 I have a very good morning and welcome to the 15th meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee. There are no apologies this morning. Agenda item 1 is further consideration of the bail and release from custody Scotland bill stage 2. I would but members to refer to their copy of the bill and to the marshaled list of amendments and groupings for this item. I welcome Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, and her officials to the meeting. I remind members that officials are here to assist the cabinet secretary during the stage 2 debate. They are not permitted to participate in the debate, so for this reason, members should not direct any questions to them. We will now begin our consideration of amendments. Our first section is consideration of compliance with bail conditions. I call amendment 6, in the name of Katie Clark, in a group on its own. Katie Clark, to move and speak to amendment 6. This amendment follows very neatly on from the discussion that we had last week on amendment 67, which has been put down. I declare my throat apologies. This new amendment 6 inserts a provision, which is an add-on, to allow a court to take into account compliance with bail conditions, including electronic monitoring and curfew arrangements, so it would enable the court to take into account compliance with such conditions when sentencing either to reduce the sentence or, indeed, to increase it. I believe that this is something that the courts already do. This would simply be codifying perhaps a practice that already takes place where the court will take into account all of the circumstances when considering what an appropriate sentence is in a particular situation. I was sympathetic to collect Stevenson's amendment to remove section 5 on consideration of time spent on electronic monitoring. I am very aware that electronic monitoring is only imposed where an accused poses a real risk and, therefore, electronic monitoring can be used to avoid remand. Electronic monitoring has never been considered a punishment or, indeed, a sentence. However, I believe that the approach suggested in this amendment is a better one than was proposed last week in that it gives more discretion to the court. As I say, in reality, the matters are issues that the court would take into account. For example, if an accused person had not complied with curfew arrangements, had attempted to approach the complainer or, indeed, had not complied with electronic monitoring requirements, often those would be matters that the court would take into account when considering what an appropriate sentence was for an individual. At the same time, where an individual has been compliant with requirements from the court, that, again, often will be something that the court would bear in mind when considering sentencing. I am putting that forward as an amendment that would give the court more discretion to take into account all of the circumstances. I thank you very much indeed. Will any other members like to come in? Amendment 6, in the name of Katie Clark, seeks to add a new section 203B to the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. That would enable the court, when passing sentence on a person convicted of an offence, to take account of the person's compliance with any bail conditions imposed upon them while awaiting trial and sentence. That includes compliance with any electronic monitoring and curfew conditions imposed. I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I hope I can explain why it is not necessary. In determining the appropriate sentence to impose on an offender, as Ms Clark has already acknowledged, the court can already take account of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In any specific case, the court can ask the prosecutor, the defence or criminal justice social worker how well the accused has abided by the conditions of any bail order to help inform the sentencing decision. Specific provision is not required to enable them to do that. If the new express power is intended to allow the court to consider both compliance and non-compliance with bail, it is also important to remember that breach of bail condition is a criminal offence in itself, which carries a maximum sentence of 12 months imprisonment. Where an offender has been convicted of and sentenced for breaching their bail conditions or indeed any offence, the prosecutor may, at point of conviction and prior to sentencing, place before the court a schedule of the offender's previous convictions for the purpose of enabling the court to determine an appropriate sentence. That is in accordance with existing powers under the 1995 act. As such, no specific provision is required to enable the court to take account of the offender's compliance or otherwise with bail conditions, including those relating to curfew or electronic monitoring when deciding on an appropriate sentence for the offender. I note that Ms Clark said in her introductory remarks that there may be, in her view, some benefit to codifying arrangements. My concern is that her amendments have no practical effect and that they are placed in the wrong part of the 1995 act. Therefore, I would ask Ms Clark not to press amendment 6, but if she does, I would ask members to vote against it. I do not intend to press amendment 6 today. However, I would be interested in exploring further those issues as the bill progresses and to get a better understanding of why the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government believe that section 5 is necessary, particularly given everything that the cabinet secretary has said this morning and whether there is currently the ability for the court already to take into account time spent on electronic monitoring. I do not plan to press amendment 6 today. However, I feel that this is an issue that we need to scrutinise further, and the sentiments that I have expressed today would guide us in terms of our position on this issue. It is fair to say that, as a committee, we were not completely clear where section 5 would come from, and that is something that, if the cabinet secretary was able to give more information about as the bill progresses, it would be appreciated. The members indicated that they wished to withdraw the amendment, so does the committee have any objection to the amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 37, to move formally. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We now move on to section 6, which is released on certain days of the week. I call amendment 68, in the name of Russell Findlay, grouped with amendments 69 and 71. Russell Findlay, to move amendment 68 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you very much. We have three amendments in this group, 68, 69 and 71. They relate to the days in which prisoners can be released, although 71, which I will come to your last, serves a slightly different purpose to 68 and 69. The practice of limiting release days already exists by virtue of the Prisoner and Criminal Proceedings Scotland Act 1993, which prevented release on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays, and this bill seeks further limits and does so by amending that 1993 act. It would also prevent release on Fridays and on the days before public holidays, but what is perhaps not obvious from the draft bill is that Thursdays will effectively also become non-release days, although there will be exceptions to that. So, if a prisoner's release date happens to fall on a Friday, they will instead be released on a Thursday, but if a prisoner's release date is a Thursday, they will not be released on that day. I do not recall hearing any evidence about ending Thursday's release, although the committee did hear concerns about ending Friday's release to the Scottish Police Federation, HMIPS, and the WISE Group all would rather see improved support services. Ending Friday's release, whatever your views of it, seems slightly unambitious, albeit understandable, but less ambitious still and harder to understand would be to end Thursday's release. We should almost just accept a part-time support service. What the witnesses told us is that proper support in relation to medication, housing and benefits in place, that is the key, not necessarily reducing the days. I suspect that ending Thursday's release would require the SPS to significantly change how they work. It will cause potential burden and support services, whether that is criminal justice social work or people at the WISE Group, and narrowing release days will effectively put additional pressure on a struggling system. Even if the motives behind it are well-meaning, it surely increases the likelihood of prisoners not being supported and therefore increasing their risks of re-offending. Ultimately, that might lead to a risk to public safety, which I think is why amendment 68 is so important. I will be interested in the cabinet secretary's response to that. Amendment 69 is consequential to 68, so it does not need any further explanation. Finally, amendment 71 should be considered separately to 68 and 69, even if they are not successful. Essentially, 71 is about scrutiny and transparency. It would require the Government to publish a review of the impact on proposed new limits to prisoner release days, whatever they might end up being. Given the far-reaching nature of what the bill seeks to do, and given the misgivings that we have heard in evidence, some of which we have already touched on, I cannot see why the Government would oppose this particular amendment and would also yes it will. I just wanted to clarify on 68 and 69. Does that mean that the effect of the amendments would be to revert to the original law on it? No, it would simply negate the Thursday release element, so we have not sought to amend the Friday release part of the bill. In other words, it would isolate the Friday as the committee report we spoke to about the Friday being the problem. That is the effect of your amendment. It has not been immediately obvious that Thursday has come into play and all the focus has been on the Friday element, which we have heard evidence on. This is just pointing out that, by the back door, almost Thursday becomes a non-release day, albeit with the conditions that I mentioned. To conclude on 71, I would be keen to get support from that as well. Just in support of those, I think that the only additional point that I wanted to make, perhaps before the cabinet secretary responds, is that we did look at this issue at stage 1 quite constructively. There clearly is an identifiable issue of historically prisoners being released on Friday without access to good and proper public services around them, which I suspect is the reason why we stopped releasing people on a Saturday, Sunday and bank holiday. There simply was a reduced service on many of the public services that people will rely on upon release. I think that the concern that we have, which perhaps underlines those amendments, is that if the solution to that problem is not simply to condense the number of days in which someone can be released, that is a technical solution to the problem, but it is not solving the problem. The problem itself is that we should be improving access to services upon release, not simply condensing the same volume of people being released, but to a much shorter times scale. The concern that we have heard about that is that it will simply add huge amounts of pressure on to the very public services that we are trying to ensure are delivered to prisoners on release, so social work departments, local authorities and other public services that are already quite overstretched in their capacity, that if they can only do it on the same money to Wednesday as opposed to having five days to staff the services, that either means a reduced access to service or perhaps some people not getting the due attention that they perhaps need upon release. I understand that we all understood the Government's intention behind it, but do we really need to put on the face of primary legislation in this way, or could the Government have perhaps been a little bit more ambitious in terms of this perhaps being a short-term measure with a view to improve services so that we can use our money to Fridays in the due ways that they are used by the rest of the wider public. We do understand that the Government's intention behind it, but it seems like quite a blanket approach to the problem and not necessarily one that will fix the problem either. One solution may be if the Government is not minded to accept these amendments as simply to make this a temporary provision and also to make some commitments on the face of the legislation if it is so inclined to either monitor outcomes and indeed take action as a result of that, because what we do not want to see down the line in a couple of years is people simply being Wednesday or Thursday being the new Friday and still failing people. That is clearly not an outcome that anybody wants, so I would ask the Government to reflect on that as well. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to come in? Thank you very much, convener. I am clear, as I know that others have been that, end in shed of liberations on a Friday or the day before a public holiday is the right thing to do, will enable more people to access the support that they need on release and support that will keep them and others safe. The policy intent behind section 6 of the bill is to increase access to those services, which would include housing, mental health and addiction support, and contact with justice social work. That is common sense. That came from a recommendation amongst others from the drug deaths task force, but let me also be clear to members that that is not an either-or situation. We also absolutely have to improve out-of-hours access, in particular to addiction services and to family support. At the risk of sounding out a bit like a broken record, we really need to be bringing all the solutions to the table, but that is one practical solution that we can make and can do so now. It is clear, though, that in adding Fridays and the day before public holidays to the existing list of accepted days, it is clear that more releases will take place on a Thursday, particularly given, as the member said, that we do not release people currently on a public holiday or the weekend, so there is already a compressed pressure on Fridays that could then be displaced to Thursdays. That would place an increased pressure on both community-based services and the prison service on that one day of the week and would risk undermining the intent of the provision. To try and mitigate that impact, section 6 of the bill also provides that individuals whose release date ordinarily falls on a Thursday will have their release moved to the nearest preceding suitable date. In practice, that would largely mean that they would be released on the Wednesday, the day before, although I do appreciate that there would be exceptions to that. Section 6 does not seek to move any other dates. That was not decided on a whim and is intended to support the underlying principle of this section, which is to enable people to access services that they need on release from prison to keep our communities safe. So, convener, taking together amendments 60 and 69 would remove that provisioning for the reasons of outline. I cannot support those amendments and I would ask Russell Finlay not to press them. Amendment 71 would require Scottish ministers to report annually on the distribution of prison releases across the days of the week. Monitoring, of course, is something that the Government acknowledges is important. That amendment would also require Scottish ministers to report on whether services are still being provided by the name bodies listed at section 34A2 of the bill to deliver the effective release of prisoners on a Thursday. There are a number of non-Scolders Government amendments on part 2 of the bill, which call for various reports and reviews. I agree that it will be important to review the impact of those provisions. Therefore, convener, I am minded to come forward with the stage 3 amendment, which will encompass all the various asks for reviews and the different sections of part 2 to provide a more coherent picture. Therefore, I ask Mr Finlay not to press amendment 71 today. Russell Finlay to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 68. The policy intent, the cabinet secretary says, is to increase support for those who are leaving custody. Given the lack of evidence that we have heard about the specific issue of the Thursday release becoming mostly a non-release day, with the exceptions that we have touched on, it just seems quite a big step that we are effectively going to have. Mr Finlay, it is just to make clear that Thursday would still be a release day for those people who would have been released on Friday. It is not that we are on, indeed, displacement from the weekend. We are still going from five release days to four release days in the week, just for clarity. We do not know anything about the numbers that are released on Friday, do we? We have not heard any evidence as to the proportion typically who would be released on Friday, which would therefore now be released on a Thursday. Was that something that you would have to hand? I accept the point that we need to monitor on this. Bodies such as the drug desk task force made recommendations that were accepted by the Government, and they looked to a range of evidence in terms of the impact on communities. I think that we are all agreed in terms of the impact of release on Friday, but we do, in a very practical sense, need to avoid the displacement from a Friday to a Thursday, so that we are not just moving one set of problems to another day of the week. It is a way of spreading the load over four days. I understand the reasoning and the drug desk task force that came up with the suggestion of ending Friday release, but I think that we are still lacking knowledge about the possible ramifications of that. I think that, on that basis, I would push 68. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. All those in favour of the amendment, raise your hands. All those against, raise your hands. Thank you. There are no abstentions, so the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 69, in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 68. Russell Finlay to move or not move. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We now move on to release of short-term prisoners. I call amendment 70, in the name of Russell Finlay, in a group on its own. Russell Finlay to move and speak to amendment 70. Amendment 70 seeks to change the way that short-term prisoners are released in Scotland, currently every single prisoner sentence to less than four years is automatically released halfway through the sentence with no questions asked, regardless of how badly they may have behaved or the severity of their offence. They are guaranteed not to serve the full sentence and they will serve half of it at best. In 2015, the First Minister at the time, Nicola Sturgeon, committed to abolishing automatic early release stating that our objective remains to end the policy of automatic early release completely as soon as we are able to. Now eight years on and that's still not happened and with the law only having been changed in relation to long-term offenders. Previously long-term offenders, that's those serving a sentence of four years or more, were automatically released after serving two thirds of their sentence. However, a long-term prisoner can now be released only if they've served half their sentence and crucially being directed for release by the parole board for Scotland. Now what my amendment does is replicate the terminology used for releasing long-term prisoners and matches that for short-term offenders, those serving less than four years and specifically it states that short-term offenders can only be released from prison once the parole board directs release and after they've served half the sentence at least. There are a whole number of cases I could cite where people who have been automatically released have gone on to commit serious crimes including murder and it's not unreasonable to surmise that some of these people would have been deemed unsafe for automatic early release and therefore members of the public may well have been protected. So this is ultimately about public safety and I hope the committee agrees and the cabinet secretary also agrees. Thank you. I just wanted to add two further points. One is that what is clear is that if a judge deems that someone merits a two-year sentence, i.e. two years in custody, they will clearly direct a four-year sentence knowing automatic release will allow them to leave custody after two. Same would be true of three-year sentences, they would give them six and know that as the loss currently states they'd be out after two anyway. I think there needs to be consideration around the effect, the practicality of the laws at the moment. It's unclear as to why there is not parity between short and long-term sentences and one of the things I think we would have found very helpful and I was always intrigued by is what would be the analysis of the data of re-offending for in comparison to sentencing. So I presume there is some form of parabola or gradient which we anecdotally have heard is around the ability to rehabilitate someone within custody and very short-term sentences. The Government itself declares that those are wherever you have used in short-term sentences are in some ways useless and not the best outcome in terms of rehabilitation. There is academic evidence that you need time to rehabilitate and very short sentences are just as poor outcomes. So I guess it would have been helpful to understand why this cut-off in the way that it has been and why the promise that was previously given to analyse and change this if required has not come to pass. Now I hope it's nothing to do with our prison population because the way to reduce the prison population is not simply to empty them through automatic early release and there are serious questions to be asked as to how much rehabilitation can take place within a very short period of time, say 14 months for example, of being in custody. This should be evidence and data-led in my view and if the statistic shows and unfortunately the committee really struggled to get data on this that if there is a cohort of people who are released between 12 and say 24 or 36 months have a higher re-offending rate than those who cross over the line of 50% of automatic early release then surely that's something the Government needs to be mindful of. Once again though we struggled to get any meaningful data on this. If this bill is all about changes to bail and release then this is a good opportunity for the Government to either justify the status quo or at least make some commitments to change it as it hitherto did. Thank you very much. I wouldn't be inclined to support this amendment. I mean, Jamie Greene and Russell Finlay ask us here to bring forward legislation that is based in evidence, which I feel that this is, but then we're presented with amendments like this, which we've not taken any evidence on and the changes for something like this would be really significant. It could have a massive increase in the prison population if such and massive resource implications for the parole board, massive implications about how this would actually work in practice. You'd really need to go back to the drawing board. So from me, this wasn't something that came up. I'm not sure we should be reticent to make changes like this based on the provision of how well resourced the parole board is. The parole board will need to be resourced to the level it needs to be resourced in order to meet the legislation that we set. If this is around public safety or the suitability of a candidate to be released and their likelihood of re-offending after release, that should be the primary consideration, not the effect it might have on how much work the parole board has to do. I never said that the parole board was one aspect. Thanks to Jamie Greene's intervention. I never said that the parole board is one aspect. If this amendment would be an absolutely massive and sweeping change and we didn't take evidence on that, I don't think that we've had a chance to really consider the implications of it. This is a policy or a situation that's been in Scotland and I should believe across the whole UK for a significant period of time and I think that you would really need to be doing a lot more work and a lot more scrutiny to make such a change. I would not be supporting this. I echo what my colleague Philip McGregor said. I don't think that Mr Greene responded to his question about the fact that we didn't hear any arguments in support of this during evidence, so I wouldn't be supporting it for that and for other reasons. I think that Jamie Greene and Russell Findlay raised really pertinent questions around the sentence of short-term prisoners, which is four years or less. That's the definition of my understanding. I'm still not too clear about what Russell Findlay's amendment does and something that would be helpful. From what my reading of it is, it requires that every short-term prisoner can only be released on licence if it's recommended by the parole board, so does that change the current arrangement? Every short-term prisoner would need to be released on licence, meaning that if they are offended, they go straight back into prison. That's what on licence means. That's my understanding, so I bear in mind that short-term prisoners are up to four years, so some pretty significant crimes, including violence and sexual violence. If, upon release by virtue of a parole board process, they re-offend, then they would be required to serve the rest of their sentence. Would you regard that as quite a big change to the system? It is. I was going to reference this and sum me up, if that would be better to do that then. I thought I'd read these matters now and then give you a chance to sum up, because I mean, I do have a similar concern in that sentencing policy. Is a massive area of policy, and I just want to be sure what we would be sitting up for if we voted for it, because yes, an on-going topical issue, the automatic release of short-term prisoners, are happy through the sentence, so I really welcome the fact that we brought it to the committee, but I think that, since we didn't take evidence on it at the time, we'd need to be clear about what the, I'll take Jamie Greene's point, and I'll let you interview in a minute, that if we pass it, then it's a matter for the system to resource it properly, if we think that this is the right principle. I give way to Jamie Greene. It was just to raise the point that there's a massive difference between automatic release and eligibility for release, and I do feel that these decisions lie best with the pro-board, and I think that the premise of this amendment is that people still could be released 50% through their sentences. That's not up for argument, whatever your views on that policy. But it would be subject to that extra level of test that the pro-board would be comfortable, and I do appreciate it. There will be implications for the pro-board in that, and they may be unhappy with those, to an extent, but it does add another level of scrutiny to the process, the automatic. Someone just walks out the door halfway through, and we feel that there is a knowing what data we do have on re-offending for those prisoners, then this would add an extra level of checking balance into that release. But it would still be eligible halfway through, if suitable. It would mean that every single case would go to the pro-board for the pro-board to make the final decision, and they would be released on licence in every case, and maybe you want to just give away if you want on the point that you made about regarding the parity of short-term and long-term prisoners, not something that I had to get considered before. You raised it, maybe perhaps in summing up, and it was Jamie Greene who made that point. I do not know if that is your position that there should be no difference between the release of short-term. I am not offering an opinion, but I would just like to know what the rationale for saying that there is no difference between short and long-term prisoners. Thank you, convener. Amendment 70, as we have heard, would end automatic early release for short-term prisoners. That would be a significant change to the justice system with associated substantial costs. That level of change requires careful and detailed consultation and consideration. As much as all debate and all discussion is very important and very welcome, I would say, convener, that a decision of this magnitude should not be made on the basis of a very short debate at committee at stage 2 of a bill that is not otherwise dealing with short-term prisoners and when they should be released. I should also inform committee, convener, that during the consultation to inform the bill that the matter was raised, but there was no settled view on it. I would also highlight that Scotland is not alone in having a system of automatic early release that operates in England and Wales and other jurisdictions in one form or another, but that does not mean that we should not, of course, be debating and scrutinising our own system. Mr Finlay's amendment raises wider and important issues of who and what prison is for. I am most certainly not dismissing the points raised by Mr Finlay or other members. I recognise that there are strong views about automatic early release in that it is automatic as opposed to earned or assessed. However, as other members have acknowledged, sentencing is a massive issue and should always be considered in the round. It might also be helpful for members to be aware, although I am sure that they are, that most short-term sex offenders are released on conditions. I think that the matters that Mr Finlay has raised should be discussed in more detail and with context, and I do not feel that we are able to do that in the time that we have today. Essentially, ending automatic early release would have significant consequences for the justice system and the prison system in particular. It would also have a significant financial impact, and I am sure that I am stating the obvious here for all members. There are not decisions to be taken lightly on their deep issues and need to be done with proper discussion and consultation. The short-term prison population is currently close to 2,100 prisoners. Ending automatic early release could substantially increase the proportion of their sentences that those individuals serve, leading to higher prison populations. Just by way of illustration, if short-term prisoners served on average 5 to 6 of their sentence rather than one half, then the population would be expected to rise by almost 1,400. The estimated cost of a prison place is circa £42,000. That is an unfunded amendment that could lead to additional annual costs of around £59 million. I say that by way of illustration. There could potentially be significant capital costs associated with expanding the prison estate to address any increase in population. I do want to stress that Mr Finlay has raised important points, which merit further discussion. I do not think, however, that we should be deciding such a fundamental shift in justice policy and practice without full consideration of all the consequences. As there would be risks in doing so, one that I would point out to is that, while amendment 70 would result in short-term prisoners being released on licence, amendment 70 makes no provision for how that would work in practice. It makes no provision for what would happen where a release short-term prisoner to breach a condition of their licence. There is no mechanism for Scottish ministers to take any action to address that, as there is for all other prisoners released on licence, whose licences can be revoked and who can be recalled to prison. There are some examples of why those are perhaps not matters to be decided here today. For all of those reasons, I would ask Mr Finlay not to press amendment number 70. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Russell Finlay, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 70. Thank you. There is quite a lot of points raised. I will try to cover them off here. First of all, the cabinet secretary acknowledges that there was evidence taken at the consultation stage. Indeed, there was a significant amount of evidence support of ending automatic early release. It did not make it to the final bill. Fulton MacGregor does make a fair point that we have not heard a great deal of evidence in this. As the cabinet secretary also says, there is the potential for not least financial but other consequences to the prison service and others. However, I think that Jamie Greene is absolutely correct that the Pro-Board is a demand-led service. Given that this was a Government commitment eight years ago, if by virtue of raising this here now puts it back in the agenda and gives us food for thought, then it is probably worthwhile. I am going back to Pauline's point about parity and it is slightly academic anyway, but it would effectively have the same system for long and short-term. We will not differentiate it because there are short-term prisoners who are extremely dangerous who know that they are automatically going to get out halfway through whether that is six months a year or whatever and have gone on to commit serious crimes. It just gives a mechanism to try and identify those and prevent those from happening. That all said, I think that I am minded not to move it because of all the reasons that have been raised, but I do think that it might be worth revisiting at stage C in some way. Thank you very much. Just to confirm your do not intend impressing this amendment. So the member has indicated that they wish to withdraw the amendment. Does the committee have any objection to the amendment being withdrawn? No? Okay, thank you very much. So I now call amendment 71 in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment 68. Russell Findlay to move or not move? Right. Move. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 71 be agreed to or we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed therefore we will move to a vote. So all those in favour of the amendment raise your hand. All those against raise your hand. Are there any abstentions? Thank you very much. So the result of the vote is that there were two votes for the amendment. Four votes against the amendment were two abstentions therefore the amendment is not agreed. So we now move on to release on licence of long-term prisoners and I call amendment 9 in the name of the cabinet secretary grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. And I draw members' attention to the procedural information relating to this group as set out in the groupings. So I point out that if amendment 73 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 74, 10 or 75 due to a preemption. If amendment 74 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 10 again due to preemption. And if amendment 79 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 80 again due to preemption. So cabinet secretary to move amendment 9 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Section 7 of the bill introduces a new temporary release licence for long-term prisoners. The bill does not name the licence but the term reintegration licence is used in supporting documentation so I will use that term here. The reintegration licence is intended to operate in two circumstances. The first is in advance of the parole board's consideration of a prisoner at the parole qualifying date, the PQD, or at a subsequent review if not released at PQD. In this circumstance the Scottish ministers would make the decision to release based on a risk assessment and consultation with the parole board. The second circumstance is that release can be directed by the parole board when they have recommended a prisoner be released on parole at the PQD. The board can direct at the prisoner be released on reintegration licence in advance of that date. The intention of this provision is to provide opportunity to support the reintegration of certain long-term prisoners, for example helping them to link to community services and to build a relationship with their supervising officer. And in the circumstances in which the Scottish ministers release individuals in advance of the parole board's consideration of the case, release on that licence provides opportunity for structured testing in the community. That will provide further evidence to the parole board to inform their decision making. It was quite a short amendment and we were trying to go ahead around what it did and why. Is it a scenario that you are explaining that prior to the parole board considering someone's release Scottish ministers could direct the release and that would be the end of the matter? And in what circumstances would ministers want to release someone earlier than a parole board's decision because it is not a clear case or the case hasn't been quite made? I think that I have been clear about the parole board's responsibilities in terms of the second scenario in which the reintegration licence could be considered. The first scenario that I outlined would be where Scottish ministers in consultation with the parole board considered the release of certain prisoners. So there are exclusions of certain prisoners not based on offence types, so prisoners who are on an extended sentence. This is not for life sentence prisoners. It is not for prisoners who are convicted under prevention of terrorism. The support and documentation to the bill also highlighted that a small number of prisoners probably circa 75 to 200, but in essence it is temporarily released by the Scottish Prison Service. The approach that I have outlined prior to Mr Greene's intervention was supported by the chair of the parole board, John Watt, when he provided evidence to this committee at stage 1. I note that Katie Clark's amendments in this group seek to remove the Scottish Minister's ability to release an individual on reintegration licence before their case can be heard by the parole board, and I am sure that Ms Clark will outline her reasons for that. I would just like to make a few points in response to Ms Clark's amendment. Firstly, the intention of the licence, as I have said, is to better support the reintegration of long-term prisoners and critically to provide structured testing. Prisoners released on this licence will be subject to conditions that will include curfew, which can be electronically monitored and, importantly, supervision by justice social work. I do appreciate that this is a new licence, and there are understandable questions about how it will operate and practice. As members will be aware, the provision will not operate in isolation. Section 712 of the bill requires the Scottish ministers to prepare a statutory operating protocol to underpin the use of this licence. That operating protocol must detail the risk assessment process, which will inform release on the licence and the factors taken into account when undertaking those risk assessments. It will also cover matters such as how prisoners will be monitored when released on reintegration licence. In developing this protocol, the Scottish ministers must consult with a range of stakeholders with specific expertise in this area, and that includes the risk management authority and, as I mentioned earlier, the independent parole board. I hope that that provides suitable reassurance to Ms Clark and that she recognises the importance of having the opportunity to test prisoners before their release, subject to risk assessments, as I have described. Turning specifically to amendment 73, for a moment, this amendment would remove the legal considerations that Scottish ministers and the parole board must have regard to when releasing a prisoner on a reintegration licence. I am not clear what the purpose of this amendment is. I note that Ms Clark's view appears to be that the Scottish ministers should not be making these decisions, but amendment 73 would remove those legal considerations in cases in which the parole board directs release on a reintegration licence. I do not support the view that Scottish ministers should not be able to release prisoners on this licence within the parameters that are described in the bill. I recognise that that will need to be done on the basis of a clear risk assessment that takes account of all relevant factors and the bill provides for that. Therefore, I ask Ms Clark not to move her amendments in this group. Turning to Mr Greene's amendments, amendment 75 seeks to add the protection of the victim or victims of the prisoner or a class of person to whom the prisoner may pose a risk if released on this licence to the existing list of considerations that the Scottish ministers and the parole board must have regard to before releasing a prisoner on this licence. The bill currently lists those considerations as protection of the public at large or reducing reoffending and supporting the reintegration of the prisoner. Victim safety would be included in the definition of protection of the public at large, but I appreciate that it would be helpful to put that beyond doubt. Therefore, I will commit to bringing forward a stage 3 amendment that would address the issue of victim safety as one of the legal considerations that the Scottish ministers and the parole board must have regard to when deciding to release on this licence. The parole board will, of course, have already taken account of victim safety concerns when deciding to recommend release on parole licence. I therefore ask Jamie Greene not to move amendment 75, but more than happy to engage with him further on these matters. I turn to amendment 80, which is lodged by Jamie Greene. The amendment seeks to add individuals who are subject to the sexual offences notification requirements to the list of statutory exclusions from release by the Scottish ministers on this licence. The list of existing statutory inclusions in the bill does not include offence-focused exclusions, and that was deliberate. It was based on feedback that we received during the consultation and from stakeholders that decisions about release should be based on risk assessment and not on the basis of offence type alone. I know that Mark McSherry, chief executive of the risk management authority, made a similar point when he provided evidence to the committee during stage 1. Mr McSherry said, my point is that we need to understand the pattern, nature, seriousness and likelihood of such behaviours so that we develop a proportionate response that adequately protects victims and addresses the specific risk that is identified when we use broad offence categories that sometimes does not allow us to understand the risk that specific individuals might pose within broad spectrums. Therefore, our view is that the level of understanding that this level of risk assessment understanding is required. As I have highlighted, convener, this provision has been designed with risk assessment at its core. The risk posed by all individuals being considered for this licence will be carefully assessed as part of the risk assessment process, regardless of the offence that they have been convicted of. Statutory exclusions on the basis of offence type alone cut across that. It might be of interest for Mr Greene to know that, for those people who are given an extended sentence, they are excluded from being eligible to be considered from the reintegration licence. If you look at figures over the piece, the majority of people who are given an extended sentence are sex offenders. For the reasons that I outlined above, convener, I would ask Mr Greene not to press this amendment. Finally, to my amendments 9 and 10, those are both technical amendments. Amendment 9 repeals subsection 7 of section 3AA of the Prisoner and Criminal Proceeding Scotland Act 1993. The subsection relates to the parole board's decision making in relation to the long-term prisoners on home detention curfew. Section 7 of the bill removes long-term prisoners from home detention curfew. The subsection is no longer required. Amendment 10 corrects a minor draft and error at introduction, where the wrong subsection number was used. I move amendment 9 in my name, convener. Thank you very much. I now call Katie Clark to speak to amendment 72 and other amendments in the group. I speak to amendment 72 and the consequential amendments put down in my name, which seek to remove section 7, 5, 3A, B subsections 1 and 2 relating to further powers to release long-term prisoners. Although the committee considered some evidence in relation to those proposals, it is fair to say that other aspects of the bill received greater scrutiny. We would want to have a far better understanding of what the implications of those provisions would be if passed. It has to be said that there have been numerous concerns expressed by victims' organisations, in particular victims support Scotland, but other organisations about the implications of those provisions. It is unclear why the Scottish Government feels that those provisions are necessary. I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said and the explanation as to why the Scottish Government has included those proposals. I look forward to having sight of the Government amendment on victims' safety, because many of the concerns being expressed relate to victims. Amendment 75, put down in the name of Jamie Greene, I believe, also reflects some of the concerns and attempts to address some of the concerns that have been made. My amendments would take out the provisions that, in essence, permit Scottish ministers to release long-term prisoners after 80 days before the prisoner's parole qualifying date provided the parole board had not recommended that the prisoner be released on licence. The amendments are put down as probing amendments, but also on the basis that those provisions from the Government are overreach. I listen carefully to what the cabinet secretary has to say, but I would be interested to hear what engagement there has been with Victim Support Scotland and other organisations that are expressing detailed concerns about the implications of the legislation and what attempts are being made to ensure that the genuine concerns being raised are addressed. That might be an issue that we will come back to at a later stage. I start with amendment 9, which is the opening amendment in this group, in the name of the cabinet secretary. As I said in my intervention, we were unsure as to the technical outcome of repealing subsection 7, as it is listed. I listen carefully to the points that the cabinet secretary made, but I am either not fully understanding the scenario or not convinced by it—I am not sure which at the moment. Effectively, my understanding is that, when we talk about Scottish ministers, the cabinet secretary talked a lot about the SPS, but who would make those decisions as opposed to the Scottish ministers? I think that there is a big difference. There is a lot of discussion at the moment around this whole section, section 7, on powers that ministers might have or not have in relation to interventions. I think that we need to be quite clear with people when we talk about this issue. A decision made by a minister may be done for very different reasons to one example that is made by the prison service. We do not know who in the prison service would make such a decision. Is there a committee of the SPS who would decide this matter? Would it be up to individual governors who are employed by the SPS, in which case you could argue that this amendment gives governors more autonomy, for example, in what happens to their prison cohort knowing that they understand the prisoners within their own institution? You could argue that that sounds like an eminently sensible thing to do, but equally there are prisons that are not operated by the SPS, but may fall under their wider remit, so there are questions there as well. There is a big difference between giving ministers a power to override, overrule, pre-empt decisions made by independent bodies like the pro-board and other decisions that governors might want to make. I am not convinced that the case has been made for the Government to have the need of this power. If we end up in a scenario where a Government minister directs a release of someone, but there is unhappiness around that decision either within the prison itself, the SPS or the pro-board have reservations about it, whether the release would go ahead anyway and whether there would be any ability to stop or appeal that decision, again that is not really covered because this amendment just has quite a blanket approach to that scenario. I do not think that it is something that we really fully went into as a committee and it is unfortunate because I think that there may be some merit in what the Cabinet Secretary is trying to say and why this power might be helpful in some scenarios, but 75 to 100 prisons does not sound a lot, but it would be a lot if they went out and committed further offences, or if there are people that the pro-board said that it might not be suitable for release, but ministers want to do it anyway and it is unsure as to why ministers would ever want to do that. If we had some evidence on this and we talked about it at stage one, then we may have been more convinced, so for that reason being inclined not to support nine. I will turn to my own amendments. They are largely falling to two groups, 75 and 80 seem to seek to strengthen the consideration of victims throughout this process and there is a more blanket amendment at 89, which I will come on to in a second. I do welcome the Cabinet Secretary's comments. I will not go into great detail selling the amendment to the committee, but it was an amendment that was strongly supported by Victim Sports Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and Assist, and members will note the paper that they sent to us yesterday, arguing amendments that we were debating today, that they do not support or strongly support, and I am pleased that this is one that they strongly support. I understand that, as is often the case, members draft things in a certain way, the Government is happy to look at that. I would very much welcome that. I would be happy to work with the Cabinet Secretary on looking at how, in addition to the existing statutory protections that go beyond protecting the public at large, as is currently drafted in the bill, if there could be any strengthening of that to include victims, I would be very much welcome that. Amendment 80 might have some disagreement. Amendment 80 is another short amendment, which is strongly supported by Victim Sports Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and Assist, I think, for good reason. I understand the argument made around listing offences, but this whole section ultimately is around ministers releasing people. In fact, it says in line 15 exactly what it does. Scottish Ministers made release on licence a long-term prisoner whose release has not been recommended by the Pro-Board. I think that's the wider issue. We can't forget what this whole section is about. It's an additional power that currently doesn't exist. You may have a wider view on whether the Government should have this power or not, but if the Government must have this power and it's clearly the direction of travel, then all we can do is add in some safeguards. Amendment 80 does exactly that by the introduction of a prohibition of release of someone who, for example, is on the sex offenders register, but specifically where the Pro-Board has not directed the release of that prisoner. We talk about risk assessment, as the Cabinet Secretary did. I believe that the Pro-Board goes through that process robustly. Not everyone always agrees with the outcome of that, and there is a process for that, but surely that is where risk assessment best happens. The independent arms-length situation of a Pro-Board, it's hard to see how there can be true risk assessment if the Pro-Board are not involved, and in specifically around cases where someone has been convicted of a specific sex offence, where there may be greater risk to a victim upon their release, I do not believe that the Government should hold the power to release that individual. Therefore, the current prohibition that exists, which is being removed by this bill, I would like to reintroduce back into the bill, and I believe that's why it's been supported by victims organisations. I'll leave my comments at that. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to come in? No, okay. Cabinet Secretary, to wind up. Just to briefly say, convener, that risk assessment is at the core of these provisions, and actually for all offence types, and I think there are risks of, if we start including or excluding some offences, given that this is for long-term prisoners, that the thorough risk assessment procedure should be applied to all prisoners that are being considered. Of course, it's been considered. There is no automatic entitlement to be released on this temporary reintegration licence. Within the provisions, there is a very clear commitment that the parole board and the risk management authority have to be consulted for those prisoners that the Scottish ministers would be considering release for. I do appreciate that the language of legislation can be confusing, particularly in terms of who and what Scottish ministers are, because in some scenarios that means Scottish ministers. In other scenarios, in this case, it actually means the Scottish prison service, and that's to do with the nature of them being an executive agency. I have to confess that some of this is technical, trying to follow all the dots and comments. I should appreciate that of which prisons are excluded and who has the powers to do it, but I don't know if he addressed to what extent why he wants to do it. What's the philosophy behind it? I did read the purpose and effect amendment, which is quite thorough. What's the philosophy behind it? Is it because it's time to change the way we do things, releasing prisoners? Is it time to change, given certain prisoners the opportunity to say or is there another reason? It's the why question that I'm still struggling with a little bit. It's clear about who's excluded, and I covered that earlier in my answer to Mr Greene. I'm sure that the committee may have heard evidence on this from the parole board, is that very often, when people are coming up for consideration of parole for the first time, that often there's just not enough evidence, because people have not been tested enough, hence the logic for some prisoners to be tested on a temporary release license. I want to tell my comments, convener, on really stressing to committee the importance of the statutory operating procedure and firstly to give assurance to committee that this is something that I will be paying particularly close attention to and that I would be more than happy to be having discussions with members to ensure that they are fully excited on our thinking in and around the statutory operating procedure, because the scope of that is absolutely crucial. In terms of victim support organisations, we will indeed have very close engagement with victim support organisations over the statutory operating procedure. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore we will go to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 9, please raise your hands. All those against raise your hands. All those abstaining raise your hands. So we have four votes in support of the amendment, two votes against the amendment and two abstentions, therefore the amendment is agreed to. So I call amendment 72 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 9. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 73 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 9. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 74 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 9. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. Apologies, members, just making sure I'm at the right point. Thank you. I call amendment 10 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Already debated with amendment 9. Cabinet secretary to move formally? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 75 in the name of Jaymea Greene already debated with amendment 9. Jaymea Greene to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 76 in the name of Katie Clark already debated with amendment 9. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 77 in the name of Katie Clark already debated with amendment 9. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 78 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 9. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 79 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 9. Katie Clark to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 80 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 9. Jamie Greene to move or not move? Moved. ffasgfodd i'r model gyntaf. Y gallEr Voidlen wedi bod yn fuym i'meg yn.. ...巴ns o ph nationally Cpoes ystod. Er Fawr, nes Abernydd Director uchydig y Siwethaf yr Amgylchedd anghofu impressive sydd o busgog'ad oes... ...ser cy thumbnail o effaith deolchaeth avenue o gyfer Esgwadau ar y sefydliadau yma, amser, mawr i ddygol. Mae'r tygrif wedi eu rai gŵr hawdd iawn o ddarladau a'r ddymarodau i gyfrifiadau siaradau. Mae'r ddarladau ynwallu cairfaith yw Llyfrgell Cym wonfa yn grwp Pleidfa theoras, i ddarladau'r ddarladau i gyfrifiadau i ddarladau i gwrthwyr i gwyllfa mwyaf i gerdref. Maeах forestîr. 11xx provides the parole board for Scotland with the power to reconsider its decision to release an individual on parole licence in certain circumstances. The board directly responds to the points raised by the chair of the parole board, John Watt, when he gave evidence to this committee during stage 1. I'm also aware that the committee called on the Scottish Government to find a solution to this issue in your stage 1 report. Ysgolwad yw'r byw yn ei wneud y ystyried dweud sydd yn teimlo i ddweud i'ch defnyddio'r llysau ar gyf Nigeria yn hynny, ond bod yr oeddurgyn gyrdwyddon yn y cynllunol yn ei lwydei sydd yn ei llyfr i'ch yn cyfrifiad ystafel i ddwyllwyr pan fyddai i'ch cyfrifiadau. A bod y oeddurgyn gyrdwyddon yn ei ddwyntaf i ddwyllwyr, mentions mynd yn myn gyda hynfer y gwaith i fyndio'r cl sequreuigo ar yиковu. Y D iglyweddwch 제�ek yn gwybod o'r grwpamelr ond oherwydd eiDCau hynny cof Wasin ni surplus ond ond o gwybod yng ngaimeilliad ddadweyd accompany paddo yaди. Yr amenysg wedi hynna fel petg pleasantor yn defnyddio du cosig honno swyddwch dou ch section 1 d storiddio錁auirationn�îm Cysylltliningr, i gyfer si observedd gennych ein pwpf yn gyntaf hynny, That power is applicable where new information is provided to the board between its decision to recommend release and the point of release, and where the information is considered to have a significant bearing on the individual's suitability for release. Essentially, this amendment gives the parole board the power to place a pause on the individual's release in these circumstances until they consider the new information and decide whether to review their decision to release. As part of that review, the board could uphold the original decision to release, uphold it but amend licence conditions or reverse the decision. It is our view that this amendment provides an important additional safeguard. As this is intended to enable an internal review by the parole board, we have not set out any procedure for these reviews within the amendment, we will consider further whether any change may be needed to the parole board's rules to support this as part of the implementation in due course. Amendment 11A amends amendment 11 by removing references to recall of long-term prisoners released by the Scottish ministers under section 3AB1. That is release of a long-term prisoner by the Scottish ministers under the temporary release power provided by section 7 of this bill. As Katie Clark's amendments to remove Scottish ministers' ability to release long-term prisoners on the temporary release licence provided by section 7 were not moved, I would urge her not to move amendment 11A as it would remove an important safeguard and result in an inconsistent approach to review of recommendations by the parole board to release prisoners. I move amendment 11A in my name, convener. Katie Clark to move amendment 11A and speak to both amendments in the group. Amendment 11A was put down as a consequential amendment to an amendment that was discussed in the previous group. However, given amendment 11, put down by the cabinet secretary, I would urge her not to withdraw amendment 11A. Do any other members wish to come in? Cabinet secretary, do you want to wind up and on amendment 11? I have nothing further to ask, convener. Thank you very much. Katie Clark, just to confirm that you intend withdrawing amendment 11A. Yes, that's correct. Thank you very much. Members indicated that they wish to withdraw the amendment. Does the committee have any objection to the amendment being withdrawn? Thank you very much. Cabinet secretary, do you want to press or withdraw amendment 11A? Press. Thank you. The question is that amendment 11A be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. We now move to power to release early. I call amendment 90 in the name of Rona Mackay, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings. I draw members' attention to the procedural information relating to this group as set out in the groupings. I point out that if amendment 93 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 94 due to a preemption. Rona Mackay to move amendment 90 and speak to all amendments in the group. The amendments that I am proposing today seek to bring the emergency release provision in this bill in line with changes that were made to the comparable provision within the coronavirus recovery and reform act 2022 at stage 3. The 2022 act provides the power to release groups of prisoners who fall within a particular category specified in regulations from prison early. However, of course, that must be in response to the effect that coronavirus is having or is likely to have on a prison or prisons generally. The power contained in the bail and release from custody Scotland bill is a wider permanent power that will be used in response to the effect that an emergency situation is having on a prison or prisons generally. By its nature, that is clearly a power that would rarely, if ever, be used, but I believe that it is an important safety net to have. The amendments that were made to the 2022 act at stage 3 were agreed after the bail and release from custody Scotland bill was introduced. It is appropriate that the amendments to the 2022 act are replicated here. Amendment 96 seeks to limit the application of the early release power so that prisoners cannot be released any earlier than six months prior to their scheduled release date. Amendment 92 seeks to exclude people convicted under the Domestic Abuse Protection Scotland Act 2021 from the early release provision. That is absolutely crucial. Amendments 91 and 94 are technical amendments and result from amendments 92 and 90. All those amendments reflect amendments that are made to the comparable power contained in the 2022 act, and I believe that they are necessary to ensure the safety of victims and give them some peace of mind in the unlikely event that they could ever be needed. I move amendments 90, 92, 91 and 94. Cabinet Secretary, to speak to amendment 12 and other amendments in the group. I would like to begin by setting out why section 8 is an important provision, ensuring that the security and good order of our prisons and the health and safety of prisoners and prison staff is absolutely critical, and it is a responsibility that I take extremely seriously. The emergency prisoner release power in this bill is intended to support that essential principle by providing a means to release groups of prisoners if the impact that an emergency situation is having or is likely to have puts the security of prisons or the safety or welfare of prisoners or prison staff at risk. That is not a power that I would ever hope to use. That is not the reason for including it in this bill. It is in this bill because, as the pandemic showed us as a Government and as a Parliament, we have to be able to respond to the unpredictable. We have to ensure that we have the mechanisms in place, as far as we can, to respond immediately to emergencies where lives may be at risk. That is one of those mechanisms. Unlike the UK Government, which has had such a power since the early 1980s, the Scottish ministers currently have no legal power to instruct early release to protect the security of prisons and the safety and welfare of prisoners and staff other than specifically in response to Covid. Therefore, without the provisions in section 8 of this bill, we would require to introduce emergency legislation if we needed to respond to an emergency situation in our prisons in order to protect lives, for example, in the event of a major fire in a prison, of course. The cabinet secretary perhaps gives some examples of the types of situations where she would envisage such legislation would be necessary. It is clearly extremist in an emergency that had an immediate impact and threat to the safety and wellbeing of staff and prisoners. I suppose that the example of perhaps a major fire having a major impact on a prison would result in the prison being unsafe. Picking up the point again on emergency legislation, we have to acknowledge, convener, that even emergency legislation would take time and it would be time that we could not afford. Including the power in the bill was not a decision that we took lightly and we have included a number of safeguards, which I would highlight and do not exist in other jurisdictions. There are statutory exclusions to prevent certain prisoners from being eligible from release under this emergency power. That includes those serving sentences for sexual offences or following conviction under the Domestic Abuse Act. Further more amendments 9, 12 and 13, just for clarity amendments 12 and 13 in my name, would extend the existing Governor Vito. Those amendments would enable the prison governor to veto the release of an individual under this emergency release power if they consider that the individual would pose an immediate risk of harm to an identified group of people as well as to an identified individual as the drafting currently provides. That directly responds to concerns raised by the victim support organisations. Convener, I've heard a number of times that this provision isn't necessary as the powers already exist. This is not correct. It is true that there is a comparable power under the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform Scotland Act 2022. However, that power is only to be used in relation to the impact that the coronavirus is having and it is temporary ending in 2025 at the latest. The release power under section 8 of the bill is designed to be used in an emergency situation which places at significant risk the security and good order of a prison or the health, safety and welfare of prisoners or prison staff. Turning now to the specific amendments in this group. Amendments 90, 91, 92 and 94 in the name of Rona Mackay bring the early release provision in this bill in line with the comparable provision within the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform Act 2022, following changes made at stage 3 for that act, and those changes responded to amendments lodged by Jamie Greene and Russell Finlay at stage 2 of that act. I agree that those amendments strengthen the provision and, as such, the Scottish Government supports amendments 90, 91, 92 and 94. I now turn to amendment 94 in the name of Jamie Greene. This amendment would remove the ability for Scottish ministers to use the made affirmative procedure for the emergency release regulations. This would significantly impair the Government's ability to take immediate necessary and proportionate action to ensure the safety and security of prisons, and for that reason I cannot support it. The Delegated Powers and Legislative Reform Committee quite rightly scrutinised the use of made affirmative in this bill, and the Scottish Government provided them with further detail to inform that scrutiny. I note that the DPLRC's response to this committee on the Delegated Powers memorandum to this bill stated that the majority of the committee is content with the explanation provided by the Scottish Government and accepts the power and principle. The majority of committee is also content that the exercise of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it may be subject to the made affirmative in specified circumstances and by reason of urgency, and I therefore ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 94. Convener, amendment 38, in the name of Katie Clark, would entirely remove the ability for Scottish ministers to direct the release of groups of prisoners in response to an emergency situation. A power that I have said is currently available to other jurisdictions within the UK and has been for some time. For the reasons that I have set out above, I cannot support amendment 38, which would remove the ability for Scottish ministers to release groups of prisoners in response to the impact that coronavirus is having or is likely to have on the security and good order of prisons and the health and safety of prisoners and prison staff. I therefore ask Katie Clark not to move that amendment. As has just been discussed, my amendment 93 does the following. If members look at page 11 of the bill itself, about halfway down, subsection 3D is about parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under section 3C. The bill goes on to say that regulations under section 3C are subject to the affirmative procedure. It then carries on unless the following applies and there are a list of situations where that scrutiny would be removed. My amendment takes an overtly simplistic approach, perhaps, but simply removes the rest of subsection 3D right down until the end and the beginning of section 3E on the following page. The reason for that is quite simple. It removes Scottish ministers' ability to release prisoners under section 3 without some form of parliamentary scrutiny or indeed a vote. The affirmative procedure is often made at committee, which could be an appropriate place. Indeed, this committee has had a number of SSIs over the years where we have given it full scrutiny and debate and sometimes even pushed it back or brought it to a vote where there is disagreement. So it's a very suitable means of scrutinising decisions like this. I'll come on to section amendment 38 in a second because it goes a clearly a step much further, but I think my amendment removes what I think is the problematic part of this section. The bill states at the moment that Scottish ministers can release prisoners under the made affirmative procedure. If they are of the opinion that by reason of urgency it is necessary to make regulations without their being subject to the affirmative procedure, the cabinet secretary in her comments just said that effectively that would impair their ability to make immediate decisions. I would make two points in response. The first is that it is entirely possible for Parliament to make laws when it is necessary in an emergency situation. The sort of emergency situation, which remains unknown because the cabinet secretary was unable to elicit to the committee what sort of situations really, would be suitable to use this power. But as we saw during the coronavirus legislation, we as a Parliament, even when not sitting in person, were able to pass quite broad sweeping laws in very, very short timescales. In fact, the Government makes use of emergency protocol to pass law when it suits them. I cannot understand the rationale that ministers would argue that somehow this will impair their ability to make decisions. I also think as a fundamental point and that is that Parliament should be given scrutiny of such decisions. We do not know the numbers or volumes of prisoners that could be released or the reasons given. At the very least, there is a courtesy to a committee of the Parliament or the chamber itself that a Government should be forthcoming with their plans to do that, even at short notice, and give Parliament some say in the matter at the very least so that it can be properly debated. It is a very, very sweeping power, I am afraid. Is that a second question? Yes, in a second. Again, amendment 38 goes a step further. I am not saying that the Government necessarily should not have the power of all I am doing through my amendment is saying that regulations under section 3 are subject to the affirmative procedure, full stop, and that there are no exceptions to that. I would be happy to give way. I am struggling a wee bit with your explanation as to why you would object to that. By the very nature of an emergency, there is no time for scrutiny, but it is to be used incredibly quickly. I cannot see the reason for objecting to that. An emergency is an emergency, and that is just, as I said in my notes, a safety net. So that that facility is available. I cannot see that there is any hidden meaning behind it. I think that it is quite clear-cut what it is for. The problem is that it is not clear-cut. The pandemic was an emergency, which is why we passed emergency legislation. It is interesting that the cabinet secretary said that it is not a power that the cabinet secretary would ever want to use. The problem that I have, irrespective of your views, is that previous cabinet secretaries have used this power to release prisoners for emergency reasons. When that power was used, we saw what the consequences are, and that is what I am coming on to next. Under the coronavirus legislation, this government, not this cabinet secretary, this government did use that power to release prisoners. The Scottish Government released 348 prisoners in early May 2020 under what was then emergency legislation. Of those 348 prisoners that were released under that emergency legislation, we understood what an emergency was in that scenario, and 142 of them went on to re-offend within six months of release, which is perhaps why victims organisations have such an issue with this. What is worse though is that none of the victims involved in any of these cases were informed of the emergency release, and frankly, the use of that power was debatable in that scenario, and the effect that it had on the wider community was debatable. It is all very well saying that it is just a catch-all emergency, and we hope that we will never have to use it. The Government has used it and may use it again. All I am saying is that the Government insists on having this power, which I believe is perfectly suitable under the Coronavirus Recovery and Reform Act 2022, which I understand is limited to 2025. However, if the Government wants that power for longer term, it can come back to Parliament and ask for it, or make that permanent if it so wishes. This bill is not at the place to put in that power. If the Government insists on having that power, then the very least it can do is be forthcoming to Parliament and make sure that there is some form of scrutiny. At the moment, there is none. It simply does not exist, and I feel for the protection of future parliaments, which, whether I am in it or not, is irrelevant, such as sweeping power, knowing the effect that it has when you release hundreds, or potentially more, of prisoners on the community and on victims, the very least that we can do is ensure that it involves some scrutiny and debate, and ideally a vote in this case to affirm the procedure, as the Government already details. It is for that reason that I am taking out the rest of section 3D in my amendment, and I also would support Katie Clark's amendment, which I know from the groupings that is all-sported by another colleague as well. I call Katie Clark to speak to amendment 38 and other amendments from the group. I am very grateful, convener, and I speak to amendment 38, which has been put down working with Victim Support Scotland and other victims organisations who are very concerned about the implications of section 8 of this bill. I have looked at the wording of section 8 in detail, and it is fair to say that the concerns are related to the wide nature of the drafting of the legislation, the fact that some of the detail will be in regulations, and therefore we do not know what further detail there will be provided by the Government and the lack of certainty in terms of how an emergency would be defined. I am very sympathetic to the approach that was outlined by Jamie Greene in amendment 93. This would be a permanent power, and therefore over time it is likely that the legislation potentially could be used in a number of situations and may be used in scenarios that perhaps we would not envisage. It needs to be tightly defined and tightly worded, and although I am very sympathetic to what the cabinet says about the type of very extreme circumstances where it may be necessary to take action of this nature, I think that if Parliament was going to pass this legislation, those circumstances would need to be very tightly defined, and I would be happy to take an intervention. I appreciate that the circumstances are abstract in some ways, although we understand pandemics and health emergencies and those powers that relate to that. I think that these are common provisions that exist in other legislations, but the unplanned ones are some of the more extreme situations where in other countries, for example, there has been a prison fire, for example, and they need to release people very quickly. That led to huge amounts of absconding because people literally left the prison gates and never came back. I think that there are scenarios that would be helpful if the Government were a bit clearer as to what sort of potential scenarios might an emergency constitute in order for them to have this white—what might be a suitable power to have in that circumstance? I think that that is a helpful contribution. I asked the cabinet secretary to give examples, and the example that she gave was perhaps the first example that I had also thought of, and that Jamie Greene has also mentioned of a prison fire. What, for example, would have happened in Berlin or a very, very large prison establishment were to burn down? What would be the emergency response to that situation? I think that I would be far more sympathetic to the Government if perhaps there was a defined list, perhaps looking at what has happened internationally and the kinds of real emergencies that do present themselves where it is necessary to take immediate action. I think that it is fair to say that probably most situations that would be considered an emergency could wait for Parliament to be convened and to consider the issues and to consider whether it was necessary for emergency legislation to be passed. However, there will be other situations and other scenarios such as a fire where that may realistically not be possible, where the numbers involved may not be able to be catered for in the rest of the Scottish prison estate or, indeed, by asking perhaps the English prison estate to provide assistance. There may well be scenarios where the law does need addressed and that we do need legislation, but my concern in terms of the drafting of this bill is that it is very widely drafted. It is a permanent power and, in my opinion, fails perhaps to define the kind of limited circumstances where it may be necessary for the Government to take action for the Scottish prison service on a genuine emergency basis, where it is simply not possible for the Scottish Parliament to have an involvement. As I say, I am sympathetic to the approach outlined in amendment 93. I would be very interested in whether the Scottish Government is able to look at the drafting of this part of the bill again to see whether it is possible to address some of the concerns that are being raised. Thank you very much. Do any other members wish to come in? Pauline McNeill. Thank you very much. I think that it is a really important grouping and a really important discussion because, as Katie Clark has said, I think that it would always be sympathetic to any Government having permanent powers if they thought it was justified because we do not know all the emergency circumstances that we could have ever faced, so I am totally sympathetic to that. You would not want to think of an emergency situation where the powers were inadequate, so I am on that perspective. Like Katie Clark and Jane McGreen, what I am interested in is drilling down a bit on the regulatory framework and the extent of the powers and the language in the bill. There is one provision that talks about emergency, and it is not defined. In another section in City of Devendee, it talks about urgency. I would just like to be clear that they would amount to the same thing in the ordinary meaning. There is some definition of what would constitute an emergency situation that is in page 10 of the bill. For example, it states that a situation that has resulted in any part of the prison or part of a prison being unusable—half a green-up prison is unusable. Does that mean that Ministers could release prisoners on the basis that there is a water leak or a damper? If, for example, the health and safety executive deems a prison to be unsuitable and is breaching international human rights legislation, would that constitute a reason to—the answer probably is no, probably not, and the answer to that by Ministers would probably not be in that scenario, but, as drafted, it says that they could. That is the problem. I appreciate that intervention from Jamie Greene, who speaks to his own amendment in so far as making sure that any regulations can be properly—allow the Parliament to properly scrutinise the use of any powers and any adjustments—to further points. I am just not sure about the—am I right in saying that there is a provision to give prison governors additional powers for release and the one-radificate clarification on that. Again, it is like to know why that is necessary. Is it for the same rationale? A further point that Jamie Greene makes about the early release of prisoners during Covid does speak to the need, I think, to look—I am asking the Cabinet Secretary to give thought to this. In any of these situations, where there is early release for emergency reasons, must be surely conditions attached to that to perfect and notify victims. I am not sure that it is contained within the—it also speaks to the fact that a lot of other provisions have not really scrutinised—it is occurring to me—large elements of this, and it is stage two feeling that I have to come to draw conclusions on big issues about what powers to give the Government and on sentencing relation to early release. I have actually got concerns about that now. Finally, just on Rona Mackay's amendment 90. I am sympathetic to that amendment. I do not know if Rona Mackay wants to intervene. I just wasn't sure about the requirement for 180 days earlier than ministers otherwise be required, because I am thinking here that, well, if you were serving a year sentence, would the 180 days still apply? Does it apply regardless of to what sentence you are serving? It would seem disproportionate if you are serving a sentence of two years and you have 180 days applied of your serving. Perhaps I have misunderstood it, but I just want to be clear before we come to the vote as to what that would actually mean. I support the notion behind it about giving victims certainty about the safety of victims. These are all important principle issues. Yes, I would do that. Ms McNeill, I am going to by way of intervention make a few points. I was forgetting that it is not me that is summing up in this group, so I have been sitting here taking notes. Maybe if I could pick up your earlier point, in essence, this is about risk to life. If we had time to reconvene Parliament, contact committee, get on teams, it would not be a decision for this power. It is imperative that we are having this debate right now, because this is exactly the type of discussion and testing that we should be having during peacetime, if I can use that phrase, as opposed to scrambling around trying to pull together emergency actions that may or may not be underpinned by emergency powers. In terms of section 8 of the bill, in terms of an emergency situation, placing a significant risk, securing good order of a prison or the health and safety and welfare of prisoners and staff, essentially this is about life and limb. Where we could look at Ms McNeill's point about regulations is that we can narrow the use in terms of who would be released and will certainly continue to engage with members and victim support organisations on that point. I hope that that is helpful. Thank you very much. That is helpful. Perhaps the Government might want to give consideration then to just making sure that it is clear in the statute then to be passed that risk to life is kind of the basis of—because you could understand why ministers want that power if there is risk to life. I do not think it is contained in those terms. I am just struggling with this, and I do not want to get into tripartite debate. If it is an emergency power that is based on the premise of risk to life, why are there exemptions, such as those convicted of terrorist defences, those subject to next tradition order, those subject to 2010A of the Act for Sentences of Sex. Are we saying that some prisoners release what others wouldn't in a life threatening situation, so there is a bit of a—a bit of a—it does not make sense. I know you cannot intervene on an intervention, sorry, but it just might help. I am happy to give way to cabinet secretary. In terms of the operation of prisons, I appreciate that this is difficult in terms of—we are trying to future proof without knowing what specific disasters are potentially coming down the track, but in terms of needing space within a prison, if a prison did not have the capacity to safely look after all its prisoners, and that was of significance in that there was a fire and a risk to the health, safety and life of staff and prisoners, that there was the absolute necessity to release some prisoners, well surely we want to be releasing prisoners that present a lesser risk, and that is part of our work too. So all the terrorists and six vendors burned to death when everyone else gets out? No. I mean it seems such an odd scenario. None of it, the explanation makes sense. So it is an emergency power to be used in a life-threatening situation, which I think we probably agree sensibly. There is a—we do have—we have got to be careful not to, with respect to the sublime to the ridiculous, and I appreciate that it is difficult in any future proofing powers to come up with precise scenarios, but we do have a prison estate that is of more than one prison. So, you know, and these would be the operational decisions made by the prison service at the time of an emergency where let's just say, you know, a small prison like Greenock was out of use. So you could of course, you know, move other prisoners elsewhere, but it may be an extremist that decisions have to be made to release some prisoners. And actually, my final point to Ms McNeill is that—and I'm going to give the English comparison where—and it doesn't mean—I'm not for a minute de-modern from the fact that we should be debating what I'm asking for in a Scottish context, but just by way of giving some contrast, that the power in England is very broad. It's, you know, should the Secretary of State need to make decisions about, you know, the use—the safe use of prison places? So this is already, you know, a power that is, you know, much more built around the scenario of emergencies. And I think, you know, the undertaking to give to members is, you know, where there have to be, you know, limits in terms of, you know, the regulations about, you know, who in the first instance, you know, could be released. I think that's, you know, eminently sensible. That is helpful. I would conclude, convener, by saying, I think therefore I think everyone seems to be content that the Government should have emergency powers. I think what I would put a plea for is that there's clarity around and that it just kind of reads easily as to what this power is about. That it is about risk to life, that there are regulations ordinarily, that it's about future proofing. And lastly, I don't know what your position on amendment 90 is, but as I said, I'm sympathetic to. I just don't know if it's proportionate to say in every case that it would be 180 days. That's my only concern. And lastly, it's an important section of the bill to get right. So I just, I would just plead that the Government would, if this passes, just give. And lastly, on Jamie Greene's point, in these scenarios, I don't see why we can't get into the bill, the requirement to notify victims. It seems to be in line with the principle of what we all believe in. And it seems to be missing from the bill. So Rona Mackay to wind up and presser withdraw amendment 90. Thank you, convener. Yeah, and I think this has been a very useful discussion. And I think, I mean, I think we are getting into the finer detail now. I don't think we're really necessarily opposed to the principle unless I've misunderstood. So I mean, the detail I'm sure could be explored at a later stage, but I'm happy to propose amendment 90. Yes, of course. I'm just picking up on some of the points that have been presented to Ms Mackay in earlier debates, in particular the response to a point raised by Pauline McNeill, that further detail can be set out in the explanatory notes and that actually in terms of your own amendments, it's with respect to people who have 180 days or less left to serve. Okay, thank you for that clarification and I'm nothing else to add. I'd like to move amendment 90. Thank you very much. So the question is that amendment 90 be agreed to or we all agreed. Thank you. So I call amendment 12 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 90, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes, thank you. I call amendment 13 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with amendment 90, cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 91 in the name of Rona Mackay already debated with amendment 90. Rona Mackay, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 91 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Are we all agreed? Yes. Can I just confirm Pauline McNeill and Katie Clark here in agreement? Thank you. I call amendment 92 in the name of Rona Mackay already debated with amendment 90. Rona Mackay, to move or not move? Move. Thank you. So the question is that amendment 92 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 93 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 90. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Moved. Thank you. So I remind members that if amendment 93 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 94 as it has been preempted. So the question is that amendment 93 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote. So those in favour of the amendment raise your hand. Thank you. Those against the amendment raise your hand. There are no abstentions, so there is an equality of votes. Therefore, as a convener, I will use my casting vote and vote against the amendment as the amendment is not agreed. So I call amendment 94 in the name of Rona Mackay already debated with amendment 90. Rona Mackay, to move or not move? Move. So the question is that amendment 94 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. So I call amendment 38 in the name of Katie Clark already debated with amendment 90. Katie Clark, to move or not move? Not moved. So the question is that section 8 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. So that's 25 past 11, so I think we deserve a short break. So I will suspend the meeting for around 10 minutes and ask if members can be back and ready to go at 11.35. Thank you very much. Thank you members. So we now move on to section 9, which is release planning. I call amendment 95 in the name of Russell Finlay, group with the amendments as shown in the groupings. So Russell Finlay, to move amendment 95 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much. So this section relates to the planning for a prisoner's release and I've got four amendments, which are 95, 96, 97 and 98, and they seek to ensure that victims' voices are heard, their rights are respected and their wellbeing is paramount. It's a thing that I'm sure we can all agree on. Now the bail and release from custody bill as drafted defines a release plan, as a plan to prepare a prisoner for release and to facilitate their reintegration into the community. It requires local authorities, health boards, Police Scotland, Skills Development Scotland and integrated joint boards to engage in that process, but we say that victims should also have an input. Amendment 95 would therefore require victim support services to contribute to the process. I was pleased to receive an email last night in which victims' rights groups expressed their strong support of 95 and other amendments in this section. For the record, they are Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and Assist. I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees with them and I'm keen to hear her response. Amendment 98 is a consequential to 95 and it defines victim support services as currently defined in statute. Amendment 39 from Katie Clark is similar in effect to my amendment 95. It would require the bodies involved in developing a release plan to consider the role victims' organisations have in these release plans. While it's not exactly the same as my amendment, it is a similar effect, so I'll be supporting it today if indeed it's pushed. My next amendments are 96 and 97. Release plans in this section of the bill apply to, and I quote, relevant individuals. What's meant by a relevant individual is a prisoner, whether that be one who is sentenced or on remand. I don't only want victim support services to be consulted in the development of a release plan as per 95. I want there to be a release plan for victims, which is what amendment 97 would achieve. That would ensure their interests are at the heart of release plan considerations. I know that a release plan won't solve every issue, but it will make clear what a victim can expect when an offender is released. Amendment 96 is a consequential to ensure that release plans can be properly applied to victims without needing measures that would have only applied to offenders. Turning to Katie Clark's amendment 40, it states that, within one year of the section coming into force, ministers would be required to publish guidance and standards applicable to release plans and that a public consultation should also be carried out. My colleague Jamie Greene will speak to his amendment 99, but that's similar to Katie Clark's. However, he's been more generous to the Government, allowing them three years rather than one to take those steps. Finally, amendment 41 from Katie Clark will require the Scottish Government to review release planning for women. Specifically, the review must consider caring responsibilities, health issues and offending history. The reporting requirements would allow for more information to be made public on release plans so that we can observe how they work in practice, and I am therefore happy to support that. Katie Clark will speak to amendment 39 and other amendments in the group. Russell Findlay has said that my amendment 39 is similar to the amendment 95 that has been put down in his name. My amendment 39 has been informed, again, by conversations with Victim Support Scotland and other victims organisations. They confirm what we all already know that victims are not routinely consulted or involved in initiatives intended to address offending. Section 34A2 sets out a list of persons who must comply with any request by Scottish ministers to engage in the development, management and delivery of a release plan for a prisoner. My amendment 39 would therefore stipulate that the persons and organisations listed must have regard to victims and victims organisations also and explicitly ensure that they are involved and consulted at all stage in the development and management and delivery of a release plan. My amendment 40 requires the Scottish Government's report within one year on how the release planning process is working and carry out a consultation on the published guidance. I note that the alternative position from Jamie Greene is to allow a longer period of time, and I would be flexible in terms of the period of time that it was believed was required to enable this to happen. However, the amendment would impose a duty on those persons to engage in the development and management of a release plan of request to do so by the minister, and so this amendment is an attempt to ensure that the process as set out is as effective and manageable for the organisations involved and indeed leads to the right outcomes. Amendment 41 is an amendment that I have been put down and follows on from the debate that we had at last week's meeting in relation to women in custody. This amendment would require ministers to carry out a review of release planning for women in custody. A key motivation for this amendment is based on what we know regarding the experiences and profile of women in custody, as well as the data and indeed the lack of data that we hold. Scotland, as we know, has one of the largest prison populations in Europe. Even though almost 40 per cent of women charged women being held are not convicted prisoners, many of those women we know are very vulnerable, a high proportion are mothers and carers and indeed many have suffered brain injuries as a result of repeated domestic abuse. Refocusing remand in relation to women is obviously a wider debate, but this amendment would seek to ensure that some of those special circumstances and the profile of women offenders are factored in at release planning stage. I now call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 99 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I only have one amendment in this group. For the record, I support all the amendments in this group. It is quite notable that there are three sets of amendments from three different members of the committee, which all seek to essentially do what many organisations have been asking us to do, and that's in cert a greater role for the third sector and particularly the consideration of victims throughout release planning in the absence of any government amendments to do so. I'm hoping the Government will, at least if not willing to accept overtly any of the amendments in this group, will commit to taking some of them away and we'll hear more about that shortly. There is something quite interesting about this section for duty to engage in release planning. The bill, as structured, lists the people who have a statutory duty to engage around release planning, local authority, health board, Police Scotland, STS and an IJB. To be fair to the Government, it goes on to say that, in complying with that duty, they must have regard to the role in which the third sector can play in the development of release plans and make commission services from those parties. I think it's widely understood that the third sector could include some of the organisations to which we've referred to a lot of this morning, but the problem is that they can only be involved if they are commissioned by any of the name parties in section 34A2, which are the named persons who have the statutory duty. There is scope in that section for the Government to have a more direct role between the prison service and the third sector rather than have to go through an intermediate, in this case the local authority, the health board, STS or the IJB. If my interpretation of that is wrong, I'm happy to be corrected, but it feels like there's a missing element there, which is why so many of us have come to this section with Liffa ideas. My amendment is similar to Katie Clark's amendment around the reporting requirement. I do support Katie Clark's amendment. I suspect that the Government will say that we're looking at wider reporting requirements that have been added in the various sections of the bill. I understood earlier that we heard a commitment that within part 2 of the bill there would be greater provision for reporting requirements. I think that this would be a sensible addition. I actually was trying to be fair to the Government. I think that a year was quite a time frame to produce that report, and I kindly changed it to three years while we have a separate amendment, but very similar in nature. I'd be content with that either. I note that, in the correspondence that we got from VSS yesterday, it preferred one year, but equally would be content with three also. I think that they make an interesting point, though, which I did want to put on record. That's that, whilst it has drafted, the persons who must comply in the development of release plans must have regard to the role in which the third sector bodies are able to play. They propose that section 34A be amended to explicitly provide that victims of crime and victim support organisations will be involved and consulted in the development, management and delivery of a release plan. Some of the amendments in this group would address that, and therefore they strongly support it and understand why. I'm hoping that we get some positive responses from the Government on this set of amendments. Thank you very much. Would any other member like to come in? Thanks, convener. This group of amendments focus on the critical area of the bill, planning for release from custody. Section 9 of this bill is intended to require earlier engagement and a prisoner's release planning by the universal services. They will need on release in order to reduce their risk of re-offending. That is underpinned by a commitment to victim safety. I support the intention of some of the amendments in this group, and I am willing to work with members to see what can be done to bring forward matters at stage 3. However, I cannot support the specific amendments as drafted for the fallen reasons that will lay out. Amendments 40 and 99 seek to require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance and standards on release planning in Scotland. I am assuming that that is to support implementation of section 9, but the amendments are not specific on that. They also require Scottish ministers to carry out public consultation on those guidance and standards. I agree that it will be important that a consistent approach is taken to how section 9 is implemented across the prison estate and with all the named bodies. I am therefore minded to consider bringing back an amendment at stage 3 that would include the requirement for Scottish ministers to develop guidance to support that. I would expect that guidance to also include detail on how best to consider victim safety. I am not persuaded that separate standards will be needed, however, as there would be a risk of duplication with the proposed standards for through-care provided for at section 10 of the bill. I am also not convinced of the need for public consultation on what would be operational guidance for practitioners. I agree that we will need to consult relevant stakeholders in the development of the guidance and will consider how to reflect that in stage 3 amendments. I therefore ask members not to press amendments 40 and 99. I now turn to amendment 39 lodged by Katie Clark. The amendment seeks to place a duty on the public bodies named at 34A2 in section 9 of the bill to have regard to the role that victims of crime and VSOs are able to play in the development, management and delivery of a prisoner's release plan. That release plan will be a plan to prepare a person for release from custody, whether from remand or sentence, and to facilitate their reintegration and access to universal services. I understand that the views of the victim and the organisation that supports them are crucially important in informing release decisions. Victim safety is a critical consideration in release planning. Victims have the right to receive certain information about the release of a prisoner in their case and the bill extends that to victim support organisations and can make representations about licence conditions. As the committee is aware, that is provided for by the victim notification scheme, which has just been subject to an independent review. I am not clear, convener, what role victims and VSOs could appropriately have in relation to the development, management and delivery of a prisoner's release plan that could place a significant pressure on a victim and be re-traumatising. I would also have concerns about what role a victim or a VSO could play in developing a release plan for a prisoner on remand, as they have not been convicted of an offence. I think that the wider point is that what is notably absent is any duty to consult with victims around the release of offender. As you rightly said, the VNS is really the only mechanism, and I know that subject for review, but we feel like this is an opportunity to put on the face of the bill, if not via these amendments in the future amendment, that victims with their consent. It is not a blanket that every victim will deal with it. There is also an advantage to the offender as well, because if this is all about release planning, then it is not clearly our intention is to ensure that the ongoing safety of the victim after release is an issue that we have widely debated. There may also be advantages to the offender themselves as to know what the parameters around that release and their conditions might be. Even, for example, to ensure that they do not breach licence conditions inadvertently, as we have heard is sometimes the case. Indeed, we saw some of that in the hearings that we attended, so there is significant advantage to offenders as well as victims and the victim being involved somehow in the process. At the moment, it is just a bit woolly in terms of their involvement with that, so I am hoping that the Government could find a mechanism to ensure that there is a duty to consult. It is important that, when we are considering the involvement and recognition of the needs of victims and their needs for information and security, we are looking at that in terms of the end-to-end journey. I suppose that my remarks today are very specific in relation to this bill, and I appreciate that my remarks might seem quite narrow. I want to say that we need to be looking across the piece. Victims have the right to be making representations to, for example, the parole board. At the risk of sounding quite narrow in my comments, but I am speaking to specific amendments on a specific part of the bill. In reference to the Community Justice Scotland Act 2016, that is a legislation that is focused on offenders, not victims and any amends on victims might not fit with that act in terms of achieving the support and the improved outcomes, whether we are talking about victims or those being released from prison. We just have to be really clear about the detail. I am more than well in the time that we have between now and stage 3 to delve even deeper into the detail here, because I am conscious that this is a large piece of legislation that is making amends to several pieces of legislation that is already behind us. However, it is important, as Mr Breen says, whether for victims or the accused that we are getting all the detail right here. The other point that I wanted to make is that there are also limits on the information about individual prisoners, which can be shared. Therefore, it is not clear what role a victim or a VSO could reasonably play in the management and delivery of a prisoner's release plan. I am concerned about the potential consequences of Ms Clark's amendment and how it would interact with the existing processes under the victim notification scheme. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 39 and I would ask Ms Clark not to press it. In terms of amendment 95 lodged by Russell Finlay, Mr Finlay and I have a completely different view as to what the amendment does. However, Mr Finlay's amendment is seeking to include victim support organisations in the list of public bodies at section 34A2, which have a duty to comply with a request from Scottish ministers to engage in the development, management and delivery of a prisoner's release plan. As with amendment 39, I am not clear what role VSOs could appropriately have in the development management and the delivery of an individual's prisoner release plan. In this way, I cannot support amendment 95 and I would ask Mr Finlay not to press it. Amendment 98 proposed definition for victim support services, intended to bring in organisations providing support services, does not work as there is not a corresponding definition in the new section 16A of the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003, which Mr Finlay's amendment cross refers to. Further, on the basis that this amendment is dependent on amendment 95, which I have also urged Mr Finlay not to press, I do not think it would be necessary to pass this amendment and I would therefore ask Mr Finlay not to press it. The specific intention of amendments 96 and 97 is not entirely clear from the text alone. It would appear that, taken together, the intention of amendment 97 is to include victims within the definition of a relevant individual for whom release planning can take place, alongside individuals on remand or serving custodial sentences. As I have discussed previously, the intention of section 9 is to require earlier engagement in a prisoner release plan and, by the universal services, they will need on release in order to reduce the risk of re-offending. Victim safety will be a key part of that planning. Prisoner release planning is not the same as victim safety planning and these amendments, I fear, risk conflating the two. I therefore cannot support amendments 96 and 97 and I ask Mr Finlay not to press them. Lastly, amendment 41, lodged by Katie Clark, would require the Scottish ministers to carry out a review of release planning in regards to women within two years of the section coming into force and to publish a report on its findings. The Scottish Government and Scottish Prison Service recognise the specific needs of women in custody. That is why we are taking a different approach to the women's estate and why the strategy for women in custody is so important. As I said in response to Russell Finlay's amendment 71 in an earlier group, I am minded to come forward with a stage 3 amendment that will encompass all the various asks for reviews into the different sections of part 2 to provide a more coherent picture and that would include a focus on release planning for women. In light of that, I would ask Ms Clark not to press amendment 41. Russell Finlay to wind up and press amendment 95. I note that the cabinet secretary acknowledges the views of victim support organisations and, indeed, that victims are crucial and critical, but I might add when they are not. The issue appears to be that the cabinet secretary cannot see what role victim support organisations would play. That phrase was stated on more than one occasion. However, the victims support organisations do see those amendments as being valid and do see— Can I just ask Mr Finlay what—if he could outline what role victim support organisations should play in the delivery of a prisoner's plan? I was going to come on to the point that you made around the statutory requirement for the time to be involved, but I want to make the more general broader point, which is that they see a role in both the planning for release and the general consultation for around that. Taking on board what the cabinet secretary is questioning in terms of delivery, perhaps an example of how victims' organisations might be involved in the delivery of such services would be perhaps about housing allocation and whether it is appropriate for someone who is being convicted of a violent offence to be relocated in the same part of a town as the complainer. Would that be the kind of example that might be appropriate for victims' organisations to be involved with? Potentially, yes. There is a very clear distinction between planning for someone's release and absolutely there needs to be victim support input into the plans that are made, but that is very distinct from the management of offenders and the delivery of services to manage offenders. I think that it is important that no-one wants to be silencing victims and that they have to be involved in the end-to-end justice journeys, but we need to be clear that we are not expecting victims or victim support organisations to be involved in the management of offenders or the delivery of those management plans, because that clearly arrests with other agencies. No, I do understand that distinction and that has been explained in your response, which is why I think I am minded at this stage not to move it because you have already expressed a willingness to work with members to find a way to, yes. The rationale for the benefit of the cabinet secretary is that victim support organisations themselves wrote to it saying that they would like to be involved in the delivery, not just the planning, but in black and white. If we want to know what they think their role is, perhaps the Government should ask them, then they would not have to write to us a night before stage 2. I would strongly advise that either the committee or the Government speaks to these three organisations ahead of stage 3. If they feel that there is not a role in delivery, but there is a role in the planning, we can find a way around that. There are other ways of amending the bill, as it is. Section 34A, in terms of the duty to engage in release planning, is the duty to engage, not the duty to deliver. That whole paragraph, where it talks about the statutory persons in the development, management and delivery of a release plan, could easily be split out into two sections. There could be a group of people who are statutory named persons in the development of another group who are involved in the delivery of, as you rightly pointed out, a difference. I think that there will be solutions to this that do not play a sudden, due statutory duties on organisations who do not want them and who do not need them, but equally reflect the views of those organisations. I am sure that my colleague and I will work on such amendments with the Government if they are willing to. I absolutely agree with what Jamie Greene said. There are a couple of other small points to make. The victim notification scheme was referred to. We know that it is not working. We know that the review has been pretty harsh in its assessment, but I do not think that that is a substitute, certainly not in the way that it is not working just now, as a properly robust mechanism in the bill to ensure that victims' voices are properly heard. I look forward to bringing that back in a better, more competent shape. I am also slightly mindful of a more general approach that I am hearing more and more about, whereby there is almost a justification not to inform victims because to do so can cause them further distress, but I think that that is at odds with reality and it is not a reason in itself to not keep people informed and it is not something that I have heard victim support organisations talking about. To recap, I look forward to having a rethink and, hopefully, working together to find a way to bring that back in a better shape. Thank you very much. Just to confirm if you are pressing or withdrawing amendment 95. The members indicated that they wish to withdraw the amendment. Does the committee have any objection to the amendment being withdrawn? Nope. Thank you very much. That is the name ofULL that is truly important now. All of the people who ask it. All the people who ask it. Thank you very much. I understood why it was happening when I heard that in all the days when you were leaving in the name of Douglas Lumsden, grouped with amendment 101. Douglas Lumsden, to move amendment 100 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and in just moving my amendment, I'd just like to set some context around it. So I've been an MSP for just over two years now, and one of the first people to contact me after being elected was a brave and determined woman called Sandra Gettis. Sandra told me about the story of her brother, Alan Gettis. Alan stayed less than a mile away from me, from my house, in an area called Rutherstyn in Aberdeen. In December 2019, Alan was murdered by a man called Stuart Quinn. That of one, Alan, was stabbed 40 times by Quinn. Good Samaritan, Alan Gettis, was murdered after offering a recently released Quinn a place to stay in his home. Quinn had been released from prison just hours before, without any proper support package and no accommodation in place. This is because his sentence was backdated after being held on demand, so he was released from custody with little preparation. The Mental Welfare Commission conducted an investigation into the circumstances leading up to this killing, particularly with a focus on the care and treatment received by the killer prior to his sudden release from jail in 2019. This bill provides an opportunity for the Scottish Government to act on the recommendations outlined in this report, and that is why I am proposing my amendments today. Amendment 100 would establish a post-custody outreach service for offenders who have been released from jail, as recommended by the Mental Welfare Commission. In setting up this service, Scottish ministers would be required to consult with Community Justice Scotland, each local authority and each health board. That would enable a holistic approach to be taken across the whole system, with both the justice and health perspectives considered before establishing this service. My amendment goes on to commit to providing a point of contact for every person released from custody who has at some point spent some time detained in hospital. This was the case with Alan's murderer. Clearly, a person who has been detained in hospital at some point requires additional support compared to other offenders, given the mental health problems that that person has encountered, and so it is vital that there is someone in place to proactively outreach to them. Indeed, my amendment would require that offenders who fall into this category are contacted by the point of contact within the post-custody outreach immediately upon their release from prison, so that they have someone to go to straight away. Hopefully, that will ensure that there is always somebody a recently released prisoner who can reach out to them if they are experiencing trouble. My amendment intends for this service to last for a year after the prisoner has been released. I have also allowed Scottish ministers the opportunity through regulations to set out what else should be provided by this post-custody outreach service. Through consultation with other stakeholders, I hope that a comprehensive service can be developed, which prevents a situation like Alan Geddes' murder from ever happening again. Amendment 101 is consequential amendment 200, which introduces the post-custody outreach service. Alan's sister Sandra says that she wakes up every morning thinking about what her brother went through. I would never want any other family to experience that, and we can try and make sure that it never does. I am happy to work with the Scottish Government if they think that amendment needs further work, but I hope that they are supportive of the principle. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Would any other members like to come in? Thank you and welcome Douglas Lumson to the committee. Thank him for the powerful way that he put forward his constituents' case. It was very powerful, as I say indeed. I am actually quite sympathetic to where Mr Lumson is wanting to go with this in a very general sense, but I would not be inclined to vote for it at this stage because there would be quite a number of questions that I would have, and I think that the committee as a whole would probably have the Government too. I would only apply if the person has been detained under the mental health legislation. How long ago would that detention have to have taken place? What supports would the amendment actually put in place for people? I think that it is probably a bit like another amendment that I spoke about earlier. I see the principle of it and you have come at it very passionately. I do not think that anybody can take that away or deny you that, Mr Lumson, nor would I seek to, but I would have quite a lot of questions about the actual effect of the amendment at this point, and there are just some of them. Did you get an intervention on that? Yes, absolutely. I listened to the cabinet secretary last week and she said, if not this, then what? If not now, then when? That is probably the same question that I have got now. This is, for me, an ideal opportunity to put this in place. We have the recommendations from the Mental Welfare Commission. If we are not putting anything in place now, when is that actually going to happen? This could be another report that I feel could just gather dust if we do not put something in place now. I acknowledge the report and the recommendations on that. My point would be that it would be a big piece of work, it would be a big change, and it is whether that is the right place for it. I am interested to hear who the cabinet secretary is going to respond to, but I do think that there are quite a lot of questions just now. Just because we think that something should be done in principle and there is obviously a really emotive background to the situation in the story that you have outlined, it would need to be done right because we would not want to create a situation where it could actually make things worse. If things like where would the person have to have been detained, under what legislation, under mental health conditions, all that is not ironed out properly. It could be worse for people in the long run and that would be my concern. I just want to put that on record. Those concerns all I do again want to go back to say that the principle of Mr Lumsons is noted. Any other members, if not, I will bring the cabinet secretary in. Firstly, convener, I want to put in record my sympathy to the Geddes family and say that I support the underlying intention of this amendment, which appears to ensure that people leaving custody are able to access support for mental health problems should they need it. I very much recognise that amendment stems from a recent mental welfare commission report into the case that Mr Lumsons has raised and he has consistently and compassionately raised for some considerable time now. The Scottish Government is carefully considering this report and all of the recommendations within it will respond formally in the coming weeks. The Government has to provide a response in full. That will be led by health ministers, but I can assure Mr Lumsons that I have a particular interest in this particular report. Although I do not want to pre-empt the content of the Government's response, so I would not necessarily go into particular details on the various recommendations. The mental welfare commission report highlights the particular difficulties that can arise when an individual has been released directly from remand by the court, especially in circumstances where that outcome was not anticipated. I know that this is an issue that the committee has considered during your scrutiny of the bill and it is certainly an issue that I recognise. We did consult on the provision of support for people released directly from court when developing the bill, but it was not clear, however, that a legislative solution was the best one. That is not to say that nothing can be done and I intend to work with stakeholders to identify policy and operational solutions before stage 3, and I am doing so at the request of the convener in her capacity as an individual MSP. As we have discussed, the bill aims to foster a more effective multi-agency approach to release planning. It will strengthen the role and responsibility for a range of public services to engage in pre-release planning and require Scottish ministers to establish statutory standards for through-care for the first time. That covers both remand and sentenced prisoners. However, the amendment goes beyond the prison release process for understandable reasons. It would have a significant and lasting impact on mental health approaches, as well as resource implications, too. While it would not be appropriate to implement such a change in the context of the legislation when there has not been prior consideration and discussion, it is nonetheless a significant matter that requires further consideration. However, we have to do so in all appropriate forums. I appreciate the member's close interest in the issue, and perhaps it would be helpful to discuss the details of the Mental Welfare Commission report separately with him. I am just trying to think that, if it was not part of the bill and the amendments were not accepted, what would be the Government approach going forward? Would there be additional legislation or would it just be guidance? What would your thinking be on that? I think that there is a legitimate question whether it would actually need legislation. However, as I said, I am happy to discuss that further with Mr Lonston. I also think that it would be useful that, if he was willing to have a discussion with me in the context of this bill, we would also include, as part of that discussion, health ministers who will have a responsibility to respond in the not-too-distant future to all the recommendations that are made by the Mental Welfare Commission. I think that there is an absolute need to be discussing how we better support people direct from court. My fundamental question is whether all of that solution will lie in this legislation or not. I move on a wee bit. However, coming back to the matters before the committee today, I have concerns about the unintended consequences of this amendment, which I would like to explain. Amendment 100 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to establish a post-custody outreach service for individuals released from custody, either for remand or sentence people who have previously been detained in hospital. I am going to detail some of my concerns in and around the amendment. That does not mean that there is no merits to an outreach service. In terms of what has been drafted, I am assuming that that means detained under mental health legislation, although the amendment does not specify that. The amendment provides that this detention could have taken place at any time. It could have been years or even decades before the individuals released from prison and that detention could have been for a reason completely separate from the reason that a person is in prison, for example for suicidal ideation or concerns about self-harm. The amendment requires that service would provide a point of contact for those individuals on release and then regular contact for a year following liberation. The amendment does not specify what that contact should entail and whether that is a mental health support service, wider social support or whether it would be for supervision, and that makes it very hard to determine the purpose of the service and its potential impact. I think that that is a much broader issue than legislation, although I understand why Mr Lumsden is pursuing the course of action that he is. It is also not clear whether the contact would be on a compulsory or a voluntary basis. That is an important point of detail. As I am sure Mr Lumsden will be aware, compulsory treatment is only allowed in very strict circumstances and it is not clear how the service proposed by the amendment would fit into that wider mental health landscape. I do very much recognise the importance of holistic, well-planned support for people leaving prison. That is one of the underlying purposes of the bill and it is why the Government already funds local authorities and third sector organisations to deliver through care. In addition to my specific concerns about the scope of the amendment, I am also not clear how such a service could fit into the existing landscape of support for prison leavers and mental health services, in particular where it would overlap with existing services. It is for that reason that I cannot support amendment 100 and the associated technical amendment 101, and I would ask Mr Lumsden not to move them. However, while I am resisting those amendments, I am not for one moment rejecting the issues that Mr Lumsden has raised, which is why I would be further happy to meet him along with other ministers as well as the engagement with stakeholders that I committed to in my interactions with the convener to see how we can move the situation forward in ways that will have direct impact on practice and on the front line. Thank you very much, convener and cabinet secretary. I know the comments that you have made. Douglas Lumsden will now invite you to wind up if you have further comments that you wish to make and press or withdraw amendment 100. I will just be quite brief on this. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the cabinet secretary and I would hope that that would be extended to Sandra Geddes, as well as Alan's sister. I know that she would welcome that because she has always said that her brother was failed, but she also accepts that the attacker, Stuart Quinn, was failed. He was let out one night nowhere to go, just got chatting with somebody else randomly at a bar. We tried to get him some accommodation that night, couldn't get anything and then offered him a place to stay for that night with the tragic consequences that came from that. I welcome the engagement. In terms of press, I still intend to press my amendment. Yes, of course. Just wanted to come in quickly. The point was that Alan Geddes died because the state failed. They failed this particular prisoner. The Mental Welfare Commission report is absolutely damning and I think that Sandra Geddes deserves great credit for having lost her brother in such horrific circumstances campaign so effectively and working alongside you to get to this point. It's very welcome that the Scottish Government is showing a willingness to find some form of way forward. It is all about Sandra Geddes and, as I said in my initial comments, a brave and determined woman. That's why I'm here today. As I said, Stuart Coombe was also failed by the state. I want to press on with this. Welcome the engagement. If we can change it for coming back at a later stage, then I'd be happy. I'd like to press on with it today. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Can I just check if we're all agreed? No. Thank you. We're not agreed, therefore we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of the amendment raise your hands. All those against raise your hands. There are no abstentions, so there's an equality of votes. Therefore, as a convener, I'll use my casting vote and vote against the amendments. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 101, in the name of Douglas Lumsden. I've already debated with amendment 100, Douglas Lumsden, to move or not to move. Thank you very much. Now we move on to through care. I call amendment 42, in the name of Katie Clark, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings. Katie Clark, to move amendment 42 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I speak to amendment 42, which is a probing amendment. Section 34B sets out that Scottish ministers must publish standards applicable to through care in Scotland and that in preparing, reviewing and revising the standards various bodies should be consulted. This amendment stipulates that consultation should be public. Establishing new statutory minimum standards for through care support is a key change that affects individuals' successful integration into the community and offers assistance around accommodation, healthcare, education, employability and other services. Input from wider communities can only be useful. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary what the Government's thinking is in relation to this proposal. Amendment 43 is another amendment that has been informed by discussions with Victim Support Scotland. The argument is that support that is provided must be safely and appropriately designed and address the needs of victims. However, there is currently no specific reference to engagement with victims of crime or their support organisations in the legislation. The amendment is similar to many of the other amendments that we have discussed in previous groupings. The amendment would ensure that the specific input of victims' organisations is required. Amendment 3 relates to resource issues, which we have debated on a number of occasions previously. In previous groupings, we have debated reporting amendments that recognise that, without greater funding and resource, the fear is that many of the organisations that will have obligations put on them by this piece of legislation will simply not be able to deliver them adequately due to lack of resource. The amendment is designed to highlight the overburdening of responsibilities on organisations without adequate funding and resource. To ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny, the amendment would ensure that those bodies who are required to comply with requirements around through-care standard supports have the capacity to do so and that this Parliament is actively scrutinising whether resources are put in place to ensure that the legislation is meaningful. Amendment 44 relates to access to training, education and work opportunities on remand. There is currently no statutory basis to enable that to happen, although my understanding is that some prison establishments do attempt to provide such opportunities to remand prisoners, even though there is no legal basis to do that. As we have discussed previously on many occasions, we have high numbers of untried prisoners in the prison system, often for extended periods of time. As we have discussed previously, the length of period that individuals are being held on remand has grown considerably for a number of reasons, including the extension of time limits and legislation passed by this Parliament but also exacerbated by the pandemic. There will be a range of different types of accused people that are being held on remand and many will be there for non-violent offences, but significant numbers will be there for charges of a significant nature. This amendment would enable untried prisoners to have greater access to services that are currently available to convicted prisoners. It is an amendment that is tied with the through-care section as it was ensured that such obligations are guaranteed and could be available immediately as soon as a period in custody starts. Clearly, there are operational and other considerations that would be needed to be taken into account. For example, some types of training and different types of opportunities might be more appropriate for someone who is only going to be there for less than a week. If the prison knows that an individual is going to be with them for an extended period of time, a range of other opportunities and training might be more appropriate to have available. The amendment is seeking to open up the debate. If there were specific problems around about the wording, I would be very happy to discuss with the Scottish Government, but the principle is that some of the services and access to education training and work opportunities that are available to convicted prisoners should be available to remand prisoners and that that would significantly improve the quality of the time that those individuals spend in custody. We should remember that those people have not been convicted of anything but may also be of significant benefit to the Scottish prison service itself. As I say, I understand that that does happen on occasions already, although I am not convinced that there is a statutory basis to that. Cabinet secretary, you speak to amendment 14 and other amendments in the group. Section 10 of the bill requires Scottish ministers to establish through-care standards for both remand and sentenced prisoners. I welcome the committee's support for those provisions. I recognise that, in order for those standards to be as effective as possible, they need to be informed by a range of views. That is why section 10 includes a list of body Scottish ministers must consult when preparing, reviewing and revising the standards. The amendments that I am bringing forward today seek to extend that list further. Amendment 14 adds the risk management authority in recognition of the valuable insight that will have in ensuring that the standards sufficiently manage risk and are informed by best practice. Amendment 15 adds the care inspectorate, reflecting its role in the scrutiny and assurance of community justice and justice social work. Amendment 17 requires consultation with groups that focus on providing support to children, young people and families impacted by imprisonment. Allowing the voice of children and families to shape the standards and their specific needs to be considered. Amendment 16 is a technical amendment to allow this list to be expanded. Amendments 18 to 20 expand the list of statutory consultees to include victim support organisations, allowing the standards to be reflective of victims' needs and ensuring that they continue to centre on victim safety. I have brought forward these amendments directly in response to calls made to this committee and by victim support organisations. Amendments 18 and 19 define victim support organisations in line with section 11 of this bill. Amendment 20 allows Scottish ministers to amend part of this definition subject to the affirmative procedure, again in line with section 11. I ask that committee support those Government amendments. Amendment 43 would require Scottish ministers to consult with victims of crime and victim support organisations in the preparation, review and revision of the standards. I agree that consultation with the VSOs on the standards is critical, and that is why I have lodged amendments 18 to 20 today. However, I cannot support Katie Clark's amendment 43, just for a couple of reasons. First of all, the definition of victim support organisations provided in this amendment is not consistent with the definition used elsewhere in the bill. The Government's definition of victim support services goes further and encompasses organisations that provide services intended to benefit the health and wellbeing of victims and those that provide support for safety planning and making representations regarding prisoner release. Also, my amendments provide the ability for ministers to amend the definition of victim support services. Amendment 43 does not do that. Secondly, amendment 43 would require the Scottish ministers to consult directly with victims on the development of these standards. I agree that it will be critical that the standards are informed by the experiences of victims of crime. However, it is also important that victims are consulted in a way that is trauma-informed and supported. My view is that this is best done via victim support organisations. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 43. I would argue that my amendments 18 to 20 will achieve the same aim, and I would ask Katie Clark not to press amendment 43. Turn into amendment 42. It appears that this amendment is intended to require Scottish ministers to carry out public consultation in relation to the through-care standards. I support the principle of this amendment. However, as drafted, I do not believe that it will deliver the intended purpose. Section 34b4 is already a duty to carry out a public consultation when preparing, reviewing and revising the standards. The through-care standards will undergo extensive consultation, and during this period, Scottish ministers must consult a wide range of people, bodies and organisations. Additionally, Scottish ministers may consult anyone else that they consider appropriate. Because of that, Ms Clark's amendment would have little or no effect on the current requirement in the bill to consult when the standards are prepared, reviewed and revised under section 34b4. However, I recognise that there is a wider public interest in this area, and the Government should be open to hearing the views of communities impacted by through-care. Therefore, I commit to bringing forward an amendment at stage 3 that would require Scottish ministers to undertake a formal public consultation on the draft standards following the consultation and development with the listed partners. I ask Ms Clark not to move amendment 42 today. Turning to amendment 44, the amendment would require ministers to take steps to ensure individuals who are remanded in custody can receive through-care support and access to activities and opportunities from the start of their period in custody. I agree that it is important that remand prisoners have access to support on release, and that is why both the pre-release planning duty and the through-care standards provided in this bill also cover remand prisoners. However, I am not clear what practical effect this amendment would have. Remand prisoners can already access through-care support from their local authority on a voluntary basis under the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003. The third sector through-care services already offer support to women and young people released from remand. I recognise that that does not include men released from remand, and that is something that we are considering. Obviously, it has resource implications, but it does not require legislation, though. If the amendment is intended to go further in mandating that every remand prisoner engaged in through-care support, there would be further legal issue with that. It is fundamental that engagement with through-care support is voluntary unless someone has been sentenced and that sentence includes supervision requirements. They cannot be forced to engage with any form of follow-up on support after they are released from custody. The prison rules do not exclude remand prisoners from work or purposeful activity. The prison service will, if possible, offer access to work and educational opportunities for those on remand. Therefore, I would argue that amendment 44 does not add to current practice, and I would ask Ms Clarknot to move it. What is the current access to education, training and cultural experiences for those on remand compared with those who have been convicted? What is her understanding of how the Scottish prison system operates? I understand that there is not a bar on remand prisoners from participating in purposeful, helpful activity. Obviously, as you outlined in your own remarks, depending on the length of time, it is anticipated that someone will be within a custodial sentence that, in terms of longer-term interventions or that priority may be given to longer-term prisoners or sentenced prisoners. Finally, I turn to amendment 3, which was lodged by Ms Clark. That would place a duty on Scottish ministers to publish a report on the impact of the through-care standards on partners, including in relation to resource implications and whether adequate resources are available to support implementation. I am clear that resourcing is a critical consideration in the delivery of successful through-care. That is why we currently fund local authorities and third sector organisations. There is a risk that amendment 5, as drafted, will place further administrative burdens on partners to provide evidence of whether their resources are adequate and that it is likely, understandably, to look very different across all local areas. Furthermore, it should be noted that amendment 5 would require Scottish ministers to publish the report within one year of the section being commenced. I draw members' attention to the fact that the bill, as drafted, requires the standards to be developed within one year of commencement. We could end up with a scenario in which partners were required to provide information on the impact of standards that were just published. As I said, in my response to Russell Findlay's amendment 71 in an earlier group, I am minded to come forward at stage 3 with amendments that will encompass all the various asks for reviews in the different sections of part 2 to provide a more coherent picture. That could include a review of the impact of through-care standards. It is for that reason that I ask the member not to move amendment 3. Kitty Clark, before I jump on, to bring in any other members that may wish to speak. Kitty Clark, to wind up and press a withdrawal amendment 42. Thank you, convener. I would not be my intention to push any of those amendments to the vote at this stage. However, I do think that they raise important issues both in relation to the involvement of victims that we have already discussed previously and indeed the involvement of victims organisations but also in relation to the resource challenges that the justice system currently faces, which are unlikely to be impacted by anything that is within the legislation that is being proposed by the Scottish Government. In relation to amendment 44, the evidence that the committee has received previously is, as I understand it, that the types of activities that are available to those on remand are greatly restricted compared with convicted prisoners. It may be that the practice of the Scottish Prison Service is changing over time and it would be useful to get more information about that before the next stage of the bill. As I say, I do not plan to press any of those amendments at this stage. Thank you very much. I confirm that you wish to withdraw amendment 42. The members indicated that they wished to withdraw the amendment. Does the committee have any objection to the amendment being withdrawn? I call amendments 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 14 to 18 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 14 to 18? So the question is that amendments 14 to 18 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. So I call amendment 43 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 42. Katie Clark to move or not move. Not moved. Call amendment 19 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 42. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. So the question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 20 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 42. Cabinet secretary to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 3 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 42. Katie Clark to move or not move. Not moved. The question is that amendment 44 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 42. Katie Clark to move or not move. So the question is that section 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. So just before we move on to the next group, I note that we've only got two more groups left. I absolutely do not want to curtail debate, but as we move into the next group, I wonder if I can just gently ask members to be succinct where they can, and we should be able to finish stage 2 today. So on that note, we move on to provision of information to victim support organisations. I call amendment 45 in the name of Katie Clark, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings. I draw members' attention to the procedural information relating to this group as set out in the groupings. I would point out that if amendment 45 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 102 and 21 due to a preemption. If amendment 47 is agreed, I cannot call amendments 103 and 24 again due to a preemption. If amendment 48 is agreed, I cannot call amendments 104 or 105 again due to a preemption. So Katie Clark, to move amendment 45 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 45 is a technical amendment. It was agreed with Victim Support Scotland. Section 11 suggests that a victim support organisation acting a supporter can on their own volition and, without the victim's specific consent, ask for information under this section. This amendment would require that specific consent was required. Victim organisations do not believe that it is appropriate that the legislation as drafted should proceed as they believe that it would undermine victims' agency, override victims' autonomy and consent, and undermine victims' trust in professionals if they were aware that information could be provided without specific consent and therefore would make them less willing to engage in future. This amendment ensures that the victim support organisation can only obtain the relevant information if it gives express information to do so by the victim or, indeed, in certain circumstances on the victim's behalf or on behalf of the victim of the organisation. Amendment 46, which is a consequential amendment, again was agreed with Victim Support Scotland. This refers to the section allowing victim support organisations to obtain information around the victim's right to representations, where a prisoner is being considered for a lease and licence. The view is that wording of the section as drafted is problematic and raises similar issues as raised in relation to amendment 45. The suggestion is that one way of dealing with that would be to remove it from the bill. Amendment 48, again, was agreed and discussed with Victim Support Scotland. It stipulates that there must be victims' consent at each stage. For example, victims' consent, for example, at information sharing provisions. It replicates the 2014 act regarding information sharing provisions. The approach that is being outlined is the approach that is being asked for by organisations who have worked with victims and represent victims. For that reason, I am bringing it to the committee to hear the cabinet secretary's thinking and the Scottish Government's response to the representations that have been made to members of this committee, but I suspect that they have also been made to the Scottish Government. I now call Russell Finlay to speak to amendment 102 and other amendments in the group. Those amendments relate to the sharing of information about victims with third-party organisations. If I understand Katie Clark's amendments 45, 47 and 48, that would remove the ability of a supporter of a victim to be given this information in certain circumstances. I agree with Katie Clark, but I believe that there is perhaps a different way of achieving this. That is with my amendments 102, 103 and 104. Those would ensure that information is still available to those who want it, but crucially, where there is the consent and support of victims, I think that it leaves what could be a potentially useful channel of communication open. I note also that the victim support organisations have made representation to committee members and are quite critical of some of the cabinet secretary's amendments in this section. They oppose six of those and seek for one of them to be withdrawn, and if one was to proceed for that to be subject to substantial revision, returning to my own amendments, I think that this is a better solution than the one being proposed by Katie Clark, but I am happy to hear more because it may well be that there is something that is not obvious to me. Cabinet secretary, to speak to amendment 21 and other amendments in the group. Before addressing the amendments lodged by Katie Clark and Russell Finlay, I will speak to the amendments in my name. Section 11 allows victims to nominate a victim support organisation to receive information regarding the release of a prisoner in their case. That is intended to enable a more trauma-informed approach to this information sharing and allows victims to be better supported in release planning. During stage 1, concerns were raised at the bill as currently drafted would have the unintended consequence of allowing a victim support organisation to request information on behalf of a victim where the victim had not given consent. As such, we have lodged amendments 21, 24 and 105, which address this concern. VSOs will be required to seek and secure the consent of victims before requesting any information about a prisoner on behalf of a victim they are supporting. Amendments 21 and 24 require consent in relation to prisoner's sentence to 18 months or more. Amendment 105 is an equivalent amendment in relation to victims of prisoners' serving sentences of less than 18 months. Turning to amendments 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27, this group of amendments extend the provision in section 11 to victims where the perpetrator is a patient in the forensic mental health system. Amendment 23 enables victims where the perpetrator is subject to a compulsion order and a restriction order to nominate a VSO to receive the same information that the victim is entitled to and gives a VSO the right to ask for this information. Scottish ministers will provide the information if they are satisfied that the victim has consented to the VSO making the request. Amendment 25 gives the VSO the right to be told about certain decisions if nominated by the victim. Similar to amendment 23, VSOs can also request this information where they have consented to do so. Amendments 22, 26 and 27 are technical amendments to the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2003 in consequence of amendments 23 and 25. Turning to amendments 45 to 48, lodged by Katie Clark, like the Government, okay? I just wonder what the cabinet secretary was saying in response to the concerns raised by the victim support organisations to her amendments. Mr Finlay, I hope that we will be reassured that my officials have and will continue to, as I will, engage extensively with victim support organisations. We are currently at stage 2. I am laying out why I think the amendments that I have lodged are necessary and I am about to give a view on amendments that are led by other members. Turning now to amendments 45 to 48, lodged by Katie Clark, like Government amendments 21, 24 and 105, amendments 45, 46 and 47 are intended to ensure that victim consent is required before a VSO can request information on behalf of that victim. Amendment 48 is intended to do the same where the person is sentenced to less than 18 months. However, rather than amending the bill to ensure that consent is sought, those amendments seek to remove the relevant subsections that allow VSOs to seek information proactively. While I appreciate the intention behind those amendments, as drafted, they would remove provision for the VSO to originate a request for information. Retaining that ability to request information is important. As VSOs work with a victim, they may realise that they would want the VSO to be provided information to help them plan for release. If they have not registered with the VNS at an early stage, it could be re-traumatising or disincentivising a victim to require them to return to SPS to make that request. Allowing VSOs to make the request and receive the information on the victim's behalf can help to remove those issues. The Scottish Government's amendments 21, 24 and 105 achieve the intended result of ensuring that victim consent is sought and secured before information is requested, while still allowing the VSO to proactively request information if necessary. For that reason, I would ask Katie Clark not to press amendments 45 to 48. Turning to amendments 102, 103 and 104, lodged by Russell Finlay, those amendments also aim to achieve the same results as those lodged by Katie Clark and myself with regard to securing victim consent. While the amendments lodged by Mr Finlay would still allow for victim support organisations to proactively request information, they would have to satisfy the Scottish ministers of both consent and that they would use the information to support the victim. The latter safeguard was included in the bill at introduction because consent was not required on the face of the bill. We consider that having both safeguards would potentially lead to confusion and delay in providing information to VSOs. A victim is also not required to satisfy SPS of their intended uses, of the information that they are entitled to, and we do not think that VSOs should be required to satisfy an additional requirement when their request stems from the victim and is made with the victim's consent. My amendments will avoid this potential confusion and better meet the Government's policy intent. I therefore ask Russell Finlay not to move amendments 102, 103 and 104. On the face of it, when those amendments were submitted by the Government, we reminded to support and favour of them as they seemed to be improvements to the legislation for other clarification. However, I do not think that it can go unnoticed that amendments 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 are opposed by the very organisations that work day in and day out with victims. That is notable. I would perhaps suggest that the Government does something unusual and perhaps not move those amendments and go back to the drawing board with them if there are problems with them. We have been asked throughout the stage 2 process over two weeks not to move amendments that, on the face of it, are trying to do the right thing, but might be problematic. Here is an opportunity for the Government to do exactly the same. Explanation has been given quite late in the day. I think that it is of notable concern that those to whom this whole section will apply have problems with amendments as drafted. We could pass them and fix it at stage 3. That is obviously an approach, but it just feels to me like a better option for the Government to revisit this after more consultation. I would certainly hope by what I have put on record today that we would be of some comfort. Let me issue both Mr Greene and the victim support organisations that absolutely dialogue will continue between now and stage 3. There is a commitment to work with everybody inclusively and together to get all the detail right. I hope that what I have put on record today will take us at least a bit forward. I do not doubt that. I do not doubt the cabinet secretary's commitment to that consultation and engagement ahead of stage 3. We have to decide whether we vote for them here and now. It would be easier if we did not have to, given what is clearly a contrary position being taken by those organisations in the Government. It would be better for the committee to not be put in that position. Nonetheless, we will support them on the promise, which is now on record, that the Government will look at these ahead of stage 3. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to come in? If not, ask Katie Clark to wind up and press their withdrawal amendment 45. Thank you, convener, and it would not be my intention to press the amendment, so I would wish to withdraw amendment 45 to be very brief. I hope that the Government will look at these issues before the next stage, as Russell Finlay and JB Green have said. Victims organisations are highly critical of the provisions at this part of the bill, and the amendments that I have put down 46 and 48 perhaps take a more extreme response to that than the approach that is being suggested in Russell Finlay's amendments, but they were very much the view of the victims organisations that I met with during the course of discussing this bill, so I would not plan to push those amendments to the vote on this occasion, but I hope that we will come back to this at a later stage. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 45. Does the committee have any objections to the amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 102, in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 45. Russell Finlay, to move or not to move? The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we will move to vote. All those in favour of the amendment raise your hand. All those against raise your hand. There are no abstentions. Therefore, there is an equity of votes, and so, as convener, I will use my casting vote and vote against the amendment. I call amendment 21, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 45. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 22, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 45. Cabinet secretary, to formally move. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 46, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 45. I call amendment 47, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 45. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 46, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 45. Katie Clark, to move or not move. I call amendment 47, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 45. Katie Clark, to move or not move. I call amendment 103, in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment 45. Russell Findlay, to move or not move. I call amendment 24, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 45. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 25, 26 and 27, all in the name of the cabinet secretary, and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 25 to 27 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 25 to 27? No member objects. The question is that amendments 25 to 27 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call amendment 48, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 45. Katie Clark, to move or not move. I call amendment 104, in the name of Russell Findlay, already debated with amendment 45. Russell Findlay, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 105, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 45. Cabinet secretary, to move formally. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 11 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We now move on to our final group and that is the review of the impact of the act and I call amendment 4 in the name of Katie Clark, grouped with amendment 5. Katie Clark to move amendment 4 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Those amendments have been put down following meetings with Linda MacDonald, who, as a result of her own personal experience says, has campaigned to ensure that dangerous prisoners aren't released without sufficient monitoring. For context, amendment 5 relates to multi-agency protection arrangements, better known as MAPA, established by the management of offender Scotland act 2005. That imposes a duty on the responsible authorities in the local authority area to jointly establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks posed by certain categories of offenders, for example, six offenders who are subject to notification requirements under the sexual offences act. Linda MacDonald contacted me in my capacity as a member of this committee to discuss her petition to drive change in the parole system to prevent dangerous prisoners being released without sufficient monitoring. In terms of how that relates to the specific legislation that we are discussing today, the amendment aims to ensure that level 3 MAPA prisoners are being monitored in the same way as other six offenders with regular check-ins, with police and justice social worker. It requires ministers to review and report on the impact of part 2 of the act on MAPA arrangements. The report would in particular require inclusion of consideration of whether changes to national guidance were required and how MAPA offenders are monitored after release from custody and ensuring a consistent approach across Scotland. Amendment 5 ensures greater scrutiny and analyses the extent to which resources are impacted on in this case in relation to the operation of the act. It is an amendment relating to scrutiny and to ensuring that the reforms proposed are, in fact, implementable. Very much. Would any other member like to come in? Just to indicate to the member that we support both those amendments in this group. Thank you very much. Any other members? Thanks, convener. I certainly understand why Ms Clark has laid these amendments given the experience of our constituent. Amendment 4 requires that the Scottish ministers review the impact of part 2 of the bill on the operation of multi-agency public protection arrangements within a year of royal ascent and publish a report on that review. For a number of reasons with regret, I cannot support the amendment. Firstly, the timescales within the amendment are unrealistic, as we will carefully consider with partners the implementation process for each section of Parliament passes the bill. That, of course, would mean that perhaps not all sections of the bill will have been enacted within a year of royal ascent. Therefore, any review within this timescale may be limited in having no or little way by way of the period of operation to consider. It is also relevant that the 2005 act already requires each MAPA area to carry out an annual review of the arrangements for that area and publish a report. The Scottish ministers can notify the MAPA partners of information that they wish them to include in the report. The Scottish Government produced its own annual overview reports of the arrangements. Those reports can at present make comment on relevant public protection matters and could provide a mechanism for reviewing the relevant impacts of the bill, if necessary. The scope of amendment 4 is broad and covers all of part 2 of the bill. However, it is not clear that all sections of part 2 will directly impact on the operation of MAPA or the management of individual subject to MAPA in the community. Such a review mechanism may therefore require areas that are unlikely to be relevant to the operation of MAPA to be assessed. MAPA is, as members may be aware, not an entity in itself, but it is a partnership made up of local authorities, regional health boards, as well as Police Scotland and SPS. They come together in regional groupings. The amendment would require that the review consider changes to national guidance, which ensures a consistent approach across Scotland. Although consistency may certainly be desirable in some areas of operation, MAPA regions can at present determine how they will operate at a local level. The national guidance has already regularly revised to take account of new legislation as well as changes in policy and effective practice. The revision is also informed by the annual reviews. The latest national guidance was published in March last year. I therefore do not think the reporting requirement that amendment 4 proposes is workable or necessary. I ask the member not to press this amendment. I note that amendment 5 links to amendments 1 and 3 are also lodged by Katie Clark, which has already been discussed in previous groups. Amendment 5 places a requirement on the Scottish ministers to report from the operation of the whole act with a particular focus on those two elements within a year of royal assent. That timescale may be unworkable given the different sections of the act that may come into force at different times. It is also not clear what operation of the act would cover in practice, as the member is aware that the bill mainly amends other legislation, so it is not clear that amendment 5 would result in a meaningful report. I agree that the resolution requirements of the bill require careful and ongoing consideration with partners. That will continue into the bill implementation process and future budget discussions. I am not clear that amendment 5 will add to that process. However, as I have said, convener, I am minded to come forward with a stage 3 amendment, which will encompass all the various asks for reviews in the different sections of the bill to provide a more coherent picture, and in light of that, I would ask Ms Clark not to press amendment 5. Katie Clark, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 4. I would wish to withdraw amendment 4. However, I intend to come back to this issue at the next stage of proceedings. We will look very carefully at what the cabinet secretary has said today in terms of the drafting of that amendment. Indeed, we would be happy to work with others to ensure that the wording was as acceptable as possible to as many members as we would be willing to support it. In relation to amendment 5, I look forward to seeing what the cabinet secretary comes back with, and again, depending on that, I will bring that matter back at the next stage. Thank you very much. The member has indicated that she wishes to withdraw amendment 4. Does the committee have any objection to the amendment being withdrawn? I therefore call amendment 5, in the name of Katie Clark, to move or not move. The question is that sections 12 to 15 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for attending this morning, and I now close this meeting.