 Fy nechyd, rwy'n gwybod i'r 19 ymddangos cymaint 10 o gyflawnio gyda'r Cymru yn 2015, ydych chi'n gweithio yn gyllewch yn cyflawni amgylchau cymaint ac elachol o moddau'r cyd-gweithiau o'r cyflwyniad yng Nghymru, ac mae'r cyflwyno i'r cyflwyno i'r cyd-gweithiau ymddangos i'r cyflwyno i'r cyllewch 1. I'm inviting you to agree to consider items 4, consideration of witnesses in relation to the Community Justice Scotland Bill and 5, consideration of the evidence received on the inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden death Scotland Bill in private. Are you agreed? Thank you. We now move to stage 2 proceedings on the Prisoner's Control Release Scotland Bill. I welcome Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Officials for this item. Philip Blamant, Head of Criminal Law and Sentencing Unit and Fraser Goff, Parliamentary Council Office. Members should have their copies of the Bill, the martial list and groupings amendments beside you. You also have a correction slip to the martial list and that is on amendment 3. It's nothing enormous. It's simply that the word act is repeated. If you look at it, it refers to the section 1 of the Prisoner's Control Release Scotland Act 1993 act. That's all it is. Nothing. No great dynamite there. I just start away and I'll call amendment 1 and name the Cabinet Secretary group with amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4. Cabinet Secretary, please to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Good morning, convener. Amendment 1 provides for the expansion of the policy so that the current entitlement to automatic early release at the two-thirds point of sentence is ended for all future long-term prisoners. This is in response to the comments made during stage 1. That was not clear why a differentiation was being made between six offenders and non-six offenders in the bill on introduction. We consider our amendment as an appropriate response to the issues that were raised at stage 1. Amendment 1 also provides for a minimum six-month period of licence condition supervision for all long-term prisoners leaving custody. During stage 1 scrutiny, it was suggested that an unintended consequence of ending the entitlement to automatic early release for certain prisoners was that some prisoners would serve their entire sentence in prison and then leave custody with no licence conditions in place to help supervise them in the community. This issue is commonly referred to as cold release. We discussed this at some length last week and it's important to stress that the need for the operation of a mandatory period of licence condition supervision will apply to a limited proportion of long-term prisoners only. This is because many long-term prisoners will continue to receive pro-bord early release or will have an extended sentence in place. For example, we know that nearly half of six offenders long-term prisoners and approximately one-fifth of other long-term prisoners have an extended sentence. We also know a significant portion of long-term prisoners, especially non-sex offenders, receive discretionary release. For these prisoners, a period of supervision will always operate upon release from custody through the imposition of licence conditions. However, long-term prisoners not in this position will be subject to this period of six months licence condition supervision. It's important to explain what this means for sentences. A sentence will contain a period of time that must be served in custody at the start of the sentence. This will be half the sentence. A period of time that must be served under supervision in the community at the end of the sentence. This will be the last six months. And a period in the middle of the sentence from the halfway point to the last six months that will be served either in custody or under supervision in the community if the prisoner is given parole early release. This is, in essence, a custodial and supervisory sentence. We are clear that the mandatory period of supervision should be part of a long-term prisoner's sentence. This will ensure that there is effective enforcement of the conditions of the mandatory supervision period, which will include the ability to recall a prisoner to custody. As with the current system, it will be for the parole board to determine what the licence conditions should be. Various views have been expressed about what length the minimum supervision period should be. As I have explained, the minimum supervision period will only affect a limited portion of long-term prisoners, with supervision lasting much longer for many long-term prisoners with an extended sentence and those receiving discretionary early release. Keeping this in mind, we consider that the length of mandatory supervision should be six months. Members will be aware that a considerable amount of work goes on inside prisons to plan for the release of prisoners. For long-term prisoners, this includes criminal justice social work being directly involved inside prison to consider needs as a long-term prisoner becomes eligible for consideration of release. This work looks at ensuring that the prisoner is ready as they can be for release, including considering matters such as housing, welfare and work needs, given that these are key to successful reintegration into the community. All of this work is focused on the individual prisoner's needs at that particular point and is done in prison ahead of release. We think that the minimum period of supervision necessary for a prisoner serving close to four years, as compared to a prisoner leaving after, say, eight years in custody, is likely to be similar. Given both a long period of time to be incarcerated and keeping in mind the additional preparatory work which is done in prison before release for all long-term prisoners. We do not support amendment 1A from Elaine Murray, which would set the supervision period at 12.5%. We do not consider someone serving, say, an eight-year sentence should have supervision that lasts twice as long as someone with a four-year sentence. That would be the effect of Elaine Murray's amendment. We have considered the evidence presented during stage one, which highlighted that it is the initial six to twelve weeks following release that are generally most crucial for individual prisoners. It is during these first weeks and months after leaving custody that prisoners have to re-establish themselves into communities, and this is when challenges around housing and getting a job will often be most acute. It is therefore at this point that a mandatory supervision period would be most appropriate. The Scottish Government considers that a period of six months strikes an appropriate balance so that mandatory supervision is in place for the crucial first few weeks and months following a long period of incarceration, but on the other hand does not leave licence conditions hanging over a prisoner too long as they leave custody and seek to reintegrate into the community. By the end of the six months, we consider prisoners who have had a sufficient opportunity to lay down routes back into the community and have established housing, welfare and work under close statutory supervision. It is important to stress that non-statutory support will continue once the six months have elapsed with community reintegration links laid down. We consider that where a prisoner is assessed as being dangerous that they should remain in custody as far as possible into their sentence before a period of supervision in the community operates. On this basis, we do not support Elaine Murray's amendment 1A, and we would ask the committee to support amendment 1. If approved, amendment 1 will mean that automatic early release is ended for all future long-term prisoners with an extended sentence and restricted to the last six months of sentence for those without an extended sentence. Amendment 2 operates in tandem with amendment 1 as introduced, the bill would have left it to subordinate legislation to make provision about how the reforms to the early release system affect existing prisoners. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee expressed concern about the adequacy of the opportunity that would give members to scrutinise the important issue of how the reforms would affect prisoners serving sentences at the time of commencement. Amendment 1 would therefore make clear that the reforms do not affect prisoners already serving sentences when the new regime comes into force. Amendment 2 removes the power for ministers to include savings and transitional provisions in subordinate legislation as the job will have been done if amendment 1 is approved. I am pleased that, at its meeting last week, the Delegated Powers Committee welcomed what the Government had done in this respect. Amendment 3 is a minor amendment that allows for the commencement order to add in the specific date provision where it is brought into force so that it appears in the relevant section of the 1993 act. This should aid understanding of users of the 1993 act. Amendment 4 is a minor change to the long title of the bill. I move amendment 1. Thank you very much. Elaine Murray placed to move amendment 1A and speak to all the other amendments in the group. Thank you. Thank you convener. I move amendment 1A, which I have introduced after the evidence session that we had last week with Professors Tata McNeill, both of whom felt that six months was insufficient in terms of a supervisory service sentence for people who had served long-term sentences. Bear in mind that the prisoner who is made the defendant who is served served an eight-year sentence at the end of that sentence. That person who would be serving six months has been assessed as being too risky by the parole board to be released prior to that. And it would seem to me to be disproportionate for that person only to be supervised under licence in the community for a period of six months. Particularly the longer sentence where a prisoner may be more institutionalised, have gone through programmes or maybe not have gone through programmes, maybe have rejected some of the support that they have been offered in prison to only have that short a period. The professors actually argued that the supervisory part of the sentence should be at least 25 per cent. I haven't gone as far as to suggest 25 per cent. The 12.5 per cent I have suggested is not particularly evidence-based. It's really on the lines that I believe that you must have had some evidence that you thought six months was appropriate for somebody who'd served a four-year sentence. So that would allow somebody serving a four-year sentence to have the final six months under supervision in the community, but for it to increase proportionately as the sentence length gets longer. Reflecting perhaps the institutionalisation of prisoners, the fact that somebody who is serving a long sentence has probably committed a more serious crime and requires more effort in rehabilitation, and taking into account the fact that, because that person has not been released in parole, they are probably a particularly risky prisoner and requires a longer period of supervision in the community. As I say, I've put this here for discussion. I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary used the term custodial supervisory sentences. We need to change the terminology on sentences. We are not talking about automatic early release, but we are talking about sentences that have two parts. In both the Cabinet Secretary's amendment and my amendment to that, we are recognising that we need to take a more sophisticated attitude towards sentencing. I would also say that, in terms of the stage 1 report, when the Justice Committee made our recommendation, I think that we were thinking that there would be a proportional element that would reflect the length of time somebody had served and the severity of the offence that they had committed, which I think a blanket six months doesn't actually do. Thank you. Other members? I've got John, then I've got Roddy, then I've got Margaret, then I've got Christian, then I've got Gil. Thank you. Elaine's comment there about a blanket doesn't serve individuals as I actually go along with, I agree. Cabinet Secretary, if I noted you correctly, you talked about the criminal justice social work activity within prisons, and if I noted you correctly again, you talked about individual prisoners' needs. You've also said about the initial six-week period being the most testing period. You'll be familiar with the discussions of our last week and my use of the term risk assessment perhaps, how that would relate to an individual, and it's long established that to treat people equally doesn't mean you need to treat them the same. For instance, that six weeks will be far more compelling for someone who doesn't have housing than someone perhaps who served a long-term period who does have housing and a more stable background to go to. I'm reassured when you say that there'll be non-statutory support will continue after the six months, but what reassurance can you give me? Because the trouble I have, whether it's with the six months you propose or any other version, is that it doesn't appear to take account of individual needs, which will vary. So what reassurance can you give me that assessed needs of someone released from prison will be met if we agree that's a six-month period, please? I think that the important point to remember is that there are other prisoners other than the prisoners who will be affected by this bill. The prisoners who have been sentenced to a period of extended supervision at the time of the original imprisonment are set by the court and indeed also all the prisoners who will have the opportunity of trying to obtain discretionary release from the parole board. So I think one thing that's slightly overlooked is the possibility that this new legislation will provide an incentive to people to try and cooperate and to try and obtain discretionary release, except that there will still be people that fall through the net and don't qualify for discretionary release. I listen carefully to what Elaine said. I respect the intellectual argument she's making and indeed that of the distinguished academics, but I simply don't accept the argument that the longer you've been in prison the longer you need to be supervised in the outside world. I agree that the period following release ought to be provided with a sort of proactive support in relation to accommodation, employment, education and benefits that Dr Barry talked about when she gave evidence on 13 January, but I don't think these are things that need to have a proportionate timetable. It was Colin McConnell, chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, who said in evidence that the first six to 12 weeks after release can be extremely risky as people try to establish links and support in community space. That was accepted by the Cabinet Secretary. Even Fergus McNeill last week said that the Cabinet Secretary was absolutely right that the first six weeks to three months are the critical period for establishing the basics for successful resettlement when reintegration must be achieved. Although of course it's also fair to say that earlier in February he'd said that for public safety reasons and for reasons to do with the right of reintegration, it's critical that the system combines custodial sentences with post-release support. I accept what the Cabinet Secretary has said in terms of the terminology of this bill. I also accept that there is an argument that individuals may become more institutionalised the longer they're incarcerated in prison, but I don't somehow think it should lead to a proportionate timetable. Also I bear in mind that the plans of the Scottish Prison Service are to increase mentoring of prisoners approaching release and of an increase in the number of third through care officers to 42. We heard evidence from Eric Mutch on that point and these will be particularly targeted at offenders serving sentences of four years plus. So all of these factors together with the Cabinet Secretary's comments on the continuation of non-statutory support after six months in climbing to the view that the Cabinet Secretary has got the balance about right. Next one is Margaret, please. Good morning. You've made quite a point in an emphasis of the fact that this will only affect a small amount of prisoners' minister, but given these are some of the most difficult prisoners, other than hopefully thinking that maybe this will be an incentive for them to engage all of a sudden. What does your provision do that the original provisions didn't do at two thirds release? It doesn't abolish automatic early release. It arguably leads for more risk in the community for difficult and potentially dangerous prisoners to be less supervised for a smaller length of time. And also there seems to be the question of a possible challenge from HR for these prisoners are not being given the opportunity to provide their, not a risk for the community, a sufficient time to do that. Six months while it covers that initial period that we're told is the most frequent time when there are breaches, does manage to look at housing, to maybe look at employment, but it doesn't mitigate the risk that can still be there and I think it would be dangerous to underestimate that. So I'm genuinely minister puzzled as to what the bill actually does achieve. I'll give you the opportunity to come back with them all at the summing up. I've now got Christian, if you wish, but I think it's probably the better way to do it. Is that correct? Do you want to answer that? I'll try my best to cover as many of the issues as I can. We know you try your best, not your worst. Christian, next please. Thanks very much, convener. Just to come into the... I know that the Cabinet Secretary talked about the cold release, but there is another point which may be not talked about as well, why this military pair came into force. It was the evidence that we received, which said that there is increasing numbers of prisoners opting to max out the sentences. That's a very important point. It's not only that the six-month period is not only to stop cold release, but it's as well that new things that we didn't know about, this maxing out of sentences of prisoners, has to be addressed. And I think the amendment just addressed that. What does the Cabinet Secretary bring in front of a just address this? Regarding the period, I'm pleased to hear that it's not evident base. It's difficult to have evident base for the 12.5% or 25%. Where I come from, I was quite happy to see the Scottish Association for the Care and Resetment of Offenders. Sacro talked about the three months, because to me three months is what we talked about, the first weeks and the first month, which are the most important. So I was quite happy with three months, but I'm happy to go with the Cabinet Secretary extending it to six months. To my mind, again I agree with John Finnie when he talked about proportionality. Proportionality is not so much the amount of sentences that you'd be given, but it should be more individual based. I was quite happy with three months, but it would be quite happy with six months for a long-term prisoner. Let's not forget it's not only all long-term prisoners, but it's only the one who have not having the discretionary early release, who have not having extending sentences under supervision. So I'm quite... Maybe the Cabinet Secretary can reflect on what John Finnie is proposing. I wouldn't think that he should be in the face of the bill, but maybe having an individual approach, making understanding that it's not about proportionality or the length of sentences, but the quality of the work done in the six months should be really about the individual more than anything else. Thank you. Gil? Thank you very much. Can I speak on Elaine Murray's amendment 1A? I see this as another form of automatic early release. It's just simply changed the parameters. And if you take... It's measured by the time served, and if you take a five-year sentence, if my calculation is right, it equates to 142 days early release, and then if you go to 14 years, it's 398 days early release. So it seems to me that, effectively, the most dangerous people get the most benefit in terms of being serving a shorter sentence, and that seems to be kind of wrong in my view. To be quite honest, we either want to end early release or we don't, and I think this is just another form of it. For that reason, I wouldn't be supporting it. Alison. I too want to speak to amendment 1A. Certainly in our stage 1 report, we spoke about the need further to be a mandatory period of supervision, and I was grateful to the minister to listen to that and came back with a suggestion of three months. All that we spoke about round about the stage 1 report was should it be three months, should it be six months, should it be a year. The issue of proportionality and the way that Elaine is addressing really only arose last week when we took some evidence and granted was vociferous evidence, but the figure of 12.5% seems to have been plucked from the air. Elaine New yourself said this morning that it's not particularly evidence-based, and therefore on that basis it's really quite hard to support it. You haven't addressed the additional cost of a longer period of supervision, so I'm not sure about the impact of that. I'm aware that SHRC have expressed concerns about long, unduly long periods of licence supervision and talked about the restrictive nature of that and the interference with public life and the need for it to be proportionate. We've heard from other people that the time on licence is a very stressful time and that we should just be proportionate about that, so I think on the basis that it's not particularly being well evidence then I can't support the amendment. Yes, I would very much support Alison that has just said because I think the key word was used as 12.5%. I appreciate it as not evidence-based and the evidence that we had was six to 12 weeks was required, and that was the danger time for people being released. This is to do with rehabilitation and supervision. It's a period that is required to do that. It's not a proportion of the sentence that's given, and if the evidence that we had said that six to 12 weeks is the danger zone, I think six months satisfies that on the evidence that we've had. My issue with yours as you said yourself is you've got this figure as you say, plot from the air, we had no evidence on 12.5% therefore I can't support it, I'm afraid. Now I move to a busy speaking I forgot to do next. Cabinet secretary to wind up first of all on your amendment 1 and if you wish of course to comment on the other relation to 1A. Thank you, and I'm grateful to the members for their comments on this matter, some of which we discussed at previous settings of the committee in considering this issue, I was conscious that in the course of Elaine Murray's contribution that the witnesses received last week will be neither satisfied with my proposal or our own proposal in this matter given the position which they've taken on the issue of automatic early release. So I do recognise their view in this matter but I'm also conscious of the other evidence which the committee has received and that is that that crucial period of the six to 12 week period when a prisoner is released back into the community as being the critical time in helping to reintegrate and to re-establish a prisoner back into the community. Also in your earlier evidence you heard from SACRO where it was a period of three months that they thought was a reasonable period of time in which to undertake that work to those who thought it should be six, nine or possibly as long as a year. So there is a variety of views out there on what is the most appropriate length of time and we have tried to strike a balance based upon the evidence which the committee has heard over the course of the stage one consideration of this bill. Can I turn to some of the specific points which have been raised and I think John Finnie raised a very important point in that it was much more about the quality rather than the quantity of the time at that period of supervision it takes place. I think that that's absolutely key in order to help to secure the reintegration of prisoners back into community. That's why we have the ministerial group that I chair on reintegration of prisoners which is looking at how we can improve the joined up nature of what goes on in prison within our communities as well in order to build those bridges much more effectively. That's around housing, it's around welfare, it's around employment and as committee members will be aware there are a range of measures that can be taken for long term prisoners before they move into the community. For example, some of them may be granted at release in order to start employment opportunities. Some of them can move to the open estate if that is viewed as being the most appropriate way in which to manage their move towards being released from the prison estate back into the community in order to reintegrate them. I think that it's important in considering the timeframe at the end of the sentence that this is part of what is also the work that has been taking place within prison and where that particular prisoner may actually be given the assessment that is made of their particular needs at that given time. That's why that individual approach is extremely important and why the Scottish Prison Service is now placing so much emphasis on the through care officers who have that type of responsibility in building up the picture of what's needed for the individual prisoner in order to put those building blocks in place in order to manage their offending behaviour and to move back into the community much more effectively. However, there is more we can do in that than the ministerial group that I chair is very much focused on how we can achieve that more effectively in going forward. Some of the pilot work that I've mentioned previously to the committee around housing and creating those links is all about achieving exactly that type of approach. I will say the time that Margaret Mitchell's points should not entirely sure what my amendment does, the bill doesn't do. Clearly what my amendment does is creates that statutory period of community supervision because of the crucial period from the evidence that you've heard about that 60-12 week period about making sure there is a mandatory period of supervision there to manage those prisoners into the community. What you heard from a range of stakeholders was the risks associated with cold release. Prisoners who would be released back into the community would know period of mandatory supervision and what the bill seeks to do is to make sure that there is that period of mandatory community supervision so that if there are concerns, if the person does find themselves in a situation where they are struggling, is that there is a structure in place in order to address that. That in my view is about trying to manage a risk much more effectively. If there is a risk to the community the risk is that there is no support there for that individual and that they may end up committing another offence. I would prefer to be in a position where we were providing the right type of support in order to minimise that potential risk within the community and that's why it's extremely important I believe that we have that minimum period based on the evidence that you have heard from a range of stakeholders at the end of a prisoner's sentence in order to support them and reintegrate them back into the community and as I've mentioned we believe that reasonable period of time in order to get that right and to provide the right quality of support is that six month period. Thank you cabinet secretary. Elaine Murray to wind up amendment 1A press or withdrawal. First I will address the point that Gil Paterson made which says that it would end automatic early release if you want to look at it from that angle neither my amendment nor the cabinet secretary's amendment actually end automatic early release because somebody would be automatically released six months before the end of the sentence or 12.5% before the end of the sentence so if you want to look at it in that way neither of them does that but my suggestion is that we move away from that sort of interpretation we look at the balance between the custodial sentence and the community part of a sentence in terms of what produces the best results I heard what John Finnie was saying about assessments around individual needs the only problem I think with that is that if somebody rejects the assessment somebody may be assessed who gets out only six months before the end of a long sentence and if they reject the requirement for additional support thereafter at the end of the six months there is nothing compelling them they are compelled for that six months to accept the assistance but they are not compelled thereafter so if somebody does need a longer period it does not actually guarantee that they will get a longer period of support in terms of the 12.5% as I said that figure I used in order to stimulate debate I selected it because it equated to six months at four years and I presume that the cabinet secretary had some evidence that he felt was the appropriate period of time at four years so it was chosen on that basis although as he said the professors who came to speak to us last week would be satisfied with neither sets of amendments because they were arguing for at least 25% which would to be honest not be terribly different to the situation which we are at at the moment I think they made some other points which go beyond the scope of this bill to be considered I am content not to press the amendment at this stage having listened to what colleagues have said I will consider it and hopefully in the period before we have stage 3 there will be the opportunity to receive other evidence from other stakeholders which may inform any amendment which I brought forward at stage 3 but I'm quite happy not to press it at this stage You wish to withdraw Does any member object no member object the question is therefore that amendment 1 be agreed to are we all agreed there will be a division those in favour please show those against please show abstentions 8 4 none against one abstention the amendment is agreed to the question is that section 1 be agreed to are we all agreed the question is that section 2 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 5 so on market please to move and speak to that amendment Thank you convener, our move amendment is being my name Despite the cabinet secretary's valiant attends to try and justify the evidence this bill on the evidence that we heard from stage 1 and also on the supplementary evidence following the Scottish Government stage 2 amendments really only confirm that it isn't it for purpose the policy memorandum states that the bill ends the system of automatic release for certain prisoners in the interests of protecting public safety but the government proposed changes at stage 2 do not end automatic early release hence the change to the long title proposed which will now refer to amending the rules as to automatic early release for long term prisoners so the cabinet secretary amendment merely replace automatic early release at the two thirds point of a sentence with automatic early release at six months before completion of that sentence this has proportionality implications which in turn may well lead to a potential HR challenge the government has not made the case as to why it rejected the proportionate approach I don't think they've made that case adequately at all the six to eight weeks yes that is the key area for re-offending up to six months allows that prisoner to be resettled to look at housing, to look at benefits but it doesn't agends a potential risk to the public from what could be a very difficult prisoner being released at that point nor does the bill even after being amended provide clarity in sentencing for the public or improve public safety given all of this it's hard to work out what the government is attempting to achieve with the introduction of this bill the inevitable conclusion is that this was bad legislation to begin with and that the Scottish Government's attempt to address stakeholders extensive and legitimate criticisms at stage to have muddied the waters further and made things worse Furthermore, given the extremely narrow scope of the prisoner control of release Scotland bill it's quite simply not possible to alter it in an attempt to ensure that it does become fit for purpose that poses I contend an insurmountable problem for us as a scrutiny committee which is why I have lodged this probing amendment which seeks to delay and is probing at this stage the commencement I noticed people are laughing at that so maybe I shouldn't have a probing amendment maybe I'll just consider it once we've heard the reports because this is far too serious to be dealt with flippantly Mr Campbell I don't think I think it's unfair I think if we just proceed on Margaret we're doing a good job but it seeks to delay the commencement of section 1 until the day after the Criminal Justice Scotland Act 2015 receives royal assent. This would provide the committee and the cabinet secretary with breathing space to look at the criminal justice system in the round including short term sentencing, early release and associated recidivism rates. It would crucially also provide the opportunity for the thoughtful, helpful and constructive suggestions proposed by Professor Tata and McNeill and Dr Barry which have been sent to the committee following the professor's pertinent and forensic criticisms of the bill when they gave evidence last Wednesday to be taken into account and properly considered The issue of automatic early release which is confusing for the public and vexing for victims of crimes and their families is far too important to tinker with rather than giving it the consideration it deserves to get it absolutely right. I look forward to the cabinet secretary's response Margaret any other members which too Elaine and Rod Yes, I appreciate some of Margaret's concerns which certainly are reflecting some of the evidence that we had however there's two things I think really sure about. I'm not quite sure how I know that the amendments were originally supposed to be amendments to the criminal justice bill but I'm not sure that the rest of the criminal justice bill interacts in any particular way with this bill which means that this bill can't come into effect until that bill has come into effect because this was to certainly add on to that bill so I'm not sure how delaying implantation would actually be required or is required in terms of that bill. The other thing is if there are issues about which we are so concerned about this bill I don't see how they can be addressed in the criminal justice bill or anything very much that we could do about them through the passage of that bill. They made some of the issues brought to us by the professors and so on I think are probably for reflection on in future legislation rather than in the criminal justice bill that would impact us in the autumn so I'm grateful to Margaret for bringing this to us so that we can reflect on it but I'm not convinced that that delay is required in terms of the passage of this bill. Roder. Have anything to add beyond what Elaine has said actually about the points in relation to delay? Why I'm supportive is because we've really tackled what was a huge issue for us was called release and that really was the key in doing this is that we have management of rehab and supervision within the context of the prison but more importantly that that transition continues out into the community and I think for me that deals with what legitimately raised about risk of really long-term prisoners well that's at least now there's a six month period when they must, it's mandatory the supervision and rehabilitation in that supportive period so I think that this is something that I don't want to see delayed Anyone else? Right, I'm now going to call John sorry John. It's just a reflection for Margaret I certainly don't support her amendment but I do support the scrutiny role that this committee undertakes and I think for the reasons that the convener said we have seen movement not all the time but the consensual way we've got to the point where we have where we have seen movement from the Scottish Government I think we commend the Government on that and I think commend this committee for its work if indeed we can commend ourselves if you want to meet me You go and commend yourself John as you don't get everything that you want in life we're already feeling sorry for you get an extra muffin Cabinet, Gil which is very appropriate and I wouldn't like any delays the idea that someone presently get released in a day that they can't get any services is just madness and so this is an excellent part a tidying up exercise should be done a lot more and lots of people I'm coming back to you we're coming back to you when you sum up sorry, yes? Thanks very much and I don't blame you for that but you know there's a lot of people in really poor circumstances that need help will benefit from this simple straightforward part of the bill Thank you very much, no Margaret you get to sum up so now goes the Cabinet Secretary then I come back to you Margaret Cabinet Secretary I've listened carefully to what Margaret Mitchell has said about amendment 5 as to why she seeks to delay the commencement of these important reforms approval of the criminal justice bill and royal assent being received for that particular bill at present there is no provisions contained within the criminal justice bill relating to early release and we do not see any reason for delaying commencement of this bill in a manner that would result from amendment 5 being agreed to it is appropriate that any stage 2 amendments to the criminal justice bill should be considered by the committee during the bill stage 2 process amending this bill to tie it into future legislation would be to preempt Parliament's consideration of the criminal justice bill and I don't believe that that's appropriate it is worth noting that Margaret Mitchell's amendments to the criminal justice bill will provide for a system of cold release and long-term prisoners this is of course precisely what members of the committee have just voted against in any event Parliament will have the chance to consider Margaret Mitchell's amendments when stage 2 of the criminal justice bill takes place and while I've listened to what Margaret Mitchell has said to say in this matter we do not consider that it is good there is any good justification for delaying this important piece of legislation and the contents of this bill until after the royal scent of the criminal justice bill and on that basis I would ask the committee to redact amendment 5 Margaret Mitchell The point of information that I wanted to make was that section 2 under my mention still goes ahead so I thought it was something that was explaining exactly what the amendment was. I think it's a bit of a confusion about what's being proposed here it's a breathing space it's a breathing space in what has been a very tight scrutiny period to turn the bill upside down which was bad to begin with which has been improved slightly but still isn't fit for purpose and as a scrutiny committee I'm dealing with one of the most important issues in the criminal justice system I think it is sensible and reasonable that we could consider taking advantage of that period of time to look at not least the very significant evidence that was presented last week by the academics and the two professors who brought up very relevant forms so I firmly believe and you know as for my amendment in the criminal justice bill they'll be tested could be probing amendment could be looking at how it goes I think it's quite wrong to fixate on that what I do think it's important is that I allow this time up until and during the consideration of that bill to look at where we're going with this bill so I firmly believe that that's the best way forward to delay commencement of section one to ensure the best possible outcome from scrutiny of the criminal justice bill not least to ensure that the period of mandatory supervised release in the community community is sufficient and properly thought through to address the practicalities and that's housing benefits employment things that aren't addressed and I have to say I don't have a great amount of confidence will be in the future and through care on past experience and that these are actually adequately resourced to ensure the 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 these are important bits important bits of the jigsaw which I think we should have time to consider to get this bill right I won't press my amendment today because it is to air these and it's to hope that genuinely the cabinet secretary has a good track track record to date on listening to concerns about legislation and proposals championed by his predecessor will reflect on the advantage of delaying commencement of section 1 and support this amendment a later stage you seek to withdraw my agreement does anyone object there's no objection and I'll call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary I already debated amendment 1 cabinet secretary to move formally the question is amendment 2 be agreed to are we all agreed not agreed right there will be sorry I'm moving too fast to the market so amendment 2 the question is amendment 2 be agreed to are we all agreed there will be a division those in favour please show those against please show abstentions 8, 4 not against 1 abstention that amendment is agreed to call amendment 3 in the name of the cabinet secretary I already debated amendment 1 cabinet secretary to move formally the question is amendment 3 be agreed to are we all agreed I heard out there it's not agreed there will be a division those in favour please show those against please show abstentions 8, 4 not against 1 abstention that amendment is therefore agreed to the question is section 3 be agreed to are we all agreed call amendment 4 in the name of the cabinet secretary I already debated amendment 1 cabinet secretary to move formally the question is amendment 4 be agreed to are we all agreed not agreed there will therefore be a division those in favour please show those against please show abstentions 8, 4 not against 1 abstention that amendment is therefore agreed to the question is that long title be agreed to that end stage 2 consideration of the bill thank you very much cabinet secretary your official is pretending today thank you I'll suspend for a couple of minutes thank you now move on to item 3 Scotland's national action plan for human rights members are aware that John Finnie is a rapporteur on the SNAP plan on human rights and today John will update us on his latest meeting Professor Alan Miller chair of the Scottish human rights commission John I invite you to update the committee please I don't know the extent to which you wish me to go into that the paper has been I can make some general comments first of all very grateful to Professor Alan Miller who is a very busy man not just in respect of human rights in Scotland but as you know in the European and indeed international stage where he holds various positions we discussed the Scotland's national action plan which is the focus of a lot of the work there some of the items 5 there you'll notice that culture is featured and the phrase innovations forums to identify opportunities to empower people to understand and use their rights and I know from engagement with some groups that historically people haven't seen human rights as being particularly relevant to them but in a variety of fields so for instance health and social care and issues around welfare and care homes and the right to dignity simple things like levels of hydration these are fundamental human rights the justice system we heard last week the statement in historic child abuse and clearly the Scottish human rights commission have been involved in that and as you know our regular respondents to calls for evidence from this committee there's also been involved with the police service who contribute to the Scotland's national action plan and people will be aware that the human rights commission have engaged on issues like human rights training at the Scottish police college and I think it's fair to record that there's been discussions on some of the issues around for instance stop and search and questions of proportionality and I think it's good that they can Scottish human rights commission can be seen as honest brokers in the scheme of things and people are very willing to engage with them planning for a disability summit in 2015 in the publication of a draft report and driverly plan is another issue that was discussed I provided some information on the work of the committee and the justice subcommittee on policing excuse me and these included issues are like human trafficking and the fatal accident inquiries and the scrutiny role that the committees provide and I certainly said that on behalf of the committee I'd be very happy to keep in touch with Professor Miller on the issue of any emerging issues and I think it's fair to record that one of these emerging issues regardless of where it sits at the moment is the difference between the position in the rest of the UK and Scotland regarding human rights and the discussion and debate that's to be had around that so I'm very happy to answer any specific questions come here I know if Dungavel falls within the SNAP action plan but obviously I raised the issue and part of other members have raised the issue about the failure to allow welfare to go in and check on the condition of people detained there who are after all not criminals and indeed the trade unions, STUC and others does that something falls within your discussions with Professor Miller does he any remit there seems to me while technically of course Dungavel is UK in a detention on Scottish soil yes indeed I think it's fair to say that we didn't discuss that particular issue but I'm happy to engage with Professor Miller on that because clearly as you say historically there's been issues about particularly children and young people that could dealt with if I recall through the previous children's commissioner that children are not detained there now yes indeed there at Yarlswood as I understand but of course only last week we saw a raid there where there was children involved with the UK border agency so I'm happy to discuss what role of any there is talking about the adults because children are not detained at Dungavel anymore that we dealt a blow to that I think yes indeed through the previous children's commissioner who really took this on board now as she succeeded there I'm wondering why notwithstanding the institution within Scotland the human rights the human rights Professor Miller commissioner can't deal the same thing for adults you know on the principle that it was prevented previously even just to let people in to see the welfare of the detainees yes indeed I visited there in the past and I've written and asked to visit again and I've been told that that's inappropriate so I mean I can certainly speak about that and also the equality in human rights commission who are the UK body as well so I mean I'm happy to pick up on that I don't know if other members share my concerns about that, people detain they're not even going to see how their welfare is or they have no time for me we've just dealt with control of release of prisoners these people don't even know when they're going to either be accepted within the community or sent back I mean it seems to me just isn't human are you content that this is raised in human rights okay okay the other thing I wanted to ask just something I wanted to ask is nobody put their name forward was I'm very interested in the case studies I dispute with you now that people aren't aware of human rights I think they've become increasingly aware of their human rights now, the public and I'm interested in the case studies is this the health committee that's dealing with that under the pilot projects yes indeed it is to go to the health committee do we know anything else about it what it's dealing with do we know what these case studies are there was no specific information on that but I understand it's imminent because it is as you see it's due this month that they are to go to the health committee quite interested to see how people if it's the way they're treated in hospital and so on don't know I'd like to know more about that so maybe if we could I'll certainly do that and report back was it Roddy you wanted in? yeah now just to clarification on justice of victims of historic child abuse with the appointment of Susan O'Brien last week are you able to comment in any way of SHRC's involvement or otherwise in this issue well the appointment was subsequent to me meeting with Professor Miller however I think there was an awareness that was going to be an announcement and of course the Scottish Human Rights Commission acted as go between indeed did sterling work getting people who had been in conflict around a table to discuss issues and how to take things forward so I'm sure there'll be further updates from and again I can come back to the committee with that that would be helpful to me Elaine? I'm actually a convener for a dispute with John Finnie that people don't know about their human rights because actually I don't know that people are really aware of what their human rights are what human rights is actually about people reading the papers is about offenders and all sorts of people they might consider to be undesirable folk and then maybe don't realise what human rights actually means for everybody and so I think that sees the innovation forms particularly if there are discussions at the UK level about repealing the human rights act I think it's extremely important that people are made aware of the whole gamut of human rights and how actually it benefits all of us to be more aware of their human rights not everybody is but certainly my inbox quite a lot of people are aware of human rights sorry John I think it's an issue in it it's not a party-politic issue it's an issue about the growing diversity of views whilst it's been promoted very positively and picked up by the Scottish Government the Scottish National indeed on a cross-party basis there is some negative PR about the whole concept Jane Just to get back to the issue about health and social care I can remember what was told to yesterday about the incidence of mental health issues and the problems that police face in dealing with that but so if health and social care is going to be a pilot project I would like mental health to be a specific of that and it's not just hospitals it's about community-based services and the integration board in particular what they're doing so more specifically about mental health than just the broad herring of health Again Professor Merle didn't go into detail about this because it is exclusively for the health committee but I can confirm that I would be very surprised at mental health which quite often features in terms of rights issues weren't part of it but I can confirm that and come back to committee Let me just clarify the case studies that we consider by the Parliament these have not been set up yet Am I correct? No, no to be considered by the health committee this month So I think we could perhaps just make a comment or if you make a comment on our behalf that we want mental health to be included in it I think that would be something Okay Christian? Culture that is a series of innovation forums to identify opportunities to empower people to understand and use their rights Do we know if any of those innovation will talk about what this committee is doing particularly talking about nobody should be ignorant of the law but to a certain extent a lot of people who just said only this country will have big problem to understand what their rights are Will that come under this programme of innovation forums? Can we know more about this innovation forums? Well the particular example cited was from the north of Ireland and indeed it was regarding housing regeneration in Belfast where the community was empowered to make decisions and they fed that information into an event which occurred in Glasgow to coincide with World Human Rights Day in December last year and it is picking up on community empowerment issues and it is picking up on the point that Elaine made there about people having an awareness of how rights can be used to support decision making and how they should be embedded into policy decisions Will that be said understanding the law as well when you are right under the justice system? I personally raised at the police sub-committee the issue of that information being made available by the police because I think it is in the police interest for people to understand the rights and I commended a booklet that was issued in the police force I was in many many years ago and I think we were assured by the assistant chief constable that that is information that would be made available online to encourage young people particularly pertinent with regard to stop and search and individuals knowing their rights and settlements but I would certainly support a wider teaching of human rights because too often they are seen by the establishment as being threats rather than something that we all have an opportunity to benefit from if you can come back to us and let us know the new vision for us I just note also that SNAP are observing training programmes on human rights issues at the police college for a start now maybe it's your wee book It would be nice if it was the wee book Can I thank you for that now it's a very interesting discussion and I now move into private session