 As the Presiding Officer has already intimated the next item of business is stage 3, proceedings on the prisoner's control of release. Scotland Bill in dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the martial list and the groupings. Division Bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon and the period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I have called the group. Members should now refer to the martial list of amendment and we will start with group 1 unexpectedly and call amendment 1 in the name of Elaine Murray in the group on its own Dr Murray to move and speak to the amendment, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. The amendment differs from the one that I lodged at stage 2, where I propose that long-term offenders should be required to serve one-eighth of their sentence under supervision in the community rather than the six months proposed by the Government irrespective of the length of sentence or the severity of the crime. The Government rejected this amendment, the Cabinet Secretary and others arguing that they did not agree with an offender who had spent twice as long in prison should also be supervised in the community for twice as long. The committee heard evidence from two expert academics, Professor Fergus McNeill and Professor Cyrus Tata, at the end of May, which was very critical of the Government's blanket six-months period of supervision. Professor McNeill advised, quote, if you have spent 10 years in prison six months at a very short period, not least because of the accumulated effect of the institutionalisation that a long sentence brings, and that, quote, a proportionate system makes more sense. Professor Tata stated, quote, without doubt it would be sensible to define the period as a percentage of the sentence. We recently had a briefing signed by several organisations, and individuals just came out on Saturday, in which they say that proponents of the bill have failed to explain how moving from a compulsory supervision period that is proportionate to the length of the original sentence to a blanket six-months period for all long-term prisoners, regardless of sentence length, better serves the interests of public safety. My stage 3 amendment, therefore, is to an extent a compromise, but I consider that it has some advantages. It would have the effect of enabling the court to decide at the time of sentencing whether the six months supervision in the community would be sufficient or whether a longer supervisory sentence would be more appropriate if, by the end of the custodial part of the sentence, the offender had been deemed by the parole board not to be suitable for early release on parole. The court could, for example, take into account the nature of the offence, the length of the custodial sentence and the offender's previous offending history when determining whether the supervisory sentence should be longer than six months. The maximum length of the supervisory sentence would be set at one-eighth of the total custodial sentence. For a sentence of four years, that would be six months, but for a longer sentence, the opportunity would be available to the court to impose a longer period of supervisory sentence. I consider that that would address the concerns expressed at stage 2 when I proposed a supervisory sentence as one-eighth of the total sentence. It allows a proportional approach at the same time when the court deems it appropriate. It would also have the added advantage that the custodial and supervisory parts of the sentence would have to be defined at the time of sentencing, thereby improving clarity for victims, the community and the offender. This amendment is intended to be a helpful and constructive amendment, which I believe will improve the bill and I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will be minded to accept it. I accept that the member's amendment is in slightly different terms to the amendment at stage 2, but at stage 2, when she put forward the figure of 12.5 per cent, she did put forward the suggestion that there was not really evidence-based. We are obviously familiar with the evidence of Colin McConnell of the Scottish Prison Service on the importance of the first six to twelve weeks, and that period of three months was also supported by SACRO. I would accept that there is an absence of empirical evidence about some of these matters, but I would remind the member of the comments of Professor MacNeill on 24 February when he said that he wasn't aware of any credible evidence that lengthening sentences in and of itself guarantees the more effective risk management that the bill seems to be trying to bring about, but he was not able to put it more forcefully than that, because for obvious reasons of justice, it's very difficult to do the kind of research that would experimentally test different release arrangements. We do not really get to do that kind of experiment in criminology for very good reasons. So there we have it. There is perhaps an absence of evidence by it. I'm convinced that six months gets the right balance, and if we want to give power to the court as proposed by the amendment, then in my view we're taking away some of the power of the parole board that they will get from this legislation, which they don't currently have, an increased power to decide when someone's fit for release. If we're concerned about future supervision at the time of sentence, then I would expect courts to make better use of extended sentences than they do at the present time. So for all these reasons, I would oppose this amendment. Many thanks, Cabinet Secretary. One of the key issues that has been debated through the scrutiny of the bill has been the supervision of long-term prisoners once they leave custody. The Justice Committee recommended as part of their stage 1 report that the issue of some prisoners potentially leaving custody without supervision should be addressed. That's why the Scottish Government listened to those concerns and introduced into the bill at stage 2 mandatory minimum licence condition supervision of at least six months for every long-term prisoner leaving custody. The principle of ensuring mandatory supervision at the end of a sentence was welcomed by the Justice Committee, but there was some debate about what that minimum length of supervision should be. Elaine Murray, as amendment 1, would retain the six months as the minimum period of supervision, but gave new discretion to the court to decide at the point of sentence to increase this minimum supervision to anything up to 12.5 per cent of a prisoner's sentence. It might be helpful if I explain the effect of amendment 1 through an example. A person receiving a 12-year sentence with no extended sentence under the bill, as it is, will be released if they are still in custody after 11 years and six months. Under amendment 1, the court would be able to decide at the point of sentence to order the release from any point after 10 years and six months into the sentence. The Scottish Government does not support amendment 1 for two reasons. Firstly, this is because we consider that the length of the mandatory supervision period should be six months. MSPs will be aware that a considerable amount of work goes on inside prison to plan for the release of long-term prisoners, including a comprehensive home background report that is prepared for each long-term prisoner. That includes criminal justice social work being directly involved inside the prison to consider needs as a long-term prisoner becomes eligible for consideration for release. That work looks to ensure that the prisoner is ready as they can be for release, including considering issues such as housing, welfare and work needs, given that those are key issues about and in order to be addressed in order to achieve successful reintegration into the community. Keeping that in mind, we think the minimum period of supervision necessary for a prisoner having served close to four years as compared to a prisoner leaving after, say, eight years in custody are likely to be similar, given that both a long period of time to be incarcerated and additional property work is done while the individual is in prison. The stage 1 evidence highlighted a number of different issues, and it highlighted in particular that the initial six weeks to 12 weeks following release are generally the most critical for an individual prisoner once released. It is during those first weeks and months after leaving custody that prisoners have to re-establish themselves into the community, and that is when challenges around housing and getting a job are at their most acute. The Scottish Government considers that a period of six months strikes the appropriate balance therefore. In addition to considering as a matter of principle that the six months is an appropriate amount of mandatory supervision period, we think that such a role for the court would also use up the role of the parole board, as it is important to stress that the parole board is there to assess the risk during a prisoner's sentence to decide whether early release is appropriate. The parole board can of course consider how the prisoner has been rehabilitated during their sentence, which is not something that the court can do at the point of sentence. Currently, the system will continue to operate so that the parole board will be assessing whether supervised early release is appropriate for any given long-term prisoner from the halfway point of their sentence onwards. In our view, therefore, amendment 1 would undermine the role of our parole board. Therefore, we do not support amendment 1 and would ask members not to vote in favour of it. Dr Murray, to wind up and press a withdrawal, your amendment, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I can just answer some of the points that were made there. Roddie Campbell says that that is not evidence-based, but there is no empirical evidence for the blanket six-month period. Indeed, the briefing provided by several witnesses who would actually come to the committee at stage 1 have stated that six-month supervision is inadequate and is likely to jeopardise public safety, that reintegration of long-term high-risk offenders takes time, and that there is an increased potential with this blanket six months for ECHR challenges. On the 10-month and six-month issue, it would be for the court to decide at the time of sentencing the total sentence that would be served. If it was considered that the person, if they were not reintegrated or if they still presented a great deal of risk at the end of their sentence, that sentence should be 11 years and six months in prison. They could still impose 11 years and six months in prison, plus a supervisory sentence at the end of it. The total sentence is both parts of the sentence. There are two of them added up. On the issue of the parole board, the parole board would still have a role in deciding whether the offender is released at 50 per cent of the total sentence. I do not understand the argument that this undermines the role of the parole board, because the parole board would still decide if somebody was released earlier that they would have exactly the same role as they have at the moment. They would have to assess the risk of the offender being released before the end of their custodial sentence. I therefore move my amendment. The question is whether amendment 1 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. This will be a five-minute division. I suspend Parliament now for five minutes. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Please vote now. This will be a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 1 is yes, 30, no, 69. There were 14 abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I now move to group 2. I will call amendment 2 in the name of Margaret Mitchell in the group on its own. Margaret Mitchell to move and speak to amendment 2. I move amendment 2, which is in my name, which seeks to delay the commencement of section 1 until the day after the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2015 receives royal assent. I stress that the amendment does not delay the commencement of section 2 of the bill. That was an issue raised at stage 2 when I initially lodged it as a probing amendment in order to give the opportunity to highlight the issues that were worthy of further debate and scrutiny. I had hoped that the cabinet secretary would take cognisance and address stakeholder concerns about the proposals and acknowledge the advantages of postponing the commencement of section 1, for there is good reason for that postponement. A fact confirmed with the analysis published as recently as yesterday by key stakeholders who include those who work at the cutting edge of the criminal justice system and include apex, circle, positive prisons, positive future, criminal justice social workers and learned academics, not to mention equality groups such as Women for Independence. Some of their issues of concern include the inadequate consultation and evidence gathering, the fact that automatic release at the two-thirds point of the sentence has now been replaced by an arbitrary period of six months, and also that as a consequence of the new proposals there is an increased potential for ECHR challenges. Those influential stakeholders then conclude that this bill will not end automatic early release, it will not reduce re-offending and it will not improve public safety in the longer term. Indeed, it is likely to jeopardise both public safety and reintegration. In those circumstances, surely minister, the only reasonable course of action would be to postpone the implementation of section 1 of the prisoner control of release Scotland bill to allow the full debate and detailed scrutiny, which the crucially important issue of automatic early release merits. That would facilitate the criminal justice system to be looked at in the round so that discussion and debate would include looking at short-term sentencing, early release and the associated recidivism rates. That is why I again propose delaying the commencement— Excuse me, could we just calm down a little please and allow Margaret Mitchell to be heard? Delaying the commencement of section 1 until the Criminal Justice Scotland Act receives royal assent. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary indicated that there are no provisions in the Criminal Justice Scotland bill relating to early release, but I have received assurances from the head of legislation, a delegated powers team, that there would indeed be scope to address this in the draft legislation later this year. Ending automatic early release, which is confusing for the public and distressing for victims of crimes, is something that we can all agree is important to get absolutely right. I would urge members today to vote to delay commencement of section 1 to ensure the best possible outcome following scrutiny of the Criminal Justice Bill. Margaret Mitchell introduced amendment at stage 2. As I stated, I am not quite certain what it is in the Criminal Justice Bill that has received royal assent before that this can go forward, because its provisions of that bill are not necessarily—although they were originally going to be introduced—during that bill, the rest of that bill does not particularly affect those provisions. I also do not know why it has to come into force the very next day, either. I remind the chamber that, in 2007, we passed the custodial sentences and weapons bill, which first introduced custodial and supervisory sentences. The law society and the others are wrong in saying that that approach has never been taken before because it was eight years ago, but those provisions have never actually come into force because the McLeish commission stated that we basically would have to get the prisoner population down before it would be possible to do that. I would ask for assurances from the cabinet secretary that, if passed this bill, will not be implemented until all the necessary community interventions and services are in place, including, indeed, the extension of map-type arrangements for violent offenders, which I know are currently under discussion. We cannot support amendment 2. If Mark Mitchell had said the community justice bill rather than the criminal justice act, I might have had a bit more sympathy for the intention of the amendment. As I did when Margaret Mitchell lodged the same amendment at stage 2, I have listened carefully to what she said just now, as she set out at stage 2 considering this particular amendment. I confess that I am still somewhat confused by Margaret Mitchell's views on the matter and why she thinks that it is important to delay the commencement of those reforms after they have been through stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 processes that have been considered by Parliament and that we should delay the introduction of the bill, the commencement of the bill, pending parliamentary approval of the criminal justice Scotland bill, and then, once Royal Assent has been given to that particular piece of legislation. As I indicated at stage 2, as Margaret Mitchell has even acknowledged herself in the point that Elaine Murray has also reinforced that there are no provisions contained within the criminal justice bill relating to automatic early release. I can see absolutely no good reason to delay the commencement of this bill in the manner that would result from amendments to being agreed. It is, of course, entirely possible that stage 2 amendments to the criminal justice bill will be considered by the justice committee during the stage 2 process. Amending this bill, though, to tie it into future legislation, which we do not know even if it will have any provision in it in the first place, because there is no intention of the Government to bring forward amendments in these areas, would be, to a large extent, to pre-empt Parliament's consideration of the criminal justice bill. I do not think that that is an appropriate way for us to take forward legislation in this Parliament. I have listened carefully to Margaret Mitchell and what she said to justify her amendment at stage 2. I have listened again here at stage 3. I do not believe that there is any good justification for delaying this important reform in this bill, concerned with public safety after and when it receives royal assent and why we should tie that to the criminal justice bill. On that basis, we oppose amendment 2, and I have asked Parliament to reject it as well. I think that, to answer Elaine Murray's point, the whole issue of early lease would be discussed in the context of the criminal justice Scotland bill. That would allow the time for the proper scrutiny and debate that we simply have not had. The cabinet secretary said that we have been through stage 1, where the bill was not fit for purpose and then had to be changed beyond recognition as stage 2. I do not think that we can take much comfort from the stage 1 process. At stage 2, as I say, we had to change it from ending automatic early lease to merely amending the rules. In my book, that does not fill you with confidence that we have gone through a process that suggests that the legislation before us is good legislation and has been properly scrutinised and debated. The point is that this amendment is a reasonable one that would ensure that by delaying the commencement of section 1, the best possible outcome would be achieved following scrutiny of the criminal justice bill. At the very least, it would have helped to confirm that the period of mandatory supervised release in the community is sufficient and properly thought through to address the practicalities of housing benefits and employment, adequately resourced to ensure that essential criminal justice social work is in place and supported by a level of surveillance using all the modern technology available in accordance with the assessment of risk. It is for those reasons that I press the amendment in my name. Many thanks. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will therefore be a division. This will be a one-minute division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 2 is, yes, 14. No, 97, there were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore not agreed and that ends consideration of amendments. We will now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 13597 in the name of Michael Matheson on the prisoner's control of release Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak what is now or as soon as possible. I now call on the cabinet secretary, Mr Michael Matheson, to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet secretary, you have 10 minutes or thereby a generous 10 minutes. I welcome the opportunity to open the stage 3 debate on the prisoner's control of release Scotland Bill. I offer my thanks to the Justice Committee, the claps to the committee and all those who gave evidence during the parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. Before I move on to why the reforms contained in the Bill are important, I think that it is appropriate to reflect on how this Parliament has helped to shape and improve the Bill. Through the diligent work of the Justice Committee under the leadership of Christine Graeumann's convener, stakeholders' views have been sought and committee members have carefully reflected on the evidence that they have heard in making recommendations to improve the Bill. That is why, at stage 2, the Scottish Government lodged amendments to make this better legislation. That is to the credit of the scrutiny role undertaken by this Parliament and, in particular, members of the Justice Committee. As members will be aware, the Bill is relatively small in size but contains important reforms in two key areas of prisoner release. Policy on the early release of prisoners is an emotive topic that often generates considerable debate. That has certainly been the case as this legislation has been scrutinised by the Parliament. What section 1 of the Bill will do is end the current system of automatic early release for all long-term prisoners at the two-thirds point of sentence. In its place will be a system where long-term prisoners will no longer be entitled to automatic early release at all, while the rest will have early release restricted to only the last six months of their sentence. It is important to explain clearly what the Bill will do. Automatic early release is ended for any long-term prisoner with an extended sentence. That means that prisoners that the court has assessed as having the highest need for supervision will never be released automatically from custody. Such prisoners will always have supervision when they leave custody through the operation of extended sentences. Figures show that about 50 per cent of long-term prisoners receiving sentences for sex offences have an extended sentence in place. About 20 per cent of other long-term prisoners also receive an extended sentence, so a significant number of long-term prisoners will in future never be entitled to automatic early release. In response to the views of the justice committee, the Bill was improved at stage 2 to ensure that supervision would be in place for each long-term prisoner leaving custody. That avoided the issue of a prisoner being subject to cold release into the community. What that will mean in practice is that a long-term prisoner without an extended sentence will be released with six months left on their sentence. That release will include licence conditions for supervision to help the prisoner to reintegrate into the community and ensure that steps can be taken to recall the prisoner into custody if breach of conditions occur. We consider that those reforms will help to provide greater public safety. Discretionary early release will still be possible following those reforms, but automatic early release is either ended or severely curtailed for long-term prisoners. We think that it is right to trust the independent parole board so that they can continue to consider the cases of individual prisoners and make decisions about whether to authorise early release on the basis of an assessment of the risk of that individual and what risk they may pose to public safety. There is data about how the behaviour of those in the community following automatic early release compares with those in the community following discretionary early release. The rate at which prisoners breach their licence conditions following automatic early release is seven times higher than the breach rate for prisoners who receive discretionary early release. The rate at which prisoners are recalled to custody following automatic early release is five times higher than the recall rate for prisoners who receive discretionary early release. The independent parole board does a challenging and difficult job, and, if the bill is approved, it will have increased powers to carry on their good work and make more decisions about whether long-term prisoners should be released into the community before a sentence nears its end. That will help to keep communities safer, while still allowing early release for any individual prisoner to aid their integration into the community, where the risks to public safety are manageable in the community. It is worth discussing why, I believe, the minimum length of supervision should be six months. MSPs will be aware that stakeholders suggested that it is the initial weeks and months following release that are generally the most critical for individual prisoners reintegrating into the community. During this period, when prisoners leaving custody seek to re-establish themselves into their communities and when challenges such as accessing housing and work opportunities can be at their most acute and where a mandatory control period would be most appropriate. A period of six months will ensure supervision during this important period of time. Of course, there is considerable work that goes on inside prison in the lead-up to a long-term prisoner being released. While the length of supervision is important, it is our view that the quality of support and supervision in the lead-up to the release and following the release are crucial. Reducing re-offending is a priority for this Government. While we conviction rates are at a 16-year low and recorded crime, it is at a 40-year low that we can always do more to help to address offending and its underlying causes. We are clearly taking forward work in order to reduce re-offending. That requires more effective and closer links to be established between the criminal justice system and other wider aspects of our public sector and the third sector in Scotland. I chair a Scottish Government ministerial group for offender reintegration, which has sought to address the key demands for better integration between our criminal justice system and wider public services in order to help to facilitate a reduction in re-offending. The second area of the bill makes an important contribution in this area and is a key ministerial commitment to that particular group. Prisoners being released from custody when important support may not be available to them in the community is a key barrier to ensuring continuity of support on the transition from custody into the community. The ability of prisoners to be able to access public services such as housing, welfare and addiction services and advice on the day that they are released is crucial to helping to secure the success of their reintegration. That can be particularly problematic on Fridays and the days preceding public holidays. Although it is evidence that suitable arrangements are required to address a prisoner's reintegration needs, it cannot be addressed immediately upon release what the bill will do is allow the prisoner's release to be brought forward by up to two days. I welcome Parliament's strong support for this important provision, which will make a real difference in individual cases to allow a more flexible approach to supporting prisoners upon their release from custody. The bill will improve the system of early release by allowing decisions about how and when long-term prisoners are released from custody to be informed by three key factors. Individual consideration of a prisoner's needs, the risk to public safety that a prisoner may pose and the need to also ensure that we have effective supervision in place. That is the best way, I believe, that we can protect our communities and also offer reassurance to the public. On that basis, I move that the Parliament supports the prisoner's control of release Scotland bill. Many thanks. I now call on Dr Elaine Murray. Seven minutes. We are actually now quite tight for time, so a pretty exact seven minutes please. Okay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The term ending automatic early release has been so often used over the years that its meaning has not been questioned until the Justice Committee heard the evidence presented at stage 1. It certainly made me think again about an aspiration that, for years, most members of this chamber have held to be desirable. Currently, between half and two-thirds of the total sentence is imposed and served in custody, and the remainder is served under licence in the community, during which timely offender is supervised and can be recalled to custody if the conditions of the licence are breached. And whether the point of release is at halfway or at the maximum of two-thirds of sentences determined by the parole board on the basis of the risk that the offender may pose to the community. So the bill that was introduced at stage 1 proposed that, for certain categories of long-term prisoners, those who had not been deemed to be safe to be released on parole should serve their entire sentence in custody and then would be released cold into the community without any mandatory supervision. So an offender, serving a long-term sentence for a series of violent crime, would not mean that rehabilitated would walk out of prison at the end of their custodial sentence and disappear into the community. I was pleased when the Government therefore indicated that it is intention to amend the bill at stage 2 and we therefore supported the bill at stage 1 because the mistake of allowing that sort of release had been recognised by the Government. The bill before us this afternoon does not end automatic early release, nor should it indeed for the reasons that I have just stated. The bill provides at long-term prisoners must serve the last six months of their sentence under licence and supervised in the community, as the Cabinet Secretary described. Although my amendments at stage 2 and 3 argued for greater flexibility and proportionality with regard to the period of time served under supervision, we do agree with the general approach that the Government is taking towards sentencing because it very much resembles the approach that was taken back in 2007 by the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive when we introduced the custodial sentences in the Weapons Scotland Act, an act that was subsequently amended in 2010 by the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act, namely that a sentence involving imprisonment should consist of two parts, a part to be served in custody and a part to be served under mandatory supervision in the community. As the Cabinet Secretary at stage 2, in essence, the sentence is a custodial and supervisory one. That was the intention of our legislation in 2007. We believe, like the Government, that a sentence served under licence in the community is not a soft option. It is not a release from sentence. However, I and the academics whose evidence I quoted during the debate on my amendment have argued for a more flexible approach with regard to the length of sentence served under supervision. The supervisory part of the sentence has to be efficacious, and it has to be right for the individual offender that has to provide the rehabilitation and to strive towards the prevention of re-offending. I consider that this could have provided an opportunity to ensure that clarity at the same time of sentencing, as the court would specify the minimum time to be served on licence when the offender had not been released on parole prior to that point in their sentence, but that, unfortunately, has not been accepted by the Government. Is the bill, as it is now drafted, preferable to the current situation? Will victims, communities and offenders be given a more accurate picture of the maximum custodial sentence for the offender? Yes, I think that they will. Will members of the judiciary alter the length of sentences imposed for those sentences? Quite possibly they will. That is one of the reasons I wish to provide greater flexibility. It will not, however, affect the majority of the prison population—still only about 3 per cent—of prisoners who will be affected. Is six months an adequate period of time to serve in the community under licence? The Law Society provided a briefing to MSPs last week, in which it expressed its reservations, stating that the reduced licence period of six months may be wholly inadequate to assess reintegration into the community and reduce the risk of offending. In the ministerial statement, prior to the debate, Fergus Ewing reminded us that irrational decisions can result in judicial review. I refer to the briefing that we were all provided with on Sunday from not only four academics but APEC Scotland, Circle Scotland, Howardlead Scotland, Positive Prisons, Positive Futures, Scottish Association of Social Workers, Social Work Scotland and Women for Independence, Justice for Women group. All said, the bill seems to us to have been created without careful thought and without informed policy by the extensive national and international evidence of custodial and community sentencing policy. The bill misses the opportunity to better clarify sentencing and release policy. It may well be possible to combine the virtues of public safety with clarity and sentencing, but unfortunately this bill appears to achieve neither. We have, during the passage of the bill, taken a constructive approach to the bill. We have supported the Government at stage 1 and at stage 2 in the hope that a proportion at supervisory sentencing regime could be achievable. The Government debated my stage 2 amendment and my stage 3 amendment was submitted in time for the Government to lodge an improved alternative if 12.5 per cent was not appropriate. There was time for the Government to come forward with something that was more appropriate. However, it did not. It is stuck by this blanket six-months sentence at the end of the sentence. Sorry, I have not got much time. The Government has not been able to provide evidence that a six-months supervisory sentence for all long-term prisoners is a proportionate and sufficient. It has not provided evidence that public safety will not be compromised if somebody has not engaged appropriately within that six months. There is also the argument that, if you did not conform to the conditions of the licence during that six months, they would not be back inside of a short period before they were back out again, so it would not necessarily be effective for all prisoners. It has also been argued that there could be increased ECHR implications with the bill as proposed now. It is for those reasons and, indeed, with considerable regret that I advise the chamber that Scottish Labour cannot support the bill tonight. I begin by paying tribute to the Justice Committee clerks for their hard work and also to those witnesses who provide such vital and insightful evidence at stages 1 and 2 of the prisoner's control of release Scotland bill. The bill is in two halves. Section 2 provides the Scottish Prison Service with the power to release prisoners up to two days early to facilitate community reintegration. That is a sensible proposal that will create the flexibility required to help to provide access to adequate support services at a critical juncture for the offender. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of section 1, which deals with the automatic early release of prisoners. In its 2007 and 2011 manifestos, the SNP Government made commitments to end automatic early release. Six years later, it brought forward an amendment to the criminal justice bill, which pledged to end automatic early release for less than 1 per cent of prisoners. It presented the same proposals in separate legislation to end automatic early release for sex offenders receiving custodial sentences for four years or more and other serious offenders receiving sentences of 10 years or more. As numerous witnesses pointed out, there was little logic to those proposals, given the low-level recidivism rates for those categories of prisoners. The new cabinet secretary tabled amendments at stage 2, extending the bill's provisions to all-long-term prisoners with a determinate sentence of four years or more. Even with those changes, the legislation now covers just 3 per cent of prisoners. Despite the cabinet secretary's efforts at stage 2 to attempt to justify the bill, witnesses and stakeholders maintain that section 1 is not fit for purpose. There has been absolutely no attempt to carry out the necessary meaningful scrutiny and debate about the provisions, which have been described by the Law Society of Scotland as possibly the most radical change in custodial sentencing for 22 years. We are now in a situation where the legitimate concerns and criticism of stakeholders, ranging from learners and respected academics to third sector and voluntary organisations at the cutting edge of the criminal justice system, including criminal justice social workers and the Law Society of Scotland, together with the Howard League and gender and equality groups such as Women for Independence and Justice for Women, are being swept aside by the new cabinet secretary. Stakeholders' deeply worrying comments highlight the many deficiencies within the bill in terms of the flawed procedure and lack of evidence, and the proposed blanket six-month compulsory supervision period, and the potential for article 5 ECHR challenges. The Government's proposed changes at stage 2 simply replace automatic release at two thirds point of the sentence with automatic release at six months before completion of a sentence. Do not mind that I have got some progress to make. That, in turn, has proportionality implications, which may lead to potential ECHR challenges. The Government has not made the case as to why it has rejected a proportionate approach. Professor Fergus McNeill highlighted the extent of the problem when he pointed out that under the current fixed period proposals, if a person is sentenced to five years, 90 per cent of their custodial sentence would be in prison. However, if a person was sentenced to 10 years, that increases to 95 per cent. Further more at present, demand for rehabilitation programme already outstrips supply, and that is almost certainly going to increase, leading to an inevitable challenge under ECHR. To quote the somewhat damning indictment of key stakeholders, the bill does not end automatic early release, it does not reduce re-offending, it does not improve public safety in the longer term. Indeed, it is likely to jeopardise both public safety and reintegration. In those circumstances, it would be full hardy to support the bill. We now turn to the open debate speeches of four minutes, please. Roger Campbell to be followed by Graham Pearson. I think that we must acknowledge that the bill has moved since stage one, and it operates in the context of both the 2007 and 2010 legislation in this area, as yet to be implemented and, of course, the McLeish commission. However, what the bill is not about and does not purport to be is a bill about clarity and sentencing. The sentencing council in due course will no doubt help in that area, and we should wish that new body well. Nor is it the last word on automatic release, as is absolutely clear, but it is clear that this bill represents a first step along the way of ending automatic release and of reversing the Tory policy of 1993. I think that we ought to recognise the Government's positive response to criticism of what was described as cold release, and we all should also recognise what Dr Barry described in evidence as the need for proactive support in relation to accommodation, employment, education, benefits and so on. We should also bear in mind the need for through care for offenders returning to the community. We should welcome the commitment by the Scottish Prison Service to 42 such officers. That provides support for offenders in order to reintegrate back into the community, building on the work already commenced in prison, to which the cabinet secretary referred earlier. Yes, there is a need to ensure that there are adequate numbers of programmes available to offenders within prison to enable them to change their behaviour. Yes, there are challenges. Yes, they will need to be adequately resourced, but we have time to plan for this. Indeed, as the cabinet secretary said at stage 1, an independent review of prison programmes, including psychological programmes, will be carried out. I really do not think that it is helpful to highlight possible ECHR challenges if programmes are not in place. We need to allow the Scottish Prison Service to get their house in order. The Government always recognised that any reduction in the period of automatic release might incentivise participation in programmes, and that planning needs to take account of that. Let us also bear in mind in that context that planning can be complex. Eric Merch of the Scottish Prison Service commented in evidence that some prisoners will deny that they have a problem until very close to their critical date, and then they will try to move out the list. Is six months of guaranteed supervision adequate? Yes. We have heard a lot of debate about that. There are a variety of views. We know the Sacro and Colin McConnell position, and we know that others take a different view. We have debated this earlier, so I will not repeat the arguments. However, I would point out that the academics themselves accept that the highest risk period is immediately after release, even if they do not accept that this was the only period when support is required. However, when we reached a decision on that period earlier, I have no doubt that the courts will take account of its provisions and also of alternatives such as the increased use of extended centres at the appropriate time. Some of the academic critics of this bill would, I believe, if their wishes were granted, simply succeed in kicking matters into the long grass. That is something that even Margaret Mitchell at stage 1 suggested was a real danger, and something that Sarah Cromby, a victim support said in February, would cause them concern. So, despite the academics, we do need to grasp the nettle. As to issues of public safety, clearly that remains important. I am really not sure what the frequently mentioned empirical evidence, if it were ever obtained, would show. Suffice it to say for this group of prisoners, instead of being sent out to the community come what may, the two thirds mark, that will no longer be the case. The parole board will have a greater role than now. Public safety, in my view, will not be reduced, and let's not forget the availability of extended sentences to courts at the time of sentencing. That provides additional protection for the public in appropriate cases. Presiding Officer, concerns have been expressed about the financial costs of the legislation by 2031. To that, I would say, that is a long way off, and much can happen in the interim. However, I will, I hope, encourage further thought to be given as to the appropriateness of many short-term sentences, which, frankly, as we know, often do not act as a deterrent and certainly do not provide adequate time for rehabilitation. I believe that the bill, despite its critics, has considerable value, and I commend it to the Parliament. Many thanks. I have a little bit of time in hand at this stage for amendments, not much, but a little. Graham Pearson to be followed by Alison McInnes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak in this debate this afternoon, although I am disappointed that I see it as a missed opportunity in introducing legislation in this manner. Roddick Campbell says that this is a positive response from the Government to the issue of early release, and he added for this group of prisoners, but indeed it is a very exclusive and small group of prisoners. Let us remember how we arrived at the position that we are in today. In 2013, Kenny MacAskill, when introducing his bill, he said, we have stated clearly our aim to end the system of automatic early release. We are committed to fulfilling that pledge. In 2014, he added, this Government is taking tough action to keep communities safe and reduce the likelihood of prisoners re-offending. I am sorry to say that I do not see the amended bill as reflecting on those commitments. Indeed, I see that Professor Cyrus Tata, in his evidence to the committee, observed that the reconviction rate for those serving sentences between three and six months is 53 per cent, and yet having served only half of their sentences, they will not be subject of supervision by criminal justice social work. What we should be talking about today is not early release. As Professor Fergus McNeill indicated, it would be much better that we identify a timely period for release rather than early release. I reiterate that I do not see that current legislation delivers on the notion of a timely release with the appropriate supervision thereafter. As Dr Monica Barry reflected, the focus of the current legislation is very much about offence, time and length of sentence rather than the risk and threat that is perceived and being delivered in terms of community safety. For that reason, there is a shortcoming in the approach that has been delivered in that respect. Indeed, from a member of the public's viewpoint for a victim and a witness, the bill does not issue a clarity of sentencing to give them confidence that they know precisely what is to happen with an accused after that person leaves the court upon conviction. Therefore, it does not deliver what was suggested in my view by victim support in saying that it was an important advance that will go a long way to improving public perception of justice in Scotland. The debate today from the cabinet secretary and from those in the chamber indicate how confusing the whole issue still is. Indeed, Professor Tata and Fergus McNeill along with Dr Barry suggested from their view that the bill deserves scrapping and we should go back to the start again. I have to say that I have some sympathy with that view. Front door sentencing and back door releases are something that the public cannot stand and are extremely frustrated by that prospect. I am happy to take the intervention. I thank the member for taking an intervention at last because I think that it is very important to understand what the academics told the committee. The academics said that the problem is called release and that a vast amount of cold release is happening. The cabinet secretary made sure that there will be no cold release from now on with a mandatory period of six months. It is where your public safety is. It is stopping cold release. I am grateful for the intervention and I accept that the days of cold release should be history but, unfortunately, it still is not. I attended a number of third sector meetings over the past few months where the men concerned of being released from prison still suffered from a cold release with no support. I remind the chamber that those who will be affected by the legislation number in a few hundreds, those who are sent to each year are over 14,000. The legislation does not provide an end to early release. It needs to be reassessed and reconsidered. I think that this afternoon it is important to remember that automatic early release is a management device. It is a safety valve and it was introduced to ease the pressure caused by escalating prison populations, not because of any compelling evidence that it in itself would improve public safety. The questions that are facing members today are, will this reform reduce re-offending? Will offenders receive sufficient supervision and support? Will it better protect our communities? Will it make sentencing more transparent and give victims more certainty? The bill is faulted because, in the initial draft, it was flawed in a number of those respects. I welcome the cabinet secretary's willingness to listen and respond to the justice committee's concerns as set out in stage 1 report. The question this afternoon is, has he gone far enough? Members have received a late joint submission and others have made reference to that from witnesses, including academics, the Howard League Scotland and Positive Prison and Positive Futures, and they have cast doubt on whether he has gone far enough. I have some sympathy for their argument that the bill has not been entirely substantiated. For example, there is less than comprehensive evidence supporting the flat six-month release. Nevertheless, I think that the cabinet secretary has set out in some detail why he considers that we should still proceed with the bill as amended. I am also mindful that the risk management authority and the parole board are broadly supportive of the legislation. It would mean that the parole board would be involved in decisions about the release of each individual long-term prisoner, the release of potentially dangerous offenders would be delayed and the public would continue to be protected from those who have failed to progress through the prison regime or mediate their behaviour to the extent that they could be managed in the community early. It would mean that the parole board decides when each long-term prisoner is fit for release based on individual circumstances and delaying the release of dangerous offenders, those who have not mediated their behaviour or engaged with rehabilitation programmes. I believe that reforms could also cause more prisoners to engage at an earlier stage in their sentence. We are talking about those whom the parole board described to us as happy to wait in the knowledge that they will get out after two thirds of their sentence irrespectively. However, when it comes to providing programmes and courses, ministers and the Scottish Prison Service will, of course, need to ensure that supply meets demand. There is no doubt that the Government must ensure that the quality of the proposed supervision of long-term prisoners on the six-month release is adequately resourced and regularly reviewed. Turning to section 2 of the bill, it is eminently sensible to release some people a day or so early if it guarantees that they receive the assistance that they desperately need with accommodation, employment or addiction. Many public and third sector services do not operate 24-7 or they are not easily accessible, particularly in rural and remote areas of Scotland. However, the short bill is a reminder of the Scottish Government's record of disjointed penal reform. It reforms early release for some prisoners in isolation and neglects many more pressing priorities. Why haven't successes in reducing youth offending been rolled out more widely yet? Where is the concerted shift towards diversion from prosecution or effective community-based sentences and where are the plans to further reduce senseless, destructive short-term sentences or to reduce the numbers on remand? In 2013-14, just over 4,000 people were handed sentences of less than three months, despite us having a presumption against three-month sentences in 2010. A further 5,000 were imprisoned for between three and six months. Those are people whom the McLeish commission dubbed more troubling than dangerous, yet they take up the time and effort of the prison service, limiting the ability of the SPS to engage with the most serious long-term offenders. Of course, it is perverse that those young people and short-term offenders, and most at risk of re-offending, still do not benefit from statutory through care. Therefore, I'm just a secretary to develop a clear, overarching, generally progressive strategy that's bold and ambitious, and we need to focus on how to bring an end to the primitive punitive approach that causes so many people to be sent to prison in the first place when it clearly isn't the best place for them or the communities that they return to. Many thanks. John Finnie, to be followed by Christine Grahame. The policy memorandum talks about helping to reduce offending and improving public safety. It's important that we have an evidence base for that. People have alluded to the Justice Committee's report, which questioned the focus on sex offenders, not least given their compliance with Wellstone custody and the level of re-offending, and we heard clear evidence on the risk management authority on that. There was discussion also at the Justice Committee on the populism of this particular proposal. I don't think in any way that it's weak for the cabinet secretary to have changed his position on a number of issues. I think that it's actually strength to have listened. After all, that's what the Parliament's here for. It is that scrutiny and the change that's important. Time will tell if reducing offending is a consequence of this. To my mind, it's poverty prevention and poverty alleviation, but everything will play its part. What we do know is that there's a clear link between supervision and support and reducing offending. The critical early days have been talked about—lesser talked about is that there's been the provision that brings forward the release date to assist prisoners to reintegrate, we're told. Of course, I would question if any of them or some of them have been integrated in the first place. That's where the challenge lies. There's challenges around housing, health and, increasingly, DWP. We can deal with the first couple. We can't deal with the third one, but clearly we would want some alignment with UK policy there. The proportionality of supervision—I had discussions with Dr Murray in advance of that, and I was minded initially, as Dr Murray knows, to lend my support to our proposal. What changed my mind in that was discussions that I had with the Cabinet Secretary at stage 2, where I sought confirmation in what that would mean for individuals. We know that there's community justice social workers working in our prisons and they do an admirable job. I asked about a risk assessment for the individual, and I also said that treating everyone equally doesn't mean that we treat them the same. People have different needs. I was reassured with what I heard there, and that's why I will lend my support to this legislation tonight. I reassured that the non-statutory support that continues after six months and the plans for release that are very important involving the Scottish Prison Service and the criminal justice service. A very key phrase in what that persuasion was when the Cabinet Secretary said that it was quality rather than quantity—indeed, when members already raised that—was important. I think that he's linked with the chairing of the ministerial group on how offender reintegration is important. Long-term prisoners recommend the approach that has also been mentioned about release to help start employment. Through care officers 27 of them, that's very important. I'm keen to see progress on that. The Christie commission talked about organisations working together with the integration of health and social care, but there still are challenges, as members have said, for prisoners who have been released. The availability of rehabilitation programmes I don't think should be scutted over. The Scottish Human Rights Commission said that there was the possibility of prisoners raising appeals regarding that, and that would ultimately affect their right to liberty under article 5 of the ECHR. I think that that is important. I think that the balance, the cost and something that I mentioned previously, is over £16 million for this compared with a community justice budget of £31.8 million, and I would ask us the balance correct in the scheme of things for that, and where it fits in the overall direction of travel. I would like to see a situation where the only people who are being confined are people who pose a threat to our communities. Dr Murray talked about MAP being extended to cover violent offenders. That's something where there would be again an evidence base for understanding where individuals sit in the scheme of things. For me, it's about prevention, rehabilitation and never losing sight of it being about individuals. Positive prisoners and positive futures say that they value that, but only as part of a comprehensive review and restructuring of the criminal justice system from arrest to release. Rod Campbell talked about rejoining the community, and the thought-provoking approaches might need to be taken in respect of that. Howard League talks about community-based supervision. That's the future, not more penal. Many thanks. I now call Christine Grahame to be followed by Jane Baxter. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Obviously much has already been said of this short bill, and I'll try not to repeat too much, but I think that we all agree that ending automatic early release is of itself a good thing, and the committee accepting Margaret Mitchell agreed with the general principles. If we remember, the bill at that stage was dealing with certain categories of long-term prisoners. As amended, it is all long-term prisoners, so it was serving four years or more, so we all agreed about that, so we weren't talking about short-term prison sentences, and it's irrelevant in this discussion about this particular bill. One might say, why not for all? Well, it's not the purpose of this bill, and there are practical constraints. We know that in order to deal with that, you have to have more prisoner places, and you've got more post-custody support. The cabinet secretary made plenty of evidence to the committee that you have to be looking at a change of culture to alternatives to custodial short-term sentences, which means that we simply do not work and we have a revolving door of people in and out of prison. Partly the announcement now about the way that we're going to deal with women offenders, I hope heralds a way to deal with young offenders and others in looking at the whole circumstances that some people, not all, but some people find themselves within the penal system, perhaps through a drug and alcohol habit. With the long-term prisoners, one of the things that the committee was quite rightly most concerned about was cold release, and therefore we welcomed the stage 2 extension to all serving four years or more, but we also asked that the six-month period should be part of the custodial sentence, and indeed that is what it is. The sentence continues, but there are bridges between having rehabilitation programmes in prison to the period when you're out of prison. In the evidence that we did have, and nothing's perfect in this world, we were told that it was early weeks of a prisoner's release, in fact the early hours and days, let alone the early weeks, which made the prisoner vulnerable to going back into old habits with old gangs that they knew. I have to say of Elaine Murray's amendment, it's more complicated. We did not take evidence and fractions of sentences and so on. I don't think it takes us anywhere forward. At least with six months, you know where you are, and the six month is the mandatory period. It doesn't mean to say that nothing will continue thereafter. It will also link into, and this is again where you see the larger picture, this must link into the community justice bill, where the provision in community justice, with a hundred million going into it, is to look at how we handle community sentences and people once released from prison, because we know that prison doesn't work for most people. There are obviously people who should be kept in prison and away from people because they are a danger to society, but for many it simply doesn't work. Section 2, which will be lost if the bill is voted against, is releasing time to benefit reintegration. We all know and others have said that to release somebody on Friday is a bad idea. Everything is closed. They are left to meet their own cronies, they have no money, they have no social security, they have no home, they have nothing. So if you vote against this tonight, you are voting against that flexibility, which will enable prisoners to be released at an earlier day, up to two days. That gives clarity for victims. Somebody gets sentenced to six years, they do five years, six months, then they have six months with community supervision, they know where they are with this bill. It isn't perfect, I don't know, any perfect legislation that's ever been passed within this Parliament, but what the Government is endeavouring to do, and it's a start, is to make sure that continuity of rehab from within the prison to out with the prison, and hopefully with the same personnel. I know that Colin McConnell, chief executive of the SPS, has made this plane, this is his aim. I wanted to ask about the commencement of this, because I note in the bill that the substantive part of the legislation commences when I look at section 3, 2, into force in such days as the Scottish ministers may by order a point. Given that if this is passed tonight, we're talking about prisoners who will be able to be released at different times, who will have six months, I'd like to have some idea when this might kick into force. I say to Labour, I'm not sure whether you're abstaining or voting against, but I think, frankly, it's a bad move. I think that in doing that, if you were successful, you would be stopping people having supervision when they require it, and you'd also be stopping people being released at times when they have some chance of having a better start. Ms Graham, I'm running out of time. Thank you very much. Jane Baxter. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The core principle behind this bill is recognised across the chamber. Automatic early release of prisoners does not engender confidence amongst the general public in our criminal justice system and must be reformed. That, however, does not mean that this legislation and the Scottish Government's overall approach to sentencing is appropriate or adequate. I think that it's important to note again that the Scottish Government attempted to squeeze the content of this important bill into a previous bill, but we should be grateful that they listened to the recommendations of the justice committee to place it in a freestanding piece of legislation. Scottish Labour is in complete agreement with victim support groups that there needs to be clarity in sentencing. Victims, the community and offenders need to understand what the sentence passed by the judge or sheriff means in practice. It's not good enough that victims of crime and their families hear that someone is sentenced to X number of years in prison but have no idea what that means in reality. Victims and their families should be at the centre of the criminal justice system and the current system of sentencing fails to put them there. This bill may increase the confusion about sentencing, however, as Victim Support Scotland noted in their submission, ending automatic early release for only some categories of prisoners would work to further complicate an already confusing system. The proposals would, in fact, create another rule that needs to be taken into account when calculating the release date of an offender. The amendment that was put forward by my colleague Elaine Murray was a significant one. It recognised that starting this new process with six months to go before the end of a prisoner sentence is a blunt instrument. Instead, as she has proposed, making it proportional is a much more reasonable approach. It ensures that there is no uniform approach to offenders. It seems bizarre that an offender sentenced to four years in prison would be expected to be placed under supervision for the same length of time as an extremely violent or repeat offender, but that's what the bill proposes. Scottish Labour's amendment would have given our courts the power to set the period of supervision rather than treat every offender in the same way. A more nuanced approach would have helped to ensure that offenders are given a less generic rehabilitation programme, thus minimising the risk of recidivism. It would also have allowed a more joined-up and flexible approach to individual offenders to be introduced. The provisions in section 2 of the bill to allow prisoners due to be released on Fridays to be released two days earlier in order to increase the provision of support for them is a good one. It may appear to sound to be a relatively minor change, but according to the Scottish Prison Service, around 4,000 prisoners are released every year on Fridays. They emerge into our communities at the weekends with limited support and straight into the weekend where we know that many people are at an increased risk of breaking the law. We currently do not do enough to help offenders back into the community once they have served their time, and this modest proposal will at least make some provision to increase the support and guidance that they receive. However, we must look more closely at the proposals. At the heart of any structure surrounding the release of prisoners, it must be the calculation of risk to public safety. That is, of course, notoriously difficult to calculate, and it would be wholly unreasonable for us to expect the relevant authorities to successfully calculate the risk of re-offending every time they are called up to do so. However, we must ensure that each offender's risk profile is central to the debate as to whether they are released early or not. For those who commit serious offences, it should not be an automatic process. I agree with Victim Support Scotland and Police Scotland who have indicated that they support the essence of the proposals, as they will encourage relevant prisoners to engage with prison rehabilitation programmes in order to improve their chances of early release and to ensure that those prisoners who are assessed as still posing a high risk do not benefit from early release. I also agree with the Howard League and other experts who noted that an unintended consequence of the bill would be that prisoners are released cold in the community without a period of supervision from relevant authorities. The amendment that was put forward by Elaine Murray was eminently sensible. I believe that the Parliament would have been wise to accept it and ensure that offenders are dealt with in a way that is more specific to their offending profile. It would have allowed a more subtle approach to be adopted in Scotland to offending. This is a tremendous opportunity for positive change that I regret that we have let pass us by today. If the decision to pass the bill is taken at 4.30 this afternoon, it is one that this Parliament can take absolutely no pride in whatsoever. It is a decision that follows on the heels of the corroboration debacle, amid the current cabinet secretary having been credited with sorting out. Yet here we are again with legitimate concerns and criticisms of key stakeholders who have a wealth of knowledge and experience in the criminal justice system and in the treatment of prisoners being unceremoniously swept aside. The bill does not end automatic early release. Furthermore, the bill's stated aims were to reduce re-offending and improve public safety. It does neither. Furthermore, the bill's proposals are undermined by evidence and knowledge of practice, both of which the Government has chosen to ignore. A deeply flawed bill to begin with has been made worse by the lack of scrutiny and the failure to allow sufficient time to consider the major amendments at stage 2. To put the unacceptable lack of proper scrutiny in context, the Law Society points out that the current law was enacted following two reports. The Scottish one under the chairmanship of Lord King Craig, a senator of the College of Justice, conducted its deliberations over a period of 14 months. During the same period, the Scottish Prison Service published two consultation documents, so the issue of prison reform was thus the subject of full debate. How ironic that devolution should lead to a weakening of the scrutiny, transparency and accountability of government in Scotland. Furthermore, the elephant in the room is the bill's failure to consider short-term sentences as it is those prisoners who have the highest rates of re-offending. According to the Scottish Government's own 2013-14 figures, 602 individuals received custodial sentences for attempted murder and serious assault. Of those, a staggering 82 per cent were given sentences of less than four years. Yet those offenders will be released automatically halfway through their sentences. The bill does not provide the clarity and honesty in sentences that victims and their families want and have the right to expect. The Scottish Conservatives have long hauled for automatic early release to be abolished for all prisoners, regardless of their crime or the length of their sentence. Based on the evidence that we heard at stage one and again at stage two, it is impossible, in good faith, to allow the bill to continue its parliamentary progress. My amendment would have provided the opportunity to look at the criminal justice system in the round, including short-term sentences, early release and the associated recidivism rates, and to further scrutinise the other key issues that emerged in evidence and to ensure that those are properly debated and scrutinised. The fact that the bill was rejected marks a low point in this parliamentary scrutiny process that has already attracted widespread and justifiable criticism. It is for those reasons, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the Scottish Conservatives will not be supporting the bill this evening. Many thanks. I now call on to you, Henry. Six minutes, please, Mr Henry. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I cannot find any fault in the idea that we should end automatic early release. The victims, and indeed the general public, deserve some clarity from our legal system. They expect that, when they hear a sentence handed down of a specific length of time, they think that that offender is going to serve that length of imprisonment. It causes real trauma, anxiety and anguish when victims find that those responsible for the crime are out wandering the streets back in their community after a relatively short period. The idea of stopping automatic early release is the right one. The problem is how we go about it. In a sense, I think that we deserve to praise the Cabinet Secretary, because, as Margaret Mitchell has alluded to, there have been a number of things that he has tackled since taking office, where he has changed direction completely from that set out by his predecessor. Frankly, this is another mess that he inherited from his predecessor, and he has worked hard to try to make improvements. Frankly, I do not think that he has managed to sort out the inconsistencies and inadequacies in that bill. We have got things back to front. If we are going to look at such a fundamental change to the way that our legal system operates, then what we should have done is not to take this manifesto from the SNP and put it into effect. We should have taken the commitment to establish a sentencing council that was in the SNP manifesto and allowed that sentencing council to have an informed view and analysis and come up with some recommendations that this Parliament could debate and consider. We have got it back to front. We have done it the wrong way about. No, thank you. We have done it the wrong way about, and that is a shame. Roderick Campbell criticised Elaine Murray and said that there was no evidence for the amendment that she was putting forward. Indeed, that was echoed by Christine Grahame. She said that Elaine Murray's amendment, the committee, did not take evidence. However, if we look at the comments from the Law Society, when it comes to the Government's amendments that were taken at stage 2, which have brought in one of the most fundamental changes to sentencing that we have seen, the Law Society said that we are concerned that such a sweeping amendment was agreed without any collation of supporting evidence or research, and in our view, full opportunity was not given for proper scrutiny of the amended section 1 in any significant detail. Indeed, others went on to express concerns about the lack of evidence and support for the need to end automatic release for all long-term prisoners. That is a separate debate, but we cannot criticise Elaine Murray for not providing evidence for her amendment, and yet say that we are happy to take this fundamental change from the Scottish Government without evidence, without consultation and without adequate discussion. Again, we have got this wrong. It is imperative, as I said at the beginning, that we have clarity. As Elaine Murray and others have said, we believe that a prison sentence should mean what it says and that a prisoner should be in prison for at least as long as a judge orders. That is the point that Elaine Murray has been trying to make, because we believe that we should give our judges the ability to determine the sentence, but also the ability to determine the required supervision that that prisoner will have to undergo at the end of that sentence. We all accept that reintegration into society after a long period in prison is not straightforward. Again, if we listen to the law society and they make a valid point, in the absence of supervision, we are concerned that offenders may leave prison after many years in secure conditions with no or at best minimal opportunity to access properly funded support within the community. That is one of the problems of what the Government is putting forward, because we do not see any structured indication of what supervision and support will be provided. That, frankly, is a missed opportunity. It is a shame because I think that the public expects us to do something and to do something effective. The Government got it wrong, it went about this the wrong way and we should have taken as a Parliament the opportunity to do things properly, because that is what victims and that is what the public deserve. I have listened with interest to the issues and points raised by members. I must confess that some of them were echoes of some of the issues and concerns that were raised at that stage. During the course of that debate, I outlined that I was considering a number of the issues that had been raised during the stage 1 debate and the evidence-taking that had been undertaken by the committee. During the course of the debate this afternoon, I have become a wee bit more confused about the position of some of the parties in this particular debate. I was interested earlier on, and it was repeated again by Margaret Mitchell that she quoted a list of organisations who oppose the bill as it stands at the present moment. It would be fair to say that quite a number of them oppose the bill right at the very outset in the ending of automatic early release, organisations that do not believe that we should actually end automatic early release. Some of them who think that it should be, rather than it being six months, should be 25 per cent of their sentence, should be the period that they should have for community supervision. A point that was made by Elaine Murray in the stage 2 consideration within her committee. I think that it is interesting that, as a member, you have chosen to use, as your argument, a list of organisations who, to some extent, some of them opposed the idea behind the bill in itself. However, my understanding from the Conservative party's point of view is that you wish to end all automatic early release for all long-term prisoners and for all short-term prisoners, and that you do not support the idea that there should be any form of mandatory community supervision, that you accept that cold release should take place. I find it a bit bizarre that we are in a situation that we have members in his chamber quoting organisations in opposing this bill, who are actually coming at it from a position where they are actually completely diametrically opposed to what those organisations want. No doubt, Margaret Mitchell wants to give some clarification of the matter. Margaret Mitchell. Yes, it is completely true that we do want to end all automatic early release. The difference between the minister's position and our position is that we want to debate the full issue properly, to make sure that the issue of cold release is looked at, that the rehabilitation is carried out in the most way properly and to facilitate the widest debate and scrutiny to get it right. He is not prepared to do that. Cabinet Secretary. OK. That is maybe the member's view, but now it is very clear that the Conservative party position is that there should be cold release irrespective of the implications of that. Despite the fact that the evidence to the committee has said that the issue about cold release is the public safety issue, the member actually comes to this chamber and says that this bill will undermine public safety. I know that the Conservative party is in a very confused position on this particular bill, but I cannot help but feel what I have heard this afternoon has confused the Conservative party's position even further, because the member also made the point and Elaine Moray made the point incorrectly that the bill does not end any form of automatic early release. For those prisoners who get an extended sentence, yes, it does. There will be no six-month mandatory period for them because they will have to serve their whole custodial period and their community supervision provision will be through the extended sentence element of it, so it is factually wrong to make that point. We also seem to be in a position that the Conservative party's position, having introduced automatic early release, is now intending to vote against it or at least abstain against the abolition of automatic early release being ended for those prisoners who get an extended sentence and for those prisoners who get an extended sentence, the ones that the courts think are the greatest risk to the public. It makes absolutely no sense that, for some reason, the Conservative party would come here and then say out, we are going to vote against it. We are also in a bizarre situation that we seem to have what I think is a bit of a confused position on the Labour party's benches as well. That is, if I got it right in listening to Graham Pearson, he also does not feel the bill goes far enough. He feels we have to deal with short-term prisoners as well as dealing with those long-term prisoners as well and also that there should be clarity around what victims should expect as well. The problem with the amendment that was brought forward today by the Labour party is that it would create more confusion, because at that particular point the court can say that it could be up to 12.5 per cent, but we do not know. We will wait to see what happens later on. The victim leaves the court not aware of what the position would be. Let me just finish your point, and I will let the member in. We are not aware. What we will get with this bill is that it will be six months. If it is any further than that, it will be the parole board that will make that decision. As I also outlined, the statistics say very clearly, those who get parole release are significantly less likely to breach their parole conditions and to be recalled to prison significantly less than those who get automatic early release. We are now in a position where I think that the Labour party maybe wants to end automatic early release for all prisoners, but they want to allow the supervised period to be longer and at the same time create greater confusion for victims, or exactly what that means when they are sent to this handed down from the court. I will give way to the member now. The cabinet secretary will remember that I did quote the academics who indicated that the approach being suggested in the legislation is confusing and does not improve the situation. By trying to indicate that there is confusion in Opposition benches, he is merely distracting attention from the key issue at the heart of the legislation. It does not deliver for the general public on all the prisoners who go to our court. The cabinet secretary does not think that the Labour party's position is confused. Let me just give you an illustration of it. We heard Hugh Henry say in his contribution that the sentence handed down by the judge should be the sentence that the person has to serve in prison, so that victims of it clarify that. Where does that leave parole? Is parole to be ended altogether? Is there no provision for parole? Does that mean that the Labour party's position is that there should be no community supervision period if the sentence handed down by the court is the time to spend in prison? There is a real confusion at the heart of what the Labour party thinks in this matter. I know that that is a problem that has gotten a number of policy issues, and I know that that is a problem that they will have to face in the coming weeks and months. However, what we can be very clear with this bill—let me finish this point—is that there will only be a mandatory supervision period of six months, unless the person gets supervision under the parole board at an earlier stage after half-way through their sentence. That is very clear and certainly much more clearer than the position that is being put forward by the Labour party today in this matter. I will give way to Elaine Murray. I am sorry, Ms Murray. I am sorry. The minister is in his last 30 seconds. Can I just draw my remarks to a close again by thanking all those who have participated in the consideration of this particular piece of legislation, which I believe wad to the public safety and clarity that is necessary around sentencing in bringing automatic early release to an end. That is a good bill that will improve the way in which sentencing is handed down in Scotland. I would call on all those members who believe that that is what we should achieve here tonight to support this bill when it comes to the vote. That concludes the debate on the prisoners control of release Scotland bill. We now move to net side of business, which is consideration of motion number 13584, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on the memorandum of understanding on the BBC. Can I call on Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Devolution Further Powers Committee? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I might, if I would like to make a few brief remarks by way of introduction before moving motion my name on the committee's behalf. The motion invites Parliament to agree a memorandum of understanding with the BBC and both Governments. The MOU sets out what this Parliament can expect in the future by way of a relationship with the BBC, such as agreeing to provide copies of annual reports and agreeing to appear before committees when invited. This will obviously be important as one issue that we will now begin engagement on is the renewal of the BBC's Royal Charter. I am pleased to say that both Governments reached accommodation on the proposed formal words for the MOU. The Devolution Further Powers Committee is therefore able to recommend this MOU to Parliament today, having consulted also with the Education and Culture Committee and the Public Audit Committee. In doing so, let me reiterate today that it is only about the MOU and not about any wider statement by any committee or this Parliament on broadcasting policy per sway. The independence of the BBC or any question of where devolved competence should lie. I move the motion in my name on behalf of the Devolution Further Powers Committee. Thank you Mr Crawford. The question on this motion will be put a decision time to which we have now arrived. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 13597 in the name of Michael Matheson. On the prisoner's control of release, Scotland Bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, we move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 13597 in the name of Michael Matheson is as follows. Yes, 67, no, zero. There were 46 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to and the prisoner's control of release, Scotland Bill is passed. The next question is at motion number 13584 in the name of Bruce Crawford. On the memorandum of understanding on the BBC, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes the decision time. We are now moved to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.