justice social worker in every court, for every trial, following every case with an intimate knowledge of the individual that is coming there. There are significant resources that are required, but that is not to say that in the long term there are not savings to be made. Fairly early on in his speech, the cabinet secretary talked about the role of prevention. That is key. The issues that colleagues Daniel Johnson talks about and some of the causes behind that. Of course, housing, employment and welfare issues are a pivotal part of that. I think that some of my colleagues have made it a bit critical of the format of the bill. Yes, we sometimes get odd things joined together, but I think that overall there is a criminal justice element to all parts of that. I want to touch on the issue—first of all, commend the early intervention, obviously, as has been a key part. We heard from Leanne Cullen of the Edinburgh Bar Association that it would be very concerning if a private company would hold a person's alcohol and drug use. The extension to GPS, the ability to monitor the situation of someone's alcohol and drug consumption, may seem a very straightforward issue. However, it was not just the Edinburgh Bar Association, and we heard from Dr Hannah Graham from the Scottish Centre for Criminal Justice Research, who highlighted the fact that the privatised model that currently applies in Scotland and, indeed, in England and Wales is out of step with other places where we would look, and we talked this week about the Barnhouse model. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands—progressive countries such as that—is a public service. It is not something that profit is associated with, and it is someone who is deeply offended by the idea that people would profit from their involvement in the criminal justice system. I hope that that is something that the cabinet secretary will pick up on. It is certainly something that I may well return at stage 2 regarding. Of course, it is not just the private bar association versus public. It is about the growing volume of data that is available there and the perennial issues of it, who has access to it, the period of retention, and, of course, we already know that, at the moment, with the existing arrangement, there are challenges regarding the situation whereby an offender who is out in the community may find himself in a hospital, and there is not that level of—anyway. It is not as if the existing arrangements are not sufficiently challenging. I hope that that is something that the cabinet secretary may call on. Of course, concerns have been voiced as well by the appropriate oversight body for the information commissioners. It must only be processed for law enforcement purposes, and elsewhere we hear—I think that it is article 8—a suggestion of the challenges that there may be around about that. I think that it is a very pertinent fact that I hope that you will pick up. I want to talk about the astonishing turnaround in figures in the short time that I have. A 75 per cent reduction in granting the removal from a presumption in favour to presumption against the tragic events that all of us would give our sympathy for, we must not have a risk aversed public sector. It is throw away the key if we do not—there is nothing, as the convener acknowledged, that is entirely risk-free. What we want is informed decisions made with the best possible information, the timely information. I hope that we see a turnaround on that. That is not simply a fear that a risk assessment is going to be a tick box, it is not going to be able to pick up on the peculiarities of any individual circumstances and the wide range of factors that may impact on the likelihood of them breaching. Indeed, the particular trying circumstances may find themselves in whilst in hospital. I do not know how long—is there more time, Presiding Officer? Oh, I am so sorry, Mr Finlay. I was involved in something else. It is terribly important. Yes, I can give you an extra minute. Okay, thank you very much indeed. In the short time that is left, I want to talk about the disclosure of convictions. The spent convictions, I think that it is very important to say that there is a wide recognition that that is progress, but equally it would be wrong to say in somewhere about the many notes that I have. There are those, indeed, the Howard league, Dr Rayam again, who say that we could go further on that. We want a situation where people leave custody without stigma. I absolutely commend, as others have, the words of Dr Marcer Scott in relation to that and the significant difference that there is around domestic abuse issues. I will leave it there, Presiding Officer, because it is very important. Thank you very much indeed. Liam McArthur, seven minutes. Oh, sorry. I am all over the place this afternoon. Six minutes, please. I will not pass a comment on that, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like others, let me start by thanking colleagues, Spice the Clerks, for their support in our scrutiny of this important bill, and all those who have written in oral evidence have informed that scrutiny process. Daniel Johnson and others have reminded us that it has taken us rather longer to get to this point following the committee's decision to delay proceedings pending the outcome of the two inquiries commissioned by the justice secretary into the tragic circumstances surrounding the brutal murder of Craig Maclellan. That was absolutely right and proper. Clearly, there is a limit to how far the bill can provide the answers to the Maclellan family of rightly seeking, but that also only goes to underscore the need for a fatal accident inquiry into that case. We now know that there are 127 outstanding FAIs going back as far as 2010, and the impact that those delays have on the families who have lost loved ones is unimaginable, but it also prevents lessons being learned and where necessary law is being changed, and that cannot be right or acceptable. In terms of the bill, however, we need to be careful in managing expectations about what electronic monitoring can and will achieve. Ultimately, what we are talking about here is monitoring and management rather than control and prevention. Moreover, as we heard repeatedly in evidence, without other support in place, measures can do little to help to rehabilitate and reintegrate. It is critical that the bill is properly explained and understood. If the Government and its agencies do not get that communication right, there is a real risk of undermining public confidence. Of course, at the heart of decisions around whether electronic monitoring is appropriate lie assessments and judgments of risk. For those assessments to be robust, information and expertise must be appropriately gathered and shared. For example, seeking the views from everyone who may be affected, including family members, will be important in assessing suitability of any individual for electronic monitoring. Meanwhile, as I think the convener reminded us, it was concerning to hear criminal justice social workers in compiling reports. They are often reliant on information provided by an offender in the absence of summaries of evidence narrated in court. That needs addressing. The committee also heard evidence from various witnesses about the importance of ensuring that breaches carry consequences. Victim support Scotland talked about the need for, quote, clear implications for infringement of a buffer zone. While Karen McCluskey of community justice Scotland observed that, quote, non-compliance needs to be dealt with robustly, otherwise it will just increase. Those calls are understandable, as is the case that was made by Police Scotland for creating a separate offence of remaining unlawfully at large. That was given added weight by the findings of the two inspectorate reports last autumn. However, as the law society rightly cautioned, the detail of any such provision will need careful and robust scrutiny, as will be proposed for extending police powers in relation to entry and search. I have no difficulty at all in looking to see how we improve the provisions of the bill in that area, but I suspect that we may need to take further oral evidence on the specifics of whatever the Government comes forward with at stage 2. Turning to another couple of concerns that were raised repeatedly during our evidence gathering, let me start with the need to avoid electronic monitoring simply being added to existing community sentences. It was reassuring to hear the justice secretary acknowledge the risk of what the Howard League and others referred to as up-tariffing. Ultimately, electronic monitoring should be about supporting efforts to find robust alternatives to imprisonment, not merely add-ons to restrictions on those already deemed suitable for community sentences. The second recurrent theme was that electronic monitoring will only be effective if used alongside other support that has been referred to by all colleagues so far. Families outside felt, for example, that the bill focused solely on surveillance and monitoring, adding that, without structured supports in place, electronic monitoring becomes a purely punitive measure that fails to address the reasons for the offending or to reduce the likelihood of breach due to pressures of unstable housing, substance misuse, poverty, chaotic environments and damaging relationships, such as a salutary warning and, again, something to be addressed at stage 2. I am also keen to explore further how far we might go in using electronic monitoring to reduce the high numbers that are held in prison on remand. I recognise that including that as a bail provision is not straightforward, but, as the law society reminds us, it would provide a cheaper and more efficient method of monitoring, rather than imprisonment, with all the disruption to work, family relationships, housing and so on that entails. Finally, on this aspect of the bill, I would like to record my anxiety about what we have seen in terms of the massive reduction in the use of home detention curfews over recent months, and I think that I would echo the concerns that were expressed by John Finnie. The reasons for this are perhaps not entirely clear at this stage, but it does appear to now be the case that there is greater risk aversion within the system, while the categories of offends where HGC cannot now be considered have also undoubtedly had an effect. I understand why that is the case, but moving away from a system that allows for a managed transition of offenders back into the community carries inherent risks, both in terms of rehabilitation but also in terms of the added pressure on staff and prisoners and in a state that we know is already in some places bursting at the scene. Various witnesses argued for keeping this under review, and I agree and welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to keep the committee updated on the work that he has commissioned in relation to HGCs. While much of the attention at stage 1 has focused on electronic monitoring provisions, the bill also covers changes to disclosure and, to a limited extent, parole board. In the case of the approach that matches that taken south of the border, it is reasonable proportionate as the potential to simplify rules around disclosure. That will depend on the successive efforts to promote public understanding of what should be disclosed when and in what circumstances. Ultimately, we know that people can and do stop offending and that employment is a key factor in assistance. In the interests of public safety, therefore, by reducing the barriers to employment, we reduce the risks of reinfending. In that regard, I hope that we can also see an end to the tick box used by some employers pre-interview. Deputy Presiding Officer, there are a range of issues that need addressing before this bill concludes its passage through Parliament. For now, however, I can confirm that Scottish-level Democrats will be supporting the principles of this bill this evening. Thank you. We will move on now to the open debate in its speeches of six minutes. I have a little bit of leeway that I can use to allow for interventions. It is Rona Mackay, followed by Maurice Corry. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As we have heard, the bill is fairly complex in parts, and it is quite hard to distill down to six minutes, but I will try to capture each of the three main areas of the bill's remit. Firstly, as deputy convener of the Justice Committee, I add my thanks to the clerks for all their hard work, producing an accurate account of the evidence that we have heard over many months, and to all those who gave evidence. The bill brings out a number of reforms that I believe are badly needed to ensure that Scotland's justice system retains its focus on prevention and rehabilitation while enhancing support for victims. Part 1, as we have heard, expands and streamlies the uses of electronic monitoring. As the policy memorandum states, the expansion of electronic monitoring supports the broader community justice policies of preventing and reducing re-offending by increasing the options available to manage and monitor offenders in the community, and to further protect public safety, which is paramount. The cabinet secretary stressed this more than once during his opening speech. The introduction of new technologies such as global positioning system GPS technology presents opportunities to improve the effectiveness of electronic monitoring, for example, through the use of exclusion or inclusion zones that will offer victims significant reassurance. Nancy Laux, chief executive of families outside, said that electronic monitoring offers a valuable tool for reducing the use of imprisonment. Prison fractures families, whereas with the right support in the right place, electronic monitoring can keep families together, thereby maintaining social support and reducing the risk of further offending. However, as the convener outlined, women's aid has raised some concerns around GPS in regard to the safety of women and children in domestic abuse situations, where the perpetrator can be seen to move freely outside the exclusion zones or to continue to use other means of contact such as text, emails or social media. I believe that this is an area that has to be carefully considered by means of constructive amendments at stage 2 of the bill. We know that we are locking up too many people, and the high use of remand accounts for Scotland being among the most punitive nations in Western Europe. There are around 8,000 prisoners in Scotland, and remand prisoners make up around 19 per cent of the prison population. Remand prisoners account for around 27 per cent of deaths by suicide in custody. Despite efforts, most notably Dame Elish Angiolini's 2011 review. I wonder if my colleague Rona Mackay would agree with me that it is shocking that the rate of entry on the grounds of remand in Scotland is almost twice as high as the rest of Europe—about 18 per cent per cent, I think, and there is something around half that for most of the other OECD countries. Rona Mackay? I absolutely agree that it is shocking, and it is something that we seriously need to address. I hope that the trajectory that we are on will address that. Despite Dame Elish Angiolini's 2011 review, which reported that women in prison are likely to be victims as well as offenders, with 53 per cent having experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child, the number of women remanded has been rising steadily over the past 40 years. 75 per cent of those women do not go on to be convicted. That is unacceptable and, in my opinion, an abuse of human rights. However, electronic monitoring on remand is not currently included in the bill, but the committee has heard persuasive evidence that it should be. I look forward to the cabinet secretary's comments on that in his closing speech. I am aware that the Government is proposing to introduce a pilot project to test its use, and I appreciate some information on that, too. The expansion of electronic monitoring is part of the Scottish Government's continued development of community-based alternatives to prison. Scotland's communities have benefited from around 7 million hours of unpaid work by people serving community pay back orders since their introduction in 2011. From gritting roads in cold weather, refurbishing and redecorating local facilities, they have paid dividends to both the offender and the community. Furthermore, reconviction rates for those released from a short prison sentence are almost double to those in payback orders. Strong evidence that the Government's plan to lay the order to extend the presumption against short prison sentences from three to 12 months is justified. Liam Kerr Is not the member concerned, though, that the expansion to CPOs would come at a time when one in three is never completed? Rona Mackay It is not as high as that, but it is not a reason to go down the road, because it is not a reason to go down the road, and that would be a separate issue that we would have to deal with. As we have heard, the cabinet secretary has indicated that he is considering the introduction of a new offensive unlawfully at large following the tragic murder in 2017 of Craig McClelland. The Government approved all recommendations in the subsequent two reports, which resulted in a drop of HDC releases of almost 75 per cent from around 20 to 30 a week to around seven, as John Finnie highlighted. The committee is calling for an early review on whether we have the right balance, but it was interesting to hear the cabinet secretary's remarks and his opening statement on that. For me and for the committee, risk assessment is crucial in the use of electronic monitoring, and that must be the top priority. Public safety is always paramount. Tackling breaches must also be addressed, and wider police powers of arrest may be necessary, which I am sure will be considered at stage 2. It has to be recognised that managing offenders by electronic monitoring or to successfully rehabilitate offenders must be backed up with resources to support them, and I agree entirely with Daniel Johnson's comments on that. The many fantastic organisations that do this need financial security if the new approach is to be successful. Part 2 of the bill relates to disclosure of convictions, and, as we have heard, it is the case that anyone with a previous conviction can be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives when they have completed their sentence. One particular concern raised by NACRO and other organisations was the tick box practice, where someone has to disclose a previous conviction at the initial application stage. NACRO stated that convictions should not in themselves rule people out of employment, and people should have a fair assessment without being automatically disbarred at the first stage. If you could draw to a conclusion please. A committee visit to the wise group confirmed that view powerfully. I just need to highlight again that, on the disclosure with regard to domestic abuse, where re-offending is particularly high, Scottish Women's Aid said that there must be a balance between the resettlement with offenders and the protection of the public. I haven't got time to answer that. In conclusion, the bill is part of the SNP's Government's wider work to reform the justice system, provide public safety and support victims. I ask the chamber to support those general principles. Maurice Corry, followed by Fulton MacGregor. I would first like to thank all those who have worked so hard to bring this bill to stage 1 today. I visited prisons and I have met offenders of all sorts, some in prisons for a few months and others with life sentences. Those offenders have families, aspirations and potential, just like the rest of us. Whilst having a responsibility for those offenders' rehabilitation, we have an equal responsibility to the victims of those crimes. Though the bill on management of offenders has changes for helping to reintegrate prisoners, it does not focus on victim safety as much as it should. We cannot overlook the safety of victims who are moving forward with this bill. As a spokesman and spokesperson for the Scottish Conservatives and a member of our justice team, I have committed to keeping communities safe and I have seen first hand the importance of security on a national and community level. In line with safety, the bill's three main elements, improving electronic monitoring, shortening disclosure times and streamlining the patrol board, should use risk assessment judiciously. I acknowledge the research that has gone into the bill, but further examination is needed to ensure that the bill does enough to improve the management of offenders and for the protection of our communities. I thank Maurice Corry and I will listen to the rest of his speech. Can he give an indication of what amendments he will or the Government wants to bring forward to give more weight to victim safety in all of this? It would be quite helpful at this stage if I was able to get specifics on that and come back at stage 2. I think that we should give more part of the police to make sure that when they are investigating crime and when they are protecting our communities, they are on the ball with that. Obviously, the appropriate procedure is put in place to make sure that the perpetrators of the crime are adhered to. As far as we are concerned, it is that we make sure that if we put in electronic monitoring, it is properly sorted and we must stop and reduce the amount that breaks the band off, the leg or whatever it is. I think that it is about managing the issue and being sensible about it. Part 1 of the bill outlines the changes for electronic monitoring. I support the bill in its step towards improving electronic monitoring, which is capable of not expanding its use. Since electronic monitoring's introduction, technology has significantly changed using the GPS system as a logical step in improving electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring in Scotland's working group report claims that increasing the number of individuals released on licence with electronic monitoring presents a unique opportunity to aid prisoner reintegration whilst maintaining an element of control. Again, we must be cautious, as I said to the cabinet secretary already about putting that and managing that system in. However, it is obvious that, in the wake of cases such as the Craig McLellan case, improvements are necessary in securing the safety of our citizens so horrendous and preventable crimes such as this do not happen again. I stand by the 2016 Conservative manifesto that life should mean life for some of the worst offenders who would not have the right to apply for parole. We must ensure that everything is done in wisdom and order and we cannot overlook the victims of these offenders. Using exclusion and inclusion zones through GPS monitoring can offer victims a greater safety reassurance, but it is still not enough. As I mentioned before, this is a twofold issue. We must keep communities safe and rehabilitate the offenders. By this logic, many argue that community centres are the best way forward for the prisoner, but justice cannot be denied. As one third of the community centres are not completed, surely it is questionable to expand their use. Victim support Scotland notes that communities have no faith in community centre and close quotes. That is not fair to victims nor is it just that offenders evade. What is both a punishment and a rehabilitation now will touch briefly on disclosures. It is staggering that 33 per cent of males and 10 per cent of females in Scotland are likely to have a criminal conviction. That does not mean that all people are hardened criminals. Much to the contrary, those people have to disclose their centres to employers, colleges, armed forces, universities and the like. According to the timetable set in place in the 1974 Disclosures Act. The world is a changed place since 1974, but much remains the same. Although we might not like to think so, employers could discriminate against someone with a criminal record when hiring them. Having disclosed spent sentences for long periods of time can have an on-going impact on career opportunities, education, opening a bank account, for example. That makes it difficult for those wanting to move on from the past offences to do so. Their crime was committed, a punishment was served, now that their time has been spent. It is not only compassionate but just that reformed offenders should be allowed to move on from their past offences. Justice is an on-going process, and I agree that it is only fair that past offenders who could benefit from this men actually do. To protect public safety, it is only correct that offences more serious in nature are disclosed in disclosure and barring checks. As for the parole board, it is only right that we see an update in its form and regulation. The parole board serves as an important role and is essential in managing the community risk of the offenders. Those who are separate from the bill are conserved as press to government on this issue in December last year. As a result, the Government plans to consult on the openness, transparency and victim involvement of the parole board. I have personally met members of the parole board and have seen the good work that they do. It is not an easy task to decide an offender's future, and the bill contains provision to improve their operations. In conclusion, through improving electronic monitoring, reducing disclosure times and streamlining the parole board, the management offender's bill could take a step in the right direction for a safer Scotland, but that is not enough, frankly. The bill seeks to reform offenders while overlooking the needs of victims. As the bill progresses, I welcome amendments that hold community safety and victim safety at the forefront, and I trust that the cabinet secretary will take action on those amendments. Fulton MacGregor, followed by Neil Bibby. It was a pleasure to be on the Justice Committee for at least the second round of evidence gathering for the bill. I was not on the committee at the time when the evidence was first called for, and I would like to put on record my thanks to the clerks. You will know that we had another debate in the chamber earlier in the week on the Vulnerable Witnesses Scotland Bill, and I think that it is credit to the clerking team to prepare two highly quality reports in the timescales that have been mentioned as a very busy committee. The bill, as others have said, allows for GPS to be used, preventing and reducing re-offending by managing people in the community and reducing time in prison. That is, of course, in line with the wider ideological issues for justice in Scotland. We know that, in general, rehabilitation is much more likely to be successful in the community. Restrictional liberty orders, as a forum of electronic monotone, have been used since. Daniel Johnson I thank my colleague for giving way on that point. On the sentiment about the use of electronic tag and reintegration, would he acknowledge the new inspector of prisons comments that we do not have the data on the effectiveness of those things? That is a deficiency, as it stands. Fulton MacGregor I thank the member for that intervention. I am just going on to talk about a restriction of liberty orders now, but I do recognise the lack of data as an issue. Restrictional liberty orders, as others have said, have been used since about 2002. In my opinion, they are quite effective. Compliance seems to be quite high with them. I take Daniel Johnson's point and know that we might need a wee bit more data on that. They are quite widely used by courts as an alternative to custody. However, the key thing that they do is allow people to continue other work that they are doing, perhaps through a community payback order, allowing them to address their offending behaviour rather than going into custody. It also allows them to maintain employment, if they have employment, and to maintain positive relationships. Two of the key factors that we know are crucial to reducing re-offending. As others have mentioned, we know that the evidence that was gathered was extended between November and January. That was due to the well-prompted tragic case of Craig McClellan. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has proposed that the risk assessment process should be strengthened to make decision-making procedures regarding home detention curfews. I also know that the cabinet secretary's statement that there will now be a presumption that individuals whose index of fines involves violence or knife crime will not, in normal circumstances, receive home detention curfew, and that they also intend to extend us to serious and organised crime. The committee was a wee bit unsure over where, because that is obviously the index of fines for which somebody is serving a sentence, but we were not sure if there was past offences that might have come under those categories, where that would fit in. I suppose that that is why the assessment process is absolutely crucial. We heard from James and maybe from Social Work Scotland who is pretty clear that electronic monitoring is not a panacea. I think that everybody in the committee agreed with that. It is not for every single case. We need to take into account the wider impacts, particularly, if somebody is on a community payback order. I will just talk about community payback orders here, but I mentioned Liam Kerr's intervention on my colleague Ronan Mackay. The stats were out this week for 2017-18. 70 per cent of community payback orders are complete, which is roughly what you are saying at 30 per cent, but you have to look at the wide range of circumstances why that might not be the case, as opposed to being a failure of the system, and 70 per cent is probably quite a good mark. Have I got time, Presiding Officer? That's up to you, Mr Mackay. I'm going to have to leave it. I've already taken one. I know I mentioned you, so I apologise. Risk assessment, in my view, needs to take into account the whole circumstances and have access to relevant information for other areas. I know that we've talked here about the evidence that social work reports would often just only hear what the individual had to say. I don't think that that would be very often, in the case certainly not in my experience, but I do accept that more and more way the majority of the information for a report is given to the individual interview. One of the things that we looked at a lot was the risk to others. If somebody is placed on an electronic monitoring device, they might be placed at home. What sort of risk do they pose to others? There could be children in the house, child protection situations, there could be a domestic abuse element, which I know that colleagues are going to speak about, and the very nature of domestic abuse might not be detected. Therefore, an individual who is perpetuating domestic abuse against his partner is then in the house, I think that we need to look at that. I do see that I'm running out of time, Presiding Officer, but tackling breaches is something that we took a lot of evidence on. I think that the creation of a new offence, I welcome that. I welcome what the cabinet secretary said in his opening statement. I hear what the other parties are saying as well, but I think that we've got to reach some sort of compromise on that. For breaches to happen, there's an alcohol and drug issue present, so we really need to be mindful of that. In this country, we treat addiction as a health concern, more than a justice concern, so we really need to look at that as well. I have a couple of things to say about the parole board as well, Presiding Officer, but I do see that I'm out of time, so I'd simply end by urging the whole chamber to back the principles of the bill at stage 1. Neil Bibby, followed by Shona Robison. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to the Justice Committee members for preparing their report. The bill is an important piece of legislation, important not just because it provides for modernisation and form of how offenders are managed, but because it is an opportunity to strengthen the law too, particularly the law in relation to electronic monitoring and home detention curfews, which I want to focus on this afternoon. It's an opportunity that must not be missed. There have been clear gaps in the law and gaps in the system that must be addressed. As has been said, the committee supports in principle the introduction of a new offence of being unlawfully at large when a HDC is breached, as do I. On the question of resources, it's clear that the electronic monitoring alone is not sufficient, and it must be provided alongside other forms of monitoring and intervention. The committee has quite rightly called for greater clarity on the additional resources that will be made available to the risk management authority, local authorities and others to make a new approach work. The committee has also stated that it is not immediately obvious where the extra resources will come from. In addition, like Daniel Johnson and others, I would also suggest that there are a number of areas where the Scottish Government could go further, enhance public reporting of the use of home detention curfews and independent monitoring, and avoid jurisdictional issues by requiring that to be eligible for HDC and address in Scotland that has been properly assessed must be provided. Crucially, we must ensure that there is always thorough risk assessment of HDCs. Serious consideration should be given to how those risk assessments could be made independently as opposed to being conducted only by overstretched and under-pressure prison service staff. The bill has to deliver a far better system of managing offenders in practice. John Finnie? I am grateful for the member for taking the intervention, but the member not acknowledged that there is a role at present for criminal justice social work in the compilation of those risk assessments. Neil Bibby? I acknowledge that. I think that we just need to look further about how we can strengthen that process and make it more independent, as I have said. The bill has to deliver a far better system of managing offenders in practice. As members have said, it is also much to deliver a system that carries the confidence of the public victims and law-abiding families such as the family of Craig McClelland. My community was shot by Craig's tragic murder, a family man going about his own business one evening and paisley killed in an unprovoked attack. Killed by a man previously convicted of knife offences who had been unlawful at large for five months, having broken his tag. One of the most important duties of any Government, the police and the prison service is to keep the public safe. The policy memorandum makes perfectly the need to balance the provisions in part 1 of the bill against the need to further protect public safety. In the McClelland case, that duty was failed with tragic circumstances. Now there are free children who will grow up without their father. The committee report on HDC sentences states that the public has the right to be protected as far as possible against the risk that someone will re-offend. That simply did not happen in this case. No member of my community or any other should ever have to have been failed in the way that Craig McClelland was. No family should have to go through what Craig's have. No family should have to fight like they have just to get some answers to understand not just what happened to Craig but, most importantly, why it happened. Two process reviews by HMIPS and HMICS have confirmed that there have been significant failings leading up to Craig's death but only said so much. The family have been left with more questions than answers. They know that something has gone terribly wrong, but what went wrong and why they came to pass has never, to their mind, been fully and properly detailed, explained and exposed. What answers they have been able to get they simply cannot trust. Such has been the loss of confidence in the system that they should be able to turn to in times like this. To ensure that lessons are learned so that no other family has to go through what they did, close family members of the McClelland family called for a full independent inquiry. An inquiry very clearly in the public interest and hugely relevant to the debate that we are having today about the future of electronic monitoring. The chamber will be aware that the justice secretary is resisting a public inquiry into the circumstances leading to the murder of Craig McClelland. Like many others, I believe that that refusal is without good reason. However, families should have a right to answers and should not have to plead to ministers for action and a full inquiry. It should be automatic. Craig's father Michael has now written to the Lord Advocate asking him to instruct a fatal accident inquiry, and I welcome the support for that from members across the chamber. I hope that the Lord Advocate will agree and give the case full and sympathetic consideration. However, the battle that the family are going through for an inquiry just serves to illustrate another weakness in legislation. If a prisoner in a custodial setting were to murder another, then there is no question that there would be a fatal accident inquiry. Any death in prison custody could lead to a fatal accident inquiry under the 2016 act. If that is the case for deaths on the prison estate, why do we not apply similar standards to deaths caused by prisoners serving their sentence or part of their sentence on an HDC? I am prepared to bring forward amendments to the bill at stage 2 to that effect. I will seek to amend the bill to ensure that inquiries would be mandatory in tragic cases such as the Craig McClellan murder. How can we be confident in the solutions that are brought forward to make HDCs work right if we do not fully learn the lessons when they have gone so wrong? Families have been let down so awfully and need to have confidence in the system and confidence in the bill. The bill might plug gaps and fix some of the weaknesses in electronic monitoring and HDCs, but will it fundamentally strengthen the way that we manage offenders and improve public safety? We cannot have confidence in the system until we know for sure that lessons have fully been learned. Shona Robison, followed by Jeremy Balfour. To have a truly fair and progressive criminal justice system for Scotland, it is fundamentally important that we get our management of offenders right. The bill has the potential to transform Scotland's approach to criminal justice. It focuses on the prevention and rehabilitation of offenders, as well as enhancing support for victims. The bill also furthers the Scottish Government's ambition to reform Scotland's justice system to a more progressive model. The Government has already demonstrated this approach through a number of initiatives. It has established clear guidance on the rights of victims of crime under the Victims Code for Scotland. It is developing community custody units to rehabilitate women offenders and hearing the end of their sentences, helping them to transition back into society. Just this week, it has taken forward legislation to protect vulnerable witnesses, particularly child witnesses, in a bill that I am pleased to say was backed unanimously by this Parliament on Tuesday. The management of offenders bill furthers this approach. It is an approach that is built on evidence, compassion and justice. I have spoken before in the chamber on the importance of electronic monitoring as an alternative to remand sentencing, so I am pleased to see that part 1 of the bill expands on this. Expanding the use of electronic monitoring has the potential to prevent and reduce re-offending in Scotland. Although I think a point about the data collection that has been made as a valid one and one that needs to be pursued, electronic monitoring offers a community-based alternative to prison sentencing, an alternative that is consistent with our presumption against short-term sentencing. We know that short-term prison sentencing has the potential to significantly disrupt families and impact on, for example, housing security. We also know that offenders held in custody for 12 months or less are nearly twice as likely to re-offend compared to those given community-based alternatives. Electronic monitoring is an opportunity to manage and monitor offenders effectively, although, importantly, protecting and ensuring public safety. I acknowledge the comments that have been made, particularly—I think that we are all particularly mindful of the tragic case of Craig McClellan—and public safety has to be at the court and has to be the overriding priority here. However, I believe that it is possible with some of the reforms in the bill to achieve that and to minimise risk. The implementation of GPS technology also offers the potential to improve the effectiveness of electronic monitoring through the use of exclusion or inclusion zones. The benefits of that are obvious, but, of course, it should only ever be used where appropriate. To that end, I am pleased that the bill also provides guidance on the appropriate use of the technology and that risk assessments must be made. It follows that Scotland should follow the evidence and pursue a results-based approach. I believe that the bill does that. I also note that there are reforms that the bill makes to the disclosure of criminal convictions. It is important to note, however, that the bill does not impact upon higher-level disclosures, nor proposes abolishing the need for a disclosure process altogether. What the bill does is support the ambition of reintegrating and rehabilitating previous offenders, as well as recognising the stigma that is often attached to previous convictions. That ambition was supported by a majority of the evidence given to the Justice Committee, and the proposals in the bill have been developed through consultation and dialogue with stakeholders. Criminal record disclosure can be a significant barrier when trying to secure employment. Job applicants can face stigma and discrimination, making it much harder to reintegrate into society. If we truly desire our criminal justice system to be rehabilitative and believe in the principle of opportunities for reintegration into the workforce when we have to ensure that we address that, a balanced approach is required. I believe that the bill helps us to achieve a more balanced approach. The bill deals with a number of other reforms, most notably in relation to the functions and structure of the parole board for Scotland, by delivering on some of the aims of the parole reform programme. It is important, however, to stress that the parole board will continue to act independently, and that is important. Those reforms will simplify and modernise the parole board's processes, as well as ensuring greater consistency in the application of parole decisions. The commitment to strengthening the voice of victims and their families in both parole and temporary release is to be welcomed. That supports the principle that victims must be heard and listened to. I note in the programme for government that it includes a commitment to increase the transparency of Scotland's parole system, and that it will be consulting on proposals to do this later this year. I look forward to hearing more with regard to those proposals from the justice secretary in due course. As I said at the start of my speech, the way in which we treat offenders in Scotland will define our criminal justice system. It must be fair and just, not just to offenders, but also to their victims. To that end, I am pleased that the programme for government also commits to a number of reforms to support the victims of crime, particularly in partnership with Victim Support Scotland. That builds upon the work of the Victims and Witnesses Scotland Act 2014, the Victims Code for Scotland, and £18 million at the Scottish Government spends each year to support the victims of crime through agencies such as Victim Support Scotland. That is the balanced approach that we seek for Scotland's justice system. We all share a belief that the system should aspire to be fair for everyone, for victims and for offenders where possible. That bill represents another step in the Scottish Government's work to transform and continually improve the criminal justice system. As a member of the justice committee, I welcome it. I call Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Bob Doris. I do not have the pleasure of sitting on the committee that has done all the hard work. When I came to read the stage 1 report, I came with it perhaps with some fresh eyes and was very interested in what had been proposed and the evidence that was taken by the committee. I congratulate the convener and her committee for a very thorough report, which fleshed out a lot of the ideas and concepts behind the bill. As previous speakers have spoken, we will be supporting the stage 1 report, but that comes with a number of caveats. At stage 2 and stage 3, the Government still has some work to do. The slight danger of coming at this stage in any debate is that a lot of issues have already been fleshed out by people with more expertise than me, but I hope that in the next few moments I can concentrate particularly on the electronic monitoring system. I welcome the new technology that is out there. I am still slightly concerned and was interested to read that the police monitor it not in real time. If someone breaks the curfew or goes out even with a tag on, the police are not aware of that until after the event has occurred. I am grateful to the member for taking that information. Will the member accept that Axelix is not the police that is monitoring, but it is a private commercial company? I accept that the private company do it on behalf of the state, but the point is that it is not happening in real time. I think that with the change in technology and the way that technology is working, I would ask the Scottish Government to look again to see whether that is possible. Victims, particularly vulnerable victims, would be much more happy to know that if a reoffence was going to occur, the agency or the police knew about that and could intervene earlier. I will make a bill of progress and come back if that is okay. The second issue is that, as someone who is not involved heavily in this area, and as I read the report, I was surprised that the Government had it moved that the cutting of a tag would not be an automatic offence. I do think that the overwhelming majority of the public would expect that to occur. I know that the minister has made comments in his opening speech about that. I would urge him and the Government to look again at that. For me, there needs to be a blanket offence that the appropriate punishment happens if we break the offence by cutting the tag. The same would be true in regard to bail conditions. For me, it is to say that some offences are different from others. I welcome what the minister has said in his opening speech, but I would push him to go further in regard to that. If I could move on to the issue around bail, many years ago I spent a whole year instructing advocates to do bail appeals up in the High Court in Edinburgh. Bail appeals were interesting to me because it never seemed to be completely logical who would get bail and who would not. However, I was again interested to read that the cabinet secretary's predecessor, in when he gave evidence to the committee about electronic monitoring and bail, did not think that that was an appropriate way to go. I understand from the report that the study was done about 12 years ago, and that study did not seem to give enough evidence to show that it would be an appropriate way for bail. Clearly, things have moved on in 12 years. Again, I would be interested to know whether the cabinet secretary would look at a fresh pilot scheme to see whether that is an appropriate way for electric tagging to take place. I think that victims, particularly those who have been assorted or faced a fairly serious crime, would know that somebody who was being tagged and could be monitored would give them the reassurances that they wanted. As I draw my remarks to the conclusion, I can welcome some of the reforms around the parol body. I agree that we are absolutely shown the option that we need to keep the parol body independent and that it must not be interfered with by politicians. Again, I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has made comments in his opening speech, but I think that there needs to be more say to victims and families. I recognise previous comments that there is already that within the system, but I know many victims who feel isolated when it comes to the parol board. I also think that keeping my independence, which I have said, is totally welcome. I think that there needs to be a bit more accountability on how the parol board reaches their decisions and why they come to those decisions. That does not mean that we should be jumping up at FMQs every time, questioning the parol board's decision. However, I think that, particularly for families and for the victims of crime, to have that accountability in a more public way would be beneficial. I wish to speak in this afternoon's debate in part on the relation to what is not in the bill, but what is in it. I will return to that matter later. My comments this afternoon will be in particular a reference to the work of the parol board. There are elements of the reform in part 3 of the bill regarding the parol board. I agree with the committee on the description of those that are limited. For instance, the bill removes the requirement to have a high court judge or a psychiatrist sitting on it. I also note that the committee is said to be broadly supportive of those reforms more generally. However, as the cabinet secretary has acknowledged, those reforms must be seen in conjunction with a consultation and reforms that the parol board launched in December 2019 last year. I also agree with the committee that it is unfortunate that those proposals are not being considered in the round with what emerges from that wider consultation. That, of course, is not a reason to reject the proposals contained within the bill, but it remains unfortunate. We must remember that the principal role of the parol board relates to the possible release of a prisoner once that part of the sentence that relates to punishment and deterrence has been served in custody. However, crucially, the parol board is charged with assessing whether the level and nature of any risk that a prisoner still presents at that point can be safely managed within the community. That is crucial, of course, as it sets the rights of the prisoner being considered for release alongside the rights of wider communities that we serve and society in general. The Scottish Governance programme for government states that it will ensure that victims and their families have better information and greater support ahead of prison release arrangements. Given the tragic stories that our families have heard about here this afternoon—not least of all the tragic murder of Craig McClellan from Paisley—if we do not get the provisions in part 1 of the bill right, then, of course, we risk creating a whole new set of victims. However, I strongly believe that the opportunity exists to have a more safe community disposal and to reduce re-offending by using the bill wisely. I absolutely believe that that is what the outcome can be. In that context, however, I wish to repeat the committee's recommendation in part 1 that electric monitoring should only be used after a comprehensive assessment of risk, particularly for those individuals who would otherwise be incarcerated. I will make no comment of the robustness or review of any comprehensive risk assessment, but I would rather thank the committee that has looked at those matters in some detail for the work that it is doing. However, there has to be strong public confidence in such risk assessments. We must also acknowledge what Margaret Mitchell, convener of the committee, said. I have very thoughtful speech from John Finnie MSP that risk is never fully unlimited, but we do not lock people up and throw away the key. We do not do that as a society. However, I would put on record my support for opportunities that technology allows us with electronic monitoring. Of course, I will also follow closely because it came up earlier in the debate that the Scottish Government's consideration of the specific concern of offence of unlawfully at large. Regarding part 3 of the bill once more, as I said at the start of my speech, this has much to do with what is not in the bill but what is in the bill. In relation to the on-going consultation regarding the pro-board and the role of victims, we need to ensure the commitment to better information referred to and the very welcoming hands, openness and transparency that the Scottish Government wishes for victims and families is meaningful, is interactive, involves a dialogue and does more than a tick box exercise. In that regard, I commend the committee's conclusion to ask the pro-board to consider the wider impact of their decisions, particularly on victims and how victims can be given a voice in the process. The committee also notes that this will be a key part of the consultation. I would like to go further than that. I would ask that the Scottish Government give consideration in certain circumstances to how witnesses can also be included in that process. Let me explain. Imagine that you are a key witness, a crucial witness and a most serious criminal trial. Your evidence has been instrumental in securing a sound conviction. Your identity is known to the perpetrator. Perhaps you knew the perpetrator. That person may be released from prison under certain parole conditions. Wouldn't that witness wish to be notified of impending release? Wouldn't that witness like to seek support and reassurances? Wouldn't they also want that information and transparency? So I would ask the Scottish Government to give that serious and significant consideration and take this contribution that is part of that wider consultation that is actually on-going. Finally, I commend the Scottish Government that it is establishing a support service with Victim Support Scotland to give families bereaved by murder and culpable homicide dedicated and continued support. I understand that this will also be open to those bereaved by such acts overseas and I welcome this, a matter that I am particularly interested in. I have enjoyed listening to the debate more than I have contributing to it because I have not sat on the committee and I do not have that granular knowledge of the issues raised. However, I wanted to raise one specific issue, Cabinet Secretary, in relation to the role of witnesses as well as victims. In that spirit, I am happy to, I certainly hope, the Parliament will agree the general principles of the bill before us here this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Doris. I call Mary Fee to be followed by Jenny Gilruth and Ms Fee as the penultimate speaker in the open debate. Ms Fee, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin my remarks today by supporting the points that were made by my colleague Neil Bibby on the tragic case of Craig McClelland and I also welcome the comments made by other members across the chamber showing their support for Craig McClelland's family. The family of Mr McClelland deserve answers and the debate today should serve as a reminder to us all that the management and monitoring of offenders is important to protect the public and support rehabilitation for those who need it and for those who deserve it. It is also a reminder that the management of offenders can impact on more than just the offender. I welcome the general principles of the management of offenders Scotland bill and I want to thank the justice committee for a very informative and a very thorough stage 1 report. The contributions from those in the criminal justice sector and from third sector groups have given us a greater insight into the needs of this bill, whilst also detailing how we can improve the support for offenders, for their families and for the community as a whole. The changes proposed in this bill to electronic monitoring have widespread support but they can go further. Even if they remain as they have been set out, resourcing any changes must be effectively and efficiently funded. The justice committee recognises that electronic monitoring will only be effective if delivered in conjunction with the right support from other agencies. That was raised by a number of witnesses during the committee's evidence sessions. James Mayby from Highland Council and Social Work Scotland said that the bill would be a failed opportunity if it ended up resulting in increased workloads for social workers and that working with criminal justice, social work and third sector has to be an integral part of electronic monitoring in the future if we are to maximise its potential success. Families outside also warned that, without structured supports in place, electronic monitoring becomes a punitive measure. It was a point and it was very well made by Liam MacArthur in his comment. Families outside went on to say that if it failed to address the reasons for the offending or to reduce the likelihood of the breach, due to pressures of unstable housing, substance misuse, poverty, chaotic environments and damaging relationships. That quote from families outside also reveals the importance of having support for the family of an offender on electronic monitoring. That is a subject that I have often spoken about in debates in this chamber. They need to support the families of offenders. The evidence of the committee shows that families can struggle to deal with the demands of living with someone on a home detention curfew or on electronic monitoring. Karen McCluskey of Community Justice Scotland best described that by saying that home detention curfew is a big ask for lots of families. Having someone in the house from 7 in the morning until 7 at night might be quite difficult for some families. We know that families can support people to comply with their order but it takes a great toll on them. Tensions can grow at home between partners, between parents and between children and anyone living in the home. That can happen within any home. However, curfew and monitoring can exacerbate problems at home and children must be protected when facing such challenges and such massive change. It can be daunting for a child to have strangers in their house, adding new technology in the home and seeing their parent wearing a tag around their ankle. Problems associated with alcohol or drug misuse will not disappear with collecting data or use of consumption. It would be dangerous, as highlighted by the Edinburgh Bar Association, to expect complete abstinence from alcohol. On the link between alcohol and domestic abuse, Scottish Women's Aid warned the committee not to assume that preventing offenders from drinking in cases of domestic abuse will prevent them from offending. Of course, many will find themselves in the criminal justice system because of alcohol or drugs. However, they need proper treatment and counselling to overcome their problems. To ensure that police have the ability to protect communities, we must ensure that they are properly empowered to do that. We cannot have more tragic losses like that of Craig McClelland. They are entirely preventable and with the right resources and powers to allow the police to carry out their duties. At the heart of the debate is a need to recognise the necessity for our wraparound system of community justice, one that starts at the point of sentencing right through to release and re-entering the community. That is clear from the evidence that was presented to the committee in both the written submissions and during the committee's questioning sessions. Again, this is an issue that I have raised many times in debates in this chamber. It is clear that the bill needs to be strengthened. I hope that, as the bill progresses, we see more recognition of the impact on families and an acknowledgement that support is required. I, like my colleagues, welcome the general principles of the bill, and I hope that the Government will listen to and take heed of the external bodies that contributed to the stage 1 report. I begin by thanking the clerks to the Parliament's Justice Committee for the second time this week for all their work in supporting and pulling together the committee's report ahead of the stage 1 debate. I am glad that we will all be voting this evening to support the principles of the bill. When I was still at school in 2001, Scotland's prison population stood at 5,803 people. By the year 2015, it had gone up to 7,647, which is an increase of more than a third. Just two days ago in the chamber, members heard evidence from children first who described Scotland's approach to criminal justice as rooted in the Victorian era. Today's legislation is therefore a timely intervention in the management of offenders, particularly if we consider that recorded crime rates in Scotland remain at a record low level. As has already been mentioned, today's bill has three overarching policy intentions. First of all, to extend the use of electronic tagging, monitoring rather, to reduce the time taken for disclosure of convictions, for example when applying for a new job, and to reform the functions and governance of the parole board for Scotland. In the wider policy context for the Scottish Government, it is one that is set in the parameters of community justice and of preventing and reducing re-offending. That can only be achieved by increasing the options that are available to manage and monitor offenders. As Rona Mackay quoted earlier, and I am going to quote again from families outside, they told the committee quite powerfully, I thought, that the electronic monitoring offers a valuable tool for reducing the use of imprisonment. Prison fractures families, whereas the right support in place electronic monitoring can help to keep families together, thereby maintaining social support and reducing the risk of further re-offending. That was something that Mary Fee alluded to in her comments just prior to my contribution. Indeed, Engender emphasised the differing impact of imprisonment on men and women, particularly with reference to traditional family roles. Pointing to the prison rate for women in Scotland remains one of the highest in northern Europe. As the electronic monitoring working group recommended in October 2016, GPS technology is versatile and decisions on its use should be made as part of an individually tailored approach, including where it can aid public and victim safety and where it can be used supportively to strengthen the monitored persons decisions. As a convener alluded to in her contribution earlier, that balance between public protection and the potential benefits of releasing someone with the use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to custody was something that the committee considered in great detail. As Scottish Women's Aid told the committee, there must be a balance between the resettlement of offenders and the protection of the public. The legislation will allow for the use of GPS technology to monitor offenders' movement, and it will also provide for the enforcement of exclusion zones around victims' homes, for example. That can offer both reassurance and respect to victims, as the cabinet secretary alluded to in his opening remarks. On that point, a number of gendered implications for the use of electronic monitoring more broadly were highlighted to the committee, with Scottish Women's Aid pointing out that where the monitoring was used pre-trial identified that victims would be made potentially anxious by seeing the abuser moving freely around in settings outside the exclusion zone, and studies have indicated that they were concerned that abusers would be able to manipulate that technology or subvert its capabilities and undermine programme rules and restrictions. I have previously raised that point with the cabinet secretary at the committee, but I would be grateful if he could revisit the gendered implications of widening the use of GPS technology and domestic abuse cases, particularly when summing up later. Indeed, as enshrined by the legislation passed by this Parliament, domestic abuse is now acknowledged as encompassing coercive and controlling behaviour, which is far more difficult to police via GPS technology, for example. Glasgow City's health and social care partnership also noted that some victims have reported overtime being re-traumatised by the presence of electronic monitoring box within their own homes, so that provision requires the co-operation of victims. With more routine electronic monitoring involving a curfew, there is potential, for example, that the victim goes to the home of the perpetrator as they are confined to that address, again, potentially increasing the risk or that the perpetrator takes the potential victims into their home. We would highlight that electronic monitoring can be used as an effective tool within domestic abuse, however it can have unidentified risks. I will give you a way. Liam Kerr In intervention, just briefly then, does Jenny Gilruth agree with Scottish Women's Aid that breach of electronic monitoring conditions must be an automatic offence? Jenny Gilruth I thank Liam Kerr for that intervention. I think that we have had a bit of a discussion about that today. I am not necessarily convinced either way at this present moment, but I do think that Scottish Women's Aid make a valid point. Howard League Scotland was not, however, against the use of exclusion zones, arguing that exclusion zones are required to be limited in size, particularly in cases involving domestic violence. As social work Scotland told us, it is imperative that boundaries are unambiguous and clearly outlined for those subject to restriction. Today's legislation is, of course, part of the Government's wider work on reforming the justice system, protecting public safety and supporting victims of crime. As previously debated in the chamber this week, there is a consensus to pool the justice system out of the Victorian era as depicted by children first and end to the 21st century. Part of that involves investing in alternatives to traditional imprisonment, but it is also about how the system supports victims of crime. On that point, I welcome the cabinet secretary's establishment of the victims task force. That legislation brings forward a number of reforms to strengthen Scotland's justice system and to widen the alternatives to imprisonment. I am grateful to have the opportunity to make the case for a gendered analysis of what that means for both women offenders and victims of crime, particularly those who have been victims of domestic abuse. Electronic monitoring can have a great role to play in supporting our vision for a fairer, safer and more inclusive nation. That legislation commits to getting the balance between public protection and the alternatives to managing offenders' right with the wellbeing of the victims of crime at its heart. Thank you very much. I move to closing speeches. I call Daniel Johnson to close for Labour and give you seven minutes, Mr Johnson. That is very generous of you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I think that the clerks must have been listening to the debate because the head clerk has joined us to hear the praise that has been heaped on the clerks through this, but I would like to reiterate that this has been a difficult bit of work and the clerks have supported the committee extremely well. In summing up, it is hard not to acknowledge the shadow of the tragic murder of Craig Maclellan that has cast on this. It is right that we reflect on the issues that that has thrown up and reflect on how we can improve the bill in light of that. There are two key elements that I would like to touch on with regard to that, both raised by my colleague Neil Bibby and Liam McArthur. The very nature of the two inquiries that were carried out by HMI, PSN and HMICS meant that there were always going to be questions left. Those two inquiries were strategic and procedural nature. They did touch on specific elements of the Craig Maclellan case, but by definition they were not detailed inquiries specifically into that incident. The question remains about an independent inquiry. I know that the cabinet secretary has been reluctant, but I would ask him again whether he would consider it. In particular, because of some of the issues that Liam McArthur raised. I believe that the cause regarding automatic fatal accident inquiry for those who are on non-custodial sentences or measures such as HDC is a valid one and has merit, and I will certainly support Neil Bibby. The very backlog of fatal accident inquiries is an issue in and of itself. We need fatal accident inquiries when there are failures in our public services, tragic incidents where we need answers and we need to have that understanding of the systemic issues. That very backlog henders that ability to give people confidence and understanding of what went wrong so that we can learn those lessons. I would like to make that initial reflection. I would also like to look at the broad issues that have been raised around HDC. Members have brought to life a number of issues, and rightly so, around assessment, how we consider risk and how that should be monitored. We must also look more fundamentally at those issues around interagency communication and those technical points. They are important. There are also some fundamental issues around capacity and competence, which those circumstances highlighted. In particular, if you look at the HMI CS report, it states that there were 44 offenders, sure, unlawfully at large. The very fact that so many of those were quickly able to be apprehended and that number reduced to single digits in such a short space of time, I think shows that those people could have been apprehended earlier, but it is simply that the resources were not brought to bear. Indeed, if you look at Gill Imre's evidence to the committee when we took our subsequent evidence, she pointed out that the standard operating procedures as they stood were adequate, they just were not followed, and those were her words, not mine. I think that we need to look quite carefully at how breaches were followed up and pursued by the police, and I do not believe that those answers have been established. I will give way to John Finnie on that. John Finnie, I am grateful for the member taking an intervention. Would the member acknowledge that the present arrangement sees three organisations, so six different relationships? If it was simply one public body and the prison service, then they would not have that complex setup of relationships. Daniel Johnson. I thank the member for that point, and I think that he makes an excellent point. I think that those are very much some of the things that still need to be looked at. I think that the complexity of those relationships are one matter, and I think that he made a very good point in terms of his intervention on Jeremy Balfour. I think that we need to question whether or not the use of private sector organisations have added an extra loop in that information chain and added complexity, which will not necessarily be there. I also think that there has been something of a missed opportunity. When we were examining electronic monitoring and I think that the very possibilities that many members have raised about the new possibilities that GPS provides, I think that we should have prompted a re-examination of how those things are used, how they are best used and whether the existing orders and provisions could have actually been adapted, amended and proved to reflect the new possibilities of technology. I would also thank members for reflecting my points raised by HMIPS about the lack of data. I want to support those measures. I am fundamentally progressive in terms of my attitudes towards those things, but unless we have the data, unless we know what works, we quite simply cannot make the effective decisions that we want to. I think that the other key missed opportunity is around remand. I would just like to correct the record. I made a small error in the data that I used. It is 30 per 100,000 is the incarceration rate in Scotland. 20 per cent of our prisoner population is the remand prison population. That compares not to the OECD but with England and Wales to 16 per 100,000 and 11 per cent of their prison population. When they have very similar overall levels of incarceration, we need to ask ourselves why that is happening. I think that this is a missed opportunity to examine whether or not we could use electronic monitoring to tackle the stubborn problem that we have in the Scottish prison system. Finally, I would like to bring my remarks towards the issue around the parole board. I do that mindful of some of the members in the public gallery, but I think that Bob Dorris made an excellent point. The parole board serves as a central function in our justice system. I am a gate-peaker and a guardian at that point of reintroducing people from prison to our communities. It is therefore really important that we examine those issues in the round. It is unfortunate that this was embarked on when another consultation was clearly in the works within the Government. More importantly, the bill was brought forward after the tragic or concerning issues regarding the war boys case in England. Therefore, I think that it would have been relevant and warranted to look at the status of the parole board and how it functions. The parole board and its submissions made some very good points about how the position of the parole board and the transparency of decision-making could have been improved through the bill. I would like for those points to be considered as we proceed through stage 2 and 3. I have no further time, but I would like to reconfirm that we will also be supporting at stage 1, but I think that there is a good deal of testing and scrutiny that needs to be done on this bill. I think that this is a bill that needs to be improved. I close today's debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. As has already been said, those benches broadly support large parts of the bill before us, but we will, in the next stages of the parliamentary process, seek to amend the bill where we feel that that should be done. We are looking today not just at the way in which we deal with offenders, including their rehabilitation, but also at ensuring victims and wider society have confidence in our criminal justice system. That confidence has unfortunately been eroded particularly by some high-profile cases. It has also shone through clearly in the evidence before the committee and some of which has been cited today. We heard calls for a zero-tolerance approach to breaches of electronic monitoring backed by effective police powers to be able to deal with individuals who flout the rules. The current system is slow and ineffective, requiring a breach to be dealt with by a sheriff who assigns a hearing within four weeks. That Police Scotland action in these circumstances is limited by bureaucracy is sadly of little comfort to victims especially. They may have to endure a number of encounters with an offender despite an order in place to protect them. It is a step forward that the breaching of a home detention curfew is to be looked at as being made a criminal offence and dealt with at stage 2 of the bill. However, as we heard today in some areas, the proposed legislation does not go far enough. Zero-tolerance, if it is to mean anything, must include swift action and response, dealing with incidents as soon as they happen and preventing a slide into more serious behaviour. Serious questions arise as to why this bill has not proposed the cutting off of a tag as an automatic criminal offence, as my colleague Liam Kerr referred to. That is one of the questions that must be addressed as we proceed through the next stages of the bill. Electronic monitoring does serve a purpose for offenders, allowing those with a history of offending to be active and become responsible contributors to their communities. Indeed, the Scottish Conservatives have previously called for greater use of satellite tracking and strict home detention. The Scottish Government has set out—again, I think that this week repeated—that electronic monitoring could be used for individuals who would otherwise have served short-term prison sentences of less than 12 months. As we have heard, the Scottish Government seeks to expand community sentencing when the statistics show that it is not delivering justice for victims. With nearly one in three community sentences being ignored, a quarter of community payback orders are not including any unpaid work for activity, and only 40 per cent of drug treatment and testing orders are being completed. The emphasis behind a presumption against jail sentences of under 12 months is that it cuts re-offending rates, and yet we need to think not just about the offenders in those cases. We also have to think about the sort of message that we will be sending to victims and their families if the orders that replace prison sentences are breached and ignored to the extent that they are being ignored and breached now. Keeping at the forefront of our minds the experiences that victims have gone through is paramount. As I think Bob Doris pointed out, we should not forget witnesses involved in these cases either, nor the effect that this sort of thing can have on them. Daniel Johnson I think that the member makes some good points and I recognise them. Would he also recognise the need to ensure that we have consistent application of justice and that the involvement of the victim's perspective in parole and other matters needs to be balanced against that consideration? Gordon Lindhurstam Yes, I certainly agree with the member that we need to have consistency and approach in the justice system, whether we are dealing with offenders or victims, and that there are a number of interests that need to be balanced against each other. Turning back to the report, it highlighted areas where information is severely lacking, and in particular when it comes to victims. Without summaries of evidence, social workers only have one side of the story. An important information may be missed, in particular the risks to victims. It was welcome to hear that the committee called for more detailed information to be supplied through summaries of evidence. Michael McGregor I thank the member for taking the intervention. Does he accept that it is part of a social work assessment? Part of that would be getting information from various sources, and although I reflected on the evidence that was heard by committee, that would not be the case for every single assessment. Gordon Lindhurstam Yes, I think that that is right. Obviously that is the point that I am making, that one would be looking at trying to get information from more than one source to enable the social worker to better assess the position that they are able to at the present time. Now, in other areas of the bill, proposed legislation seeks to pose greater limits for sharing of information, and it is here that I refer to disclosure. The committee was correct in highlighting, as others have pointed to, that there is a balance between society and an employer's right to know about prior convictions and the ability for a person to be able to move on with their life. There are rightly exceptions to that where required, but to play an active and responsible role within their community an offender must have the opportunity to rejoin the workplace if it is appropriate. Lastly, Deputy Presiding Officer, I refer to part 3 of the bill, which deals with parole reform. In this context, I am not going to go over the points raised by others, but there is one matter that I would like to raise with the justice minister, and that is regarding the subject of vulnerable prisoners at parole board hearings and their need for appropriate representation. The question is as to what provision is made for prisoners who lack capacity, whether because of a learning disability, dementia or other reason, and are not therefore able to instruct a solicitor to represent them. I am thinking here of the provisions that the Mental Health Tribunal possesses under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003, and which give that tribunal the power to instruct a solicitor in the form of a curator ad litum to an individual where that is appropriate. I raise this for the first time with the cabinet secretary, so I do not expect a substantive response here and now, but I would ask if he would confirm that he is happy to look at this issue with me as part of the stage 2 proceedings in relation to the bill. As I set out at the beginning of my speech, the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of this bill and look forward to working through the next stages to ensure a criminal justice system that works for offenders, victims of crime and witnesses alike. Thank you very much. I now call on Humza Yousaf to wind up for the Government. Cabinet secretary, to the five o'clock please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been a good debate, much like the debate earlier this week on the vulnerable witnesses bill. This has been a good debate, constructive debate, but challenging. Clearly members from all the different political parties include very much my own. I want to see the Government go further, I want to see this bill go further. It is very rare that the Government presents a bill at stage 1 that is the perfect bill ready to go. Therefore, as those members that know me, I have listened very carefully, but I also look to take their ideas on board as much as I possibly can. I just want to touch upon the general context, which a couple of members also did. We now have, by many accounts, the highest prison population per 100,000 in western Europe, not a statistic to be proud of in the slightest. One that does counteract some claims of soft justice made in this chamber, but none the less not a statistic at all to be proud of. So where we have made some gains and some successes, I would say, towards a progressive justice system, this is still one that we have not cracked. We know that short prison sentences do not work, they disrupt people's lives, people lose their jobs, they are detriment to their family connections, to their housing situation and so on and so forth. That is not just our view, it is increasingly the view of the UK Government by positive statements from both Rory Stewart and David Goch just this week, the Secretary of State for Justice. In Scotland, we first piloted electronic monitoring in Scotland in 1998. In 2011, the Scottish Government introduced community payback orders, providing courts with a range of requirements that they can impose in community sentencing, including robust, unpaid work options. Now, through this bill, we are taking steps to enhance the options available as to how we can choose to monitor individuals in the community, adding to our existing electronic monitoring capabilities. I want to try to touch upon some of the key themes that I thought were mentioned throughout the debate. I thought that a number of members touched upon the concerns from Scottish Women's Aid. I thought that Jenny Grooth's contribution just at the end of the debate on her gender analysis of the bill was very powerful indeed. There are two strands to the issues of domestic abuse. One is the use of GPS, and a number of witnesses have mentioned some of their concerns. I will give some reassurance to the chamber that my officials have had discussions with Scottish Women's Aid about the design of an electronic monitoring project that is specifically focused on domestic abuse. Planning is at a very early stage, and I do not have further details as of yet, but I will update the committee on progress in due course. I hope that I have some reassurance. The other element of concern that Scottish Women's Aid raised and the number of members that raised about domestic abuse was disclosures. Again, I hope that I will address some of that in my opening remarks. The views that are offered by Scottish Women's Aid and other stakeholders will be an important factor to consider as changes are considered to the relevant list of offences that are used within the higher-level disclosure scheme. That is, of course, as members know, part of another bill being taken forward by Government. The changes in this bill will inform that consideration, placing domestic abuse offences and other relevant offences on the schedule 8A list within the Police Act 1997, rather than the schedule 8B list, is under active consideration to address the issues that are raised by Scottish Women's Aid. Nonetheless, that is not to take away from the real concerns that Scottish Women's Aid clearly has, and I will continue to engage with it as Cabinet Secretary. A number of members made the point about support for those on electronic monitoring. I thought that Daniel Johnson, Fee, John Finnie and a number of members made that point during our debate, and I thank them very much for that important point. A number of members here told me that they visited the WISE group during their committee consideration. I was also at the WISE group on Monday as well with a very positive, very good visit with them. Can I just give some reassurance? If members want to follow up with the detail that they want, I am happy to provide that. However, the Scottish Government is piloting a number of forms of additional support. We do not have to legislate to take that forward, but we are piloting a number of projects that add support to go alongside electronic monitoring. I am happy to furnish members with details. I want to comment on the wider comment that the WISE group made to us. That was emphatically about the resourcing of people who would be released on electronic monitoring in this debate. They said that, without the adequate provisions, they are being set up to fail. Cabinet Secretary? Yes. That is a very powerful point, which you can be assured that the WISE group made to me during my visit earlier this week. I want to make sure that we have the right level of support, the right type of support, available to those who are part of the electronic monitoring regime. That is why the pilots are so important. Let us have those pilots, let us evaluate those pilots, and let us see what is effective. Then we can hopefully upscale some of that. I do not take away from what the convener says or what the WISE group says. Very conscious of time, and there were a couple of other issues that many members made reference to. One was bail. A number of members—I think that they used the term, they saw it as a quote-unquote a missed opportunity about the bill, not perhaps explicitly referencing. The Government's view on this is that, as currently drafted, we believe that the bill enables pre-conviction bail with the offender's waiting trial and post-conviction bail with the offender being convicted of waiting sentencing. To be added to the list of disposals in section 3 of the bill, which can be electronically monitored, that would be achieved via a subordinate legislation under section 4 of the bill that enables section 3 to be extended to include additional disposals that might be imposed on an offender at any stage of criminal proceedings. That would include bail. In order to help to clarify the power in section 4 to make it clear that pre-conviction disposals can be added to section 3, we shall introduce an amendment to that effect at stage 2 to give clarification on that point. I am very grateful for the cabinet secretary's giving way, and I very much welcome the commitment that he has given, which is a bit of a departure from what the committee had previously been told that, as the management of offender's bill, putting in conditions pre-conviction may be out of the scope of the bill, but that assurance that he has given, I would certainly welcome. I thank Lee MacArthur's comments, and I am happy to provide that clarification. I will come forward at stage 2 with the appropriate amendment that will be tested, interrogated and undoubtedly. On another important element that was mentioned by all members that contributed to this debate, was the issue of risk assessment. I think that that coupled with the issue around data, around what works, I thought was quite two important issues. In terms of risk assessment, I have provided the committee with further evidence. I know that some of that only came recently. However, I do want to just re-emphasise the point that, on the back of the two inspectorate reports, there has been some key changes around the risk assessment process. Individuals making decisions about release on home detention curfew will now have greater access to police intelligence, for example. We know that it is now prison governors that will now decide on release on home detention curfew instead of unit managers. That adds an extra level of assurance, and direct response, again, to the independent reports. Immediate action has been included. I will take an intervention that has been taken to introduce daily police tactical briefings, which include a focus on apprehending individuals who are unlawfully at large. However, I acknowledge and recognise that the committee and members that have spoken here want to see more detail of that. I am happy to provide that once the various working group and partners do some more detailed work. I am happy to give way to John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. The cabinet secretary recognised that there is a danger associated with using intelligence rather than hard facts in relation to making the risk assessment. John Finnie always raises those points from a base of knowledge from his past experience. I recognise what he says, and I mean that we should be well aware of that. I take that point that is on the record. I am conscious of my time, and a number of members raise the tragic case of Craig McClellan. Once again, I take the opportunity to put on record that my condolence is the family of Craig McClellan as well as the Scottish Government. We are in a position now where I understand that the Craig McClellan family has written to the Lord Advocate in relation to a fatal accident inquiry. It would be appropriate for the Lord Advocate who has responsibility for fatal accident inquiries to now look at that. I would make the point that I have made in this chamber. Previously, we have had two independent inspectors that reports that the regime of HDC has been robustly changed and made more robust. I will take an intervention in just a second, but I will make the point that I understand from his intervention and contribution that Neil Bebe will bring forward amendments at stage 2 around automatic or mandatory FAIs. The Government will look at those as much as we can with an open mind, but I go back to the point that, when it comes to FAIs, that is the remit understandably and rightly of Lord Advocate. I will continue on the point of—I know that it is 5 o'clock, so I will end on the point of disclosures. If I may, I thought very strong points made by many members across the chamber around the impact, the stigma of disclosures is a number of Government campaigns looking at and changing employers' attitudes and two of the major campaigns. One of them, in particular, released Scotland. It brings employers to the front of that conversation, so they can talk to other employers about the benefits of taking on people who have had previous convictions. I will end my contribution. I am very conscious of the time that has been a very worthwhile debate. My approach to this, when it comes to stage 2, will be to consult with members very closely to see how we can strengthen the bill, but I am thankful for the indications of support of stage 1, and of course I am happy to move the bill in my name. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes stage 1 on the management of a Fender Scotland bill. The next item of business is consideration of motion 11941 on the financial resolution for the management of a Fender Scotland bill, and could I call on Derek Mackay to move the motion? We turn to decision time, and there are two questions today. The first question is that motion 15733, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on management of a Fender Scotland bill, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The second question is that motion 11941, in the name of Derek Mackay, on a financial resolution on the management of a Fender Scotland bill, be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. I close this meeting.