 The next item of business is a stage 3 debate on motion 9599 in the name of Angela Constance on bail and release from custody Scotland Bill. I'd be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request to speak buttons. I call on Angela Constance to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open this debate on the bail and release from custody Scotland Bill. I'd like to start by expressing my sincere thanks to the committees who took part in considering the Bill, in particular the criminal justice committee for its care for and thorough scrutiny of the Bill over the past year, and I also want to thank the Scottish Government's bill team also. In particular, I want to say a special thank you to everyone who has engaged with the committee and with government during the development and the passage of this Bill. Your engagement and input have undoubtedly made the Bill better. I want to start by summarising how the Bill will make a positive difference in how imprisonment is used and in supporting the effective reintegration of people leaving prison. The Bill has two main purposes. The first is to focus the use on remand on those who pose the greatest risk to public safety or threaten the delivery of justice. I will discuss in a moment how it does that. The changes brought about by the Bill on the road will not radically reduce the remand population, and certainly not in the short term. That is a point that we have all acknowledged on a cross-party basis, including victims' organisations. The Bill ensures that remand and imprisonment are reserved for those who pose a risk to the safety of victims and communities. There is no single solution to reduce the use of remand in Scotland, which again everyone in this chamber agrees that we need to do. This Bill is one part, albeit an important part, of a wider approach, along with action to address the court backlog and invest in alternatives to remand. The second purpose of the Bill is to improve the support provided to people leaving prison. That benefits all of us and the communities that we seek to serve. I listened carefully to the tragic examples that members highlighted yesterday where that support had not been in place and the devastating consequences that that can have. I am clear that we can do more to support people leaving our prisons and to keep them and others safe, and this Bill aims to do that. I would like to highlight some specific provisions that I believe have the potential to bring about real and lasting change. That includes ending scheduled liberations on a Friday and the day before a public holiday, placing new duties on the wider public sector to engage in pre-release planning so that planning starts at an earlier point in a prisoner's time in custody. That includes remand and sentence prisoners and those released direct from court. In establishing national statutory through-care standards that will include remand as well as sentence prisoners, we will ensure more consistent support for people leaving prison across Scotland. Taken together, that should lead to more people leaving custody with the support that they need in place and not just a list of appointments that they might struggle to attend. I want to specifically focus on the concerns that victims groups such as Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid have about the move to a single bail test and the removal of the presumption in favour of remand for certain cases. I acknowledge their concerns about victims' views and perceptions of those changes and it is only right that I address them directly here today. Given the trauma experienced by victims of crime, they should and must have confidence in our justice system. I want to be clear that the single test of bail will allow a court to remand someone accused of a serious sexual offence or a serious domestic abuse offence, particularly where there has been a track record of offending. Those are the cases currently covered by the presumption in favour of remand and this is exactly the type of cases under the single bail test where remand will be used. In fact, the new bail test emphasises that. That is because, while the single bail test recognises that remand should be used as a last resort, it makes clear that remand is necessary where victim safety is put at risk. That is why the bill means that the court must specifically consider safety of the victim from harm when applying the new bail test. Importantly, the concept of harm in the bill includes physical and psychological harm. That uses the same definition as in the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018. As a result of that bill, the type of harm arising from coercive and controlling behaviour is explicitly recognised by the bail test. In addition to the focus on the new bail test, steps have been taken to further emphasise the importance of victim safety in the bill through amendments. That includes Maggie Chapman's amendments agreed yesterday to emphasise the importance of victim safety information being sought from the prosecutor when the court is making its bail decision. Parliament yesterday also agreed amendments to require information to be collected on the use of bail in cases previously covered by the presumption and favour of remand. In the coming years, that will aid understanding of how the new bail test is operating for those categories of cases. We have been open to making improvements to the bill throughout the process while maintaining a firm focus on what the bill seeks to achieve. I am very grateful to everyone who has provided their time and expertise to inform amendments. I believe that the bill will ensure that the use of remand is firmly focused on public and victim safety. I also believe that it will improve the opportunity for the rehabilitation and reintegration of people leaving prison. I believe that this will make a positive difference and will keep people safe. I move that Parliament agrees that the bail and release from custody Scotland will be passed. Today marks the end of a long journey for the bail and release from custody bill, while it seems quite technical in nature. It attracted a cross-range of outlooks, experiences and views of our criminal justice system, and it is a bill that will have far-reaching consequences—consequences that we must consider are our duty to. We face important questions about the bill. Is the bill, in part or in whole, entirely necessary? Will it improve outcomes for those who interact with our criminal justice system? Will it make people's lives safer and better? Does it increase or decrease the risk or any perceived risk posed to them? Does it produce better outcomes than the status quo? Legislation, wherever it comes from, must meet all those criteria in my view to be passable in this place. In fairness, there are parts of the bill that do pass those tests, and most of them lie in part 2 of the bill. I support them and I welcome them. However, there are parts that do not. It will be very predictable and probably quite easy for us as politicians simply to divide down the traditional political lines on this, to oppose for opposing sake on this side and to resist compromise on the other—on the wrong assumption that it is somehow motivated by ideology. I will be honest, Presiding Officer. I find that whole approach rather depressing, which is why I approach this bill like I approach any other, with an open mind, a constructive attitude and a willingness to listen—to listen to those who know what these changes mean out there in the real world rather than in the confines of a committee room, which is why our stage 1 report perhaps was unanimous, which is why we got out of our comfort zone, we visited prisons and courts, we met with victims and judges and advocates and staff and police in their unions, which is why at stage 1 I laid out my own thoughts right at this place in the chamber as to where I thought the bill meant well but also there was scope for improvement. I have to say on the day that was met by the typical bombast to which I sadly became accustomed to from the former justice secretary, which is a direct compliment to the current one, I should add. It is why my party introduced 24 amendments at stage 2, 33 amendments at stage 3 and I personally introduced 29 in both, and many of my amendments were drafted in conjunction with those very organisations like Victim Sports Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland, Assist, Scottish Women's Aid and so many others. When every other public service shuts their door at 3 o'clock on a Friday afternoon, they are always there for their victims and their families. I make no apologies for being guided in my approach to the bill with them and by them. In our amendments, many of them, amendments which sought to improve information given to and from victims in relation to custody hearings were voted down. Our amendments to scrap the formula which equated two days electronically tagged on bail to one day in prison voted down. Our amendment to record the reasons for why bail was granted voted down to give judges the ultimate flexibility and discretion on bail and to remove the new two-part test, which is the cause of so much concern, voted down. To stop the emergency release of prisoners without scrutiny or approval of this Parliament voted down. To stop the early release of prisoners in a four-year sentence after serving just 18 months of it. Guess what, voted down as well. Of course, to remove section 3, which itself removes section 23d from law, that vital safeguard for victims of domestic abuse voted down to nothing. Nothing substantive that was asked of the Government by me, by other members and more importantly by these victims organisations who pleaded at every step of the way for the Government to listen was accepted, not one of them. And it wasn't my amendments which were voted down, it was their voices which were shut down in all of this. And I suspect they are as angry as they are saddened today despite the comments made by the Cabinet Secretary already. And oh, for what? So the Government can say, we are tackling Scotland's remand population on the assumption that these changes will do so. When actually on the assumption that judges are willfully sending people to prison when perhaps they shouldn't be. The number of untried prisoners arriving into custody has dropped by 35% over the last 10 years. Whilst at the same time, the length of time on remand due to backlogs has doubled. There's your remand problem right there in one statistic. But we plowed on with the bill, a bill which makes two fundamental errors. One, that the bail test be amended, which I and many, many others have serious doubts about. And two, the removal of a much needed safeguard. A safeguard which determines whether someone accused of serious domestic abuse or assault is remanded into custody or is released. Section 23D is not a buzzword for lobby groups. It is a very real protection in law which was created in response to the horrendous rise in violence against women and girls. And I have to say shame on any MSP who voted against my amendment yesterday to retain that protection. The words of Victim Sports Scotland and their friends and partners, in their 11th hour appeal to MSPs today, are thus, The safety of victims should be at the heart of decision making. The new bill test is not sufficient to keep people safe. And it does little to show victims of serious crime that their safety is being protected under the law. That is a devastating assessment of any bill at stage 3 in my view. And I proudly give them the last word today. And I do so because it is deeply personal to me as the only child of a family of domestic abuse. I owe so much to organisations like them. And that is my promise to them. You made it your red line and it is my red line too. And that is why, Presiding Officer, I cannot support the bail and release from custody bill. And I ask members not to listen to me or even to their whips but listen to the voices to whom this bill matters and to their own conscience. Mine is clear. I hope others can say the same. Thank you. I now call on Pauline McNeill up to five minutes, please. Presiding Officer, thank you to the bill team to make themselves available to the Scottish Labour team and to the committee clerks for an incredible support through creating the stage 1 report. At stage 1 and 2, Scottish Labour said that it could not support the bail and release bill from custody if the Scottish Government did not address serious deficiencies within the bill and crucially provide clarity over the purpose of the bill. However, there has not been any consistency from the Scottish Government team on whether the bill's purpose is aimed at reducing the reman population or something else. When the former cabinet secretary was first asked to clarify the purpose of the bill, he did not confirm that the purpose was to restrict the use of reman and subsequently seemed hesitant to confirm that that was the purpose. I appreciate that, yesterday, under the constant cabinet secretary, he used exactly that language, but I need to emphasise right up until that point that we have been trying to clarify the actual purpose of the bill in relation to part 1. On stage 1 of the bill itself, the description does not use that language. It says that the policy objective of the bill states that its purpose is to refocus how imprisonment is used. It does say that the use of custody for reman is a last resort to give greater focus to the rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals leaving custody. Although the policy objective says that the bill's decision-making framework is to be reserved for those who pose a serious public safety risk, including victim safety, when it is necessary to prevent a significant risk of prejudice to the interests of justice on a given case, it is hard to see why the new bail test would make any real difference from the old one contained in the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, which, of course, is a presumption for bail. With a possible exception of what Jamie Greene referred to, is the provision to delete section 23 of the 95 act, which means, in all solemn cases, where there has been an analogous previous conviction on specified serious offences, including domestic violence, that they must be remanded to custody unless there are exceptional circumstances being removed through the bill. We do not have any evidence of either way of whether keeping it or removing it would make any actual difference to the reman population, and its relation does not have the confidence of victim support organisations. Last night, Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women's Aid assisted urge members to vote against the bill to protect the interests of people affected by crime in Scotland. They are adamant that the removal of the vital safeguard presents a serious risk to the safety of people affected by crime in Scotland, particularly victims of gender-based violence. Scottish Government did not try to explain its position today and disagreed with that assessment, but I do not think that they have adequately explained what the removal of section 23 would result in and do not think that they have adequately worked with victims' organisations to convince them of the need for removing of the section. The chamber should remember that Subsection 3AC, which added domestic abuse to the category of offending, was only contained within the legislation from 2018 forward, so victims' organisations last night reiterated that 23D, in their opinion, is still a vital part of Scotland's commitment to eradicating violence against women and girls. We are all concerned about having one of the highest levels of remand population in Europe, but on the face of it, the bill does not appear to change that. One of the biggest factors that has already been mentioned is lengthy waiting times for court hearings, which we tried to reduce over the course of now, up to 2026. We believe that a primary focus should be to get most waiting times down. The Scottish Government has not given any indication of what specific reduction it anticipates. I do appreciate what the cabinet secretary said today about that. However, the concerns of Scotland's judiciary, as we discussed yesterday, have also caused me a great deal of concern, and I am not convinced that the issues raised by Lord Carlaway in his 13-page letter have been adequately addressed. He, on behalf of the centres of the College of Justice, of course. During the consultation process, Lord Carlaway stated that the bill introduces an unnecessary, cumbersome and artificial process. He said that it was difficult to see how the proposed new structure would make any real practical difference to the outcomes, because the overarching test that bail is to be granted unless there is a good reason to refuse it remains the same. The Scottish Government's vision for justice in Scotland's programme means to have a justice system that prioritises the experience of victims of crime and places women and children at the heart of service delivery. There are many things in part 2 of the bill that are very important in the management and release of prisoners, but I do not think that it is enough for us to pass this legislation today, because I think that some of that could be done not by legislation. As we proceed to the final vote this evening, we believe—the Scottish Government believes—that we must balance the interests of justice for those accused of crime and the safety of victims. There is a clear consensus among all the parties that this Parliament needs to do more work in changing the experiences of victims. I did try to put what was quite a serious amendment yesterday on what I think is the gap in the law in relation to the notification for bailing. I would ask you to conclude, Ms McNeill. The Government did not accept that either, and there was quite deflating that nothing that we suggested seemed to. Resolute on my commitment to victims on behalf of Scottish Labour, but tonight, unfortunately, Scottish Labour cannot support the bill this evening. I now call on Liam McArthur. I start by commending the criminal justice committee, particularly the small number of MSP colleagues across the parties who did the bulk of the heavy lifting of the amendments yesterday, and I add my thanks also to the many stakeholders whose insight and expertise is obviously informed Parliament scrutiny of the bill. As I did at stage 1, it is important perhaps to underline why I believe reform of bailing release is necessary. Scotland's prison population is among the highest in Europe and growing. It has led to overcrowding, poor conditions and problems, undertaking the sort of purposeful activity and through care, essential for rehabilitation and reducing the risk of re-offending. This situation is not sustainable nor is it safe. The growth in the prison population has been driven largely, not exclusively but largely, by the numbers on remand. The majority, despite what Jamie Greene says—I accept the figures that he said—is untried. Even as the population of sentence prisoners fell during emergency Covid releases, the remand population grew because of the backlog in our courts. As important as tackling that backlog is, and Jamie Greene made that point yesterday, the problem in relation to remand certainly predates Covid. Scottish Liberal Democrats have no difficulty with the policy memorandum when it states, and I quote, that the provisions of the bill are intended to ensure that the use of custody for remand is a last resort. At the same time, a balance must be struck with the rights and safety of victims and witnesses, and that was the focus of much of the attention yesterday. In that respect, again, I thank organisations such as Victim Support Scotland for helping us to understand the experience of victims when it comes to the bail system. I know the real misgivings about aspects of the new bail test and understand why that is the case. However, I think some of the amendments passed at stage 2 and again yesterday have improved the substance of the test and clarified the interpretation. Consideration of victims as well as the public safety is now more explicit and front and centre. I appreciate the repeal of section 23d has caused particular anxiety in part perhaps because of the message it is seen to send. I don't in any way underestimate the level of that concern on balance that I think embedding victim public safety more explicitly in a single bail test is appropriate. That said, this will need to be closely monitored, and Parliament will obviously take a keen interest in scrutinising reports that the Government must now provide going forward. Another area where on-going focus will be required is in the resourcing of criminal justice social work, which is set to take on an enhanced role in informing court decisions around bail and remand. That is as it should be, but it certainly cannot be achieved on the cheap. It provides a way of ensuring that the court is aware of victims' needs and safety requirements, and I welcome the changes made at stage 2 on the basis of the amendments that I brought at stage 2. However, with council budgets under pressure, ministers must ensure that they will the means as well as the ends in relation to the role of criminal justice social work. Due to chairing duties yesterday, I did not take part in the debate, but I think that overall I was impressed by the tone of the contributions, even where opinions differed markedly, and I think that that has again reflected so far in the debate this afternoon. I draw special attention to the exchanges around Jamie Greene's so-called Suzanne's law provision switch, while not pass did allow for an important debate, but also a statement of collective intent. I was, like Jamie Greene, disappointed that proposed amendments to the emergency release powers were not agreed to. There were a number of options, and I think that it was disappointing that none of those were taken up. All in all, though, the bill introduces necessary reforms that can help to balance the need to address the problems arising from Scotland's high and growing remand population. With the interests of victims in the wider public, on that basis, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting it at decision time this evening. Thank you. We now move to open debate speakers, and I call Audrey Nicoll to be followed by Sharon Dowie. I am very pleased to speak in this afternoon's debate. Most of my contribution will be in my capacity as convener of the criminal justice committee, and I again thank witnesses, the bills and clerks, team, Parliament staff and organisations and individuals who supported and informed our scrutiny. This is an important bill, and I want to note from the outset that, although the committee did not reach consensus on all of the issues that we considered, we were able to reach an amical below you in our report on the bill. Let me start where most consensus was found. Part 2 of the bill proposes changes to the process of release, including planning for release, accessing services and through care, as well as release on certain days of the week, the release on licence, powers to release early and victim notification. Committee members were clear in their support for most of the provisions in this part of the bill. Through care plans for prisoners and access to key services, including housing benefits, healthcare and medication on release, are essential to support reintegration and avoid the revolving door of recidivism setting up people to fail. As the committee heard, release planning must start the day someone enters prison. A particular issue of personal interest to me is how to better support prisoners released unexpectedly by a court. I am pleased that the Government accepted my amendments, providing ministers with a regulation making power to make further provision in this area of release planning, if necessary. Part 1 of the bill proposes important changes to the use of bail. It was here that committee members differed on some of the key provisions in the bill. Some members wanted the Government to be clearer about what they wanted to achieve with the bill, as has already been articulated by other members. Did they, for example, propose the changes so that being granted bail would be more likely and that that would in turn bring down the numbers held on remand, which we all agree are too high? As noted at stage 1, the Scottish Government has not set a specific target for the number of cases where it expects that the outcome would be different under the revised bail test. That made it harder for the committee to scrutinise the likely difference to the numbers of people being granted bail where they would previously have been remanded. We also had concerns about the resource implications for the wider role of justice social work in bail decision making and if that would in fact slow down the process. There were also differences of opinion on the proposal to remove section 23D from the 1995 act and around the provisions on the consideration of how time spent on electronic monitoring whilst on bail may be taken into account during sentences. Despite those differences, all members agreed that there were some useful provisions in the bill. To conclude resourced properly, the bill's provisions will go a long way to improving the release process for prisoners. Despite our differences, the bill benefited from robust scrutiny at stage 1 and from amending at stages 2 and 3. That is especially so in relation to part 1 of the bill where views in the committee differed. I look forward to the criminal justice committee undertaking further scrutiny on the legislative provisions to follow and confirming that we have indeed delivered some positive reform to bail and release from custody. My party has serious concerns about the damage that the bill could do. Regrettably, the bill is yet another example of the SNP's soft-touch approach to justice. The needs of criminals are once again being prioritised over the rights of victims. The bill seeks to reduce Scotland's prison population. It seeks to let criminals out early. It seeks to remove restrictions that protect people from dangerous offenders. Unfortunately—I do not see that slightly—the bill would put public safety at greater risk. Before I get into broader arguments, I will first outline the specific sections of the bill that deeply concern us. Section 2 makes it more difficult to remand an accused offender in prison. Section 3 removes some restrictions on bail being granted in the most serious of cases heard by juries, such as violent sexual and domestic abuse offences. Section 5 allows time spent on electronic monitoring to be deducted from an offender's sentence. Section 7 allows SNP ministers to release prisoners for up to six months at a time, even before the parole board recommends release. Section 8 allows SNP ministers to release prisoners early from their sentence without parliamentary approval. We have raised issues with those sections throughout the bill process. Yet the SNP has refused to make the necessary changes to improve the legislation, so if it passes, what impact will the bill have? Firstly, it will not deal with one of the main sources of the problem. Scotland's remand prison population is high, in large part, because there is such a large court backlog. A recent Audit Scotland report said that the backlog will not be cleared until March 2026. Instead of tackling the route of the problem by working to clear the court backlog, the SNP Government is trying to take the easy way out by seeking to empty prisons. That approach will have profound consequences. The increased risk to public safety is so clear that it is stunning that the SNP Government does not recognise it. One in four crimes are committed by those on bail. In the last year for which we have data, that amounted to 15,724 crimes and offences. Those figures include the most serious crimes from rape to murder. Yet this SNP law will release even more criminals on bail and cut time off already short prison sentences. That is not justice. Statistics only tell a small part of the story. Specific cases are more enlightening. A few years ago, Robbie Smullen stabbed Barry Dixon in the heart and killed him. Barry was 22. A witness in the trial said that Smullen was not upset afterwards. He was bragging about it. Barry Dixon's murderer was on three different bail orders when he committed that vile crime. Barry's aunt, Jade Taylor, said this. It is as if it is unacceptable for our children and loved ones to be collateral damage because of policies that they have put in place simply to save money. We are talking about murders, rapes and serious assaults that would never have happened if the monstrous individuals responsible were remandied in prison instead of repeatedly being granted bail while continuing to offend. The Government must reflect on the words of Barry Dixon's family. They must consider the horrific and tragic consequences that can come from letting criminals walk the streets freely on bail. If they carry on with this bill, it could increase the risk to public safety. It could mean more victims and more broken families across Scotland. It could stack the justice system even more in favour of criminals. I urge colleagues across the chamber to think again and vote against this bill. We can all agree that giving greater focus to reintegrating people when they are released from prison is a worthwhile and essential cause. Reforming how we utilise remand is key to that, and I am certainly supportive of all efforts to do so if they effectively achieve that aim. Sadly, on balance, I do not believe that the bail and release from custody bill achieves that aim. I say that because at times it has been difficult to ascertain what the Government is seeking to do with this bill. My colleague Pauline McNeill articulated how clouded some of her explanations have been during its progress through this Parliament. In particular, Scottish Labour would like to see more evidence that the Scottish Government is committed and able to shift and financially resource alternatives to custody. The Scottish Government seemed to miss the point that much of what we all hope to achieve needs resourcing and best practice, not additional layers of bureaucracy. We cannot say with any clarity what the bill's intended purpose is, what effects it might have and how it will be delivered at all. I simply put that the bill does not seem ready. There is important work here, and I do not doubt the good intentions. I say that quite genuinely. I thought yesterday that the cabinet secretary was clearly engaged and she was very considered and took the responses from individuals very seriously. In her discussions at stage 3, I was impressed at how engaged she was with parliamentarians across the chamber. I thank her for that. The committee stage, however, in my view, as someone who was not involved in the process in looking through some of the committee stages, suggests that we require much greater research detailing why so many people are on remand in Scotland and what specific issues cause that. Yes, some of it is due to the Covid backlog that had been mentioned, but levels were stubbornly high even before that. The criminal justice committee sought to shed light on those issues, but it appears that the Government has decided to push ahead regardless that the committee clearly would have wished to understand better how the provision of the bill would have changed those things. As others have said, Scotland has the highest remand rates in Europe and it cannot be allowed to continue. Will the bill decrease the number of people on remand? The answer is unfortunately that we do not really know. In my view, the way that we could have said that with any clarity is if the data that I suggested by the criminal justice committee had been pursued by the Scottish Government and it did not seem to support the efforts on that. On top of that, what we know and others have mentioned is the testimony given to the committee that organisations representing victims and victims themselves and their families do not have confidence in the bill nor do many criminal justice-focused judges and organisations. I have rarely seen a bill at this stage that has received so much criticism from expert groups. I would press the Government to think much more carefully about the concerns and experiences of victims in the final formulation of the bill and how it can be sustained if it comes to be passed into law over the longer terms. Those voices must be heard. On the matter of how the judges have been reacting, judges are required to register reasons for refusing the bill. That would be useful data to have, but it is equally unclear as to why that cannot be done without the legislation. My colleague Pauline McNeill explained that much better than I would be able to do not be heavily involved in that particular field, but what the law is saying is that there is so much that can be done without having to put the legislation in place as my understanding. In conclusion, I support the position of my colleague Pauline McNeill. I do not think that on balance I would be able to support the bill. I call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. I thank all the parliamentary staff from security and catering to official report and chamber desk who worked until after 10 last night to enable us to complete discussions on all the amendments. I welcome the provisions in this bill and I am grateful to both the present and former cabinet secretaries for the constructive conversations that we have had. I thank the criminal justice committee, clarks and the bill team who have worked so hard on all the details, and I am very grateful for the input of victims and survivors and the organisations that support them for all of their contributions. For this is a complex and technical bill that has required much work and rightly received much scrutiny. I refer colleagues to my register of interests. The bill is fundamentally about reducing harm, both the harm done to survivors and victims of violent and abusive crime and the harm experienced by people accused or convicted of crime. This is not a zero-sum game. Effective human rights-based justice means justice for everyone and everyone benefits when we get it right. Scotland has not got it right so far, especially not for women and girls who have experienced gender-based violence. Far too often they have been treated by the criminal justice system with insensitivity and disdain and have been denied vital information and have been placed in situations of distress and danger. I entirely understand the concerns of individuals and organisations who are worried about the repeal of section 23D of the 1995 act, the presumption against bail. In a society of embedded misogyny in a justice system that has repeatedly failed women and girls, I know how vital it is to have appropriate safeguards. Section 23D has not always been an effective safeguard for all survivors of gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and its broad application, including to non-violent drug offences, prevents courts from making bail decisions on genuinely safety-based considerations. Instead, this bill specifically places those considerations at its heart. This, it says, is what matters critically, that both actual and potential victims are protected from harm. Properly implemented and we are determined that it should be properly implemented, this bill should be far more effective than section 23D in keeping victims and survivors safe. We know that prison is not a safe place. It is not safe for those who are incarcerated, including, as we discussed last week, women who have themselves experienced violence and abuse. It is not safe for society, for communities and families receiving people from leaving prison, for the sake of those communities rehabilitation and reintegration need to be deep-rooted realities, not pious pipe dreams. Prison makes that much, much harder. It is not soft, then, to demand more effective forms of justice. It is simply common sense. If we recognise that prison is not a good place to be for the defendant or for society, then refusing bail should be the absolute last resort. That is why cumulative tests are more appropriate than alternative ones. Let us not forget that people being considered for bail have not been found guilty. To curtail someone's freedom without trial requires, rightly, a substantial hurdle to be overcome. In the same way, the restrictions and humiliations of electronic monitoring should not be lightly imposed or blithly disregarded. Electronically monitored bail is not full freedom and that needs to be recognised in any subsequent sentencing. It is entirely appropriate that the bill should make that principle clear. In conclusion, this bill is an important step on the journey towards a fairer and safer Scotland. One in which the criminal justice system, which so often acts to reinforce trauma and inequalities, instead works to counter, to redress and to heal them. Scotland has one of the highest remand populations per head in the world. I claim that it is often made that Scotland is soft in crime, but our use of prison in remand would suggest otherwise. The main purpose of the bill is to try and help to reduce the remand population and to give a greater focus to the rehabilitation and reintegration of people who are leaving prison to help them to resettle in their communities. Refocusing the use of remand is something that both the Justice Committee and I, which I am a member of, and the Scottish Government sees as a key priority. At committee, we know that short periods of custody can often be detrimental, especially for those who have not yet been convicted of any offenses. Early last year, the committee unanimously supported the reduction in remand, and that is in line with the conclusions of the Justice Committee of the previous session of which I was also a member, who noted that remand should only be used as a last resort. In a lob of already acknowledged that in some cases remand is and will always be necessary for the first time, the bill makes clear that the court should specifically consider victim safety, which includes both physical and psychological harm, to the alleged victim when applying the new bail test. That is something that we saw strongly supported during our evidence gathering, until any fears in the statutory explosions would prevent specific groups of prisoners from being considered under any early release process, and in addition to that, prison governors would retain a power to veto the early release of any eligible prisoner, where that would present a known risk to the specific individual. The bill also aims to give a greater focus to the rehabilitation and reintegration of people leaving prison to help them to resettle in their communities. We found that short periods in custody, including on remand, can actually be quite detrimental for effective rehabilitation. Those short stints in custody also do little to address underlying causes of offending. For example, Fergus McNeill during the stage 1 evidence made this point very clearly, indicating that it can actually increase the chances of reoffending. Short term imprisonment can and does disrupt families and communities, adversely affecting health, employment, opportunities in housing, if in a stable situation those three things are critical in preventing reoffending. A justice system that more effectively addresses the reasons why people offend and provides greater opportunities for rehabilitation benefits everyone and will lead to fewer victims in the future. We have heard already part 1 of the bill means that the court is required to give justice social work the opportunity to provide a report when considering bail, and I should probably at this stage just refer members to my register of interest as a register of social worker. Although we know that this often happens anyway, it clearly varies by court and across the country. We spoke to social work and other organisations ahead of our stage 1 report, and I think that it is fair to say that we need to match your ambition here with funding. I know that we have increased the criminal justice budget a bit, but to do that right might take even more, and especially so if savings can be found in a reduced remand population. More workers and court social work teams will allow for more detailed assessments and more joint upworking, allowing voices of victims and third sector organisations to be heard, which we all thought was very important. I also want to touch on the removal of section 23d, which was debated at length yesterday. It is like the chamber to know in our committee that we spent a lot of time on that issue, and the convener referred to that. I will read from our stage 1 report here briefly, and that probably summarises the position best. The committee has been acutely aware of the concerns expressed by some organisation representing victims of crime regarding the proposal to repeal section 23d. The committee has explored with a number of witnesses what the impact of the repeal section 23d will be and how in practice it will impact on bail decisions. The committee notes that it appears to be a view from many observers that removal of section 23d would not impact on how the courts take into account the safety of victims. Furthermore, we heard arguments that the removal of section 23d could bring some advantages in terms of better decisions by courts, as it would allow judges to exercise a degree of discretion. I think that that perhaps presiding officer sums up the issues around 23d and where we have got that. I can see that you are asking me to conclude. I did want to elaborate on the section 23d stuff, but on that note, presiding officer, I will conclude by saying that I fully support this bill and would ask members to vote for it at stage 3 today. Thank you. We move to winding up the speeches, and I call on Cleety Clark up to four minutes please. I am pleased to close this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. We wish to see a reduction in the use of remand in Scotland, a greater role for alternatives to custody, more justice, social work involvement and better through care. We do not believe, however, the very significant concerns raised by the judiciary and victims organisations to the Scottish Government about this bill have been addressed, and that this bill is drafted will achieve its policy aims. We accept the view from many legal practitioners that the lack of a definition of the new public safety test in this bill will lead to more uncertainty and appeals, and we note the strong opposition to this bill from Scottish Women's Aid, Assist and Victim Support Scotland and their concerns about the implications of removing section 23d. Whilst the committee heard conflicting evidence on the wisdom of removing that clause, we do not understand why the Scottish Government is lowering the threshold in the most serious cases where the accused has analogous previous convictions, as those of the cases where remand is most likely to be appropriate. Indeed, it was as a result of the bill being granted in such a case that those provisions were originally enacted following an accused who had been granted bail then committing offences of abduction, rape and murder. We have repeatedly asked the Scottish Government for examples of the kind of accused who would be granted bail, who are currently remanded if this bill passes, but that detail has not been forthcoming. We believe that there continues to be a lack of robust alternatives to remand available to the courts and support the development of more forms of supervised bail. Electronic monitoring has been less used in recent years in Scotland compared to other jurisdictions, and we believe that there is great scope for a greater use of electronic monitoring as a bail condition to avoid remand. However, having spoken with Victim Support Scotland, we share their concerns about the current lack of tracking and monitoring with electronic monitoring and support the need for GPRS systems so that there can be tracking. We also share the concerns of legal practitioners that we have spoken with about the lack of definition of the public safety test in the bill. At stage 2, I put down some probing amendments with potential alternative wordings and also calling for the Scottish Government to provide a definition. However, we have accepted the advice of those within the legal profession who believe that it is safer to retain the current bail test that has settled the law and provides a presumption in favour of bail in most cases. We remain unconvinced that the bill will achieve its aims, reduce the remand population and believe that many of the concerns being raised are legitimate. Although we agree that, in part 2 of the bill, those provisions in the main do not require legislation and could be delivered now by the Scottish Government within the current legislative framework. For those reasons, we will not support this bill in this final vote. I begin by thanking all those who gave such insightful and informative evidence to the criminal justice committee and also to our team of clerks for their hard work. Now, an essential role of government of this Parliament and indeed of us as members is to prioritise the safety of the people of Scotland. We should strive to ensure that people not only feel safe but are safe, whether that's at home, on the street, in the workplace or at school. Every single day, however, we hear distressing accounts of crime in our communities. Those can include the most depraved and often devastating acts of violence. Those are committed not just against adults but also the most vulnerable, the very youngest of children and our cherished senior citizens. Those can be life-changing, sometimes, of course, life-ending. I believe, unequivocally, that survivors deserve justice and that we have a duty to ensure that that is what they get. On many occasions, however, that is not what they get. Too often, the initial pain and shock of the original crime is compounded by the justice system. We keep hearing the same stories from survivors who feel disrespected, isolated and unimportant. The word betrayal is often used. One of the most important stages in the process is at the very beginning, when an alleged perpetrator is arrested by the police. The bill that we are about to vote on seeks to change the law relating to what happens at this critical juncture is an accused person remanded in custody or released on bail. In the very short time that I have, it would be impossible to rehearse every detail of the bill's passage since its introduction last June, but some important contributions and observations must be revisited. The Government's apparent intent for this law is to reduce the number of prisoners on remand, yet my colleague Jamie Greene has cited data showing that the number of prisoners being remanded has actually plummeted over the past decade. That revelation alone debunks and demolishes the Government's entire justification for their legislation. That incidentally is exactly the kind of crucial information that was withheld from the committee. Throughout the passage of the bill, there has been a background drumbeat. Some campaigners suggest, often implicitly, that old-fashioned judicial attitudes are to blame for Scotland's high remand rate. This morning, a BBC TV report reflected that narrative by saying that remand will now only be used as, I quote, a last resort. Anyone who has spent time inside a court or has spoken with practitioners will know that that is what already happens. Bail is always the default position. Sheriffs only remand someone after full and careful assessment of the individual circumstances of each case. Mr Greene's statistics also confirmed what many have suspected that there is a more fundamental problem here, which is this. Scotland's stubbornly high remand rate is actually due to a failure of this Government to properly fund our criminal justice system. It is little wonder that Scotland's most senior judge, the Lord President, gave the Government's plans such short shrift. He described their consultation as, I quote, a tick box exercise, which, again quoting, is simply an unacceptable way to deal with complex issues of such societal importance. There was a similarly scathing take from the Scottish Police Federation, who posed this question, what exactly is the problem that this Bill is trying to fix? I wish I knew. I ask why do we need this law that will tie the hands of sheriffs and make their ability to remand even more difficult? Again, I wish I knew. Last night, as we tangled with 90 amendments, three prominent victims groups, including Scottish Women's Aid and Victim Support Scotland, issued a press release urging members to vote against this Bill. They said that this is necessary to, and I quote, protect the interests of people affected by crime in Scotland. As MSPs, we have a choice to prioritise the needs and the protection of victims, or do we instead seek to make life easier for those who commit crimes? I believe that essentially is a choice before us today, and our party will make the right choice. I want to start by once again thanking all Members for their contributions throughout the journey of this Bill. I think that we have by and large demonstrated that we can disagree agreeably. However, I would like to point out to colleagues that the vast majority of Government amendments that I brought forward in my name, both at stage 2 and at stage 3 last night, were in direct response to requests and comments either from members of Opposition parties or, indeed, victim support groups. I just want to reassure members that, even though at times we will disagree and divide, I will continue, even where I have to make decisions, will continue with that spirit of co-operation. I also want to once again thank my Bill team. They have had a lot to put up with, not least with a new Cabinet Secretary for Justice. Most of all, I want to thank all the organisations, including victim support organisations and other justice stakeholders, who have agreed or disagreed with the Government in whole or in part. However, it is important to acknowledge that there were numerous pieces of evidence written and oral submitted to the Criminal Justice Committee that spoke in favour of the Bill and its overall aims or for specific parts of the Bill, whether that was Professor Fergus McNeill or Sheriff Mackay in terms of the Howard League and there was also other commentary from Social Work Scotland and Community Justice Scotland. I would also point out to members that the progress that we are making in tackling the court backlog and the progress that has been made in terms of the roll-out of Bail supervision schemes, which is now evident in 30 local authority areas. However, there is no doubt about it that we have all wrestled with big questions and hard decisions for government, for Parliament and indeed our country. Nothing is more important to me than public and victim safety. I know that I do not have a monopoly on that, but we all share that, even though we may disagree on how best to achieve that. That is the first time since 2007 that the Bail test has been significantly reformed, and, inevitably, it has been the centre of the debate. I believe that, in simplifying the Bail test and embedding public and victim safety in all cases, we have strengthened it in regards that it shifts the focus rightly on those who present the greatest harm. It speaks directly to those solemn cases that section 23D sought to address, and, although no bill is a silver bullet, the bill will move us forward in refocusing what and who incarceration is for. Prison is for punishment, but it is also for rehabilitation. Prison plays a vital role in public protection, but it can also be an incubator for risk, because the evidence shows that, particularly for short periods of remand, that that can be damaging and disrupt the very things that prevent re-offending—a home, health, work and family. I have no doubt that, as we proceed in partnership in the spirit of both debate and support and scrutiny, we will indeed come back to the issues in and around community justice services. However, there is a bigger prize here if we have the courage to make some of those hard decisions going forward. Liam McArthur spoke to this, because the reality is that our collective challenge is that, if our prisons continue to deal with a high number of highly vulnerable people—people whose services and society have not served well—our prison and our justice system as a whole will be less effective in identifying and managing those who present the greatest risk. That is not in the interests of victims and it is not in the interests of the communities that we all seek to sell. I want to finish where I started. This is not the end of the journey, far from it, but it is a journey that we have to be prepared to continue. The Government, as I am sure other members will do, will come forward with other legislative plans and other non-legislative plans. However, if we pass tonight, the bill will introduce a new bail test that puts public and victim safety at its very core. For the first time, our courts will be required to consider the physical and psychological safety of victims. It will end Friday liberations and, for good reason, and it will place statutory duties on that wider public service to prepare prisoners for release. It includes measures to help remand prisoners. For the first time, there will be statutory through-care standards. It extends the provisions of information about prisoner release to victim support organisations. It gives us more tools to support rehabilitation and reintegration. It gives more safeguards, more consultation and more review and reporting. I recommend the bill to the chamber. All of which will help to reduce re-offending and make our communities safer. That concludes the stage 3 debate on bail and release from custody Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 9610, in the name of Natalie Donne, on Children's Care and Justice Scotland Bill at stage 1, be agreed? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 9158, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for Children's Care and Justice Scotland Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.