 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 17902, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the management of offenders' Scotland bill. Can I call on Graham Day to move this motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. Mr Dorn, are you wishing to speak against this motion? No. That's fine. No member has asked to speak against the motion, so the question is that motion 17902 be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. The next item is consideration of the stage 3 proceedings on the management of offenders' bill. In dealing with the amendment, the bill is amended at stage 2, the martyred list and the groupings of amendments. To remind members, the division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. There will be a 32nd vote after that, and there will be a one-minute period for voting after the first division following a debate. Members who wish to speak in a debate should press their request to speak as soon as I call the group or the hospital after that. We will refer to the martyred list and I call group 1, part 1, terminology Before I call the cabinet secretary, I point out that throughout this group there are a number of amendments that, if agreed to, would pre-empt the other amendments in this group. In the interests of time, I do not propose to mention the pre-emptions on each occasion where they occur, but I would refer members to the groupings for pre-emption information. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments as shown by the cabinet secretary to move amendment 4 and speak to all the amendments in this group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 4 in my name. At stage 2, I supported Daniel Johnson's amendments, which removed the term offender from part 1. The Government listened to the concerns expressed and supported the changes so that no one would feel stigmatised by the language of the legislation. At stage 2, when I signalled that I supported the principle behind Daniel Johnson's amendments, I indicated that the Government would need time to reflect on the technical impact on the drafting and may need to revisit the terminology for readability and workability. As things stand, the label relevant person does not work because it is undefined. Reflecting on how to address that problem in a way that would be consistent with the committee's view at stage 2, we realised that, in fact, there is no need for the bill to apply labels to people subject to electronic monitoring at all. We needn't call them relevant persons, they are simply persons who happen to be subject to a monitoring requirement. The amendments in my name therefore get rid of the labels altogether, with only a few exceptions where the label-monitored person is used to distinguish the person subject to a monitoring requirement from the person who is designated to carry out the monitoring. Amendment 145 is a clarificatory amendment to put beyond doubt that references to disposals in part 1 are not confined to the final disposals in a case. I invite members to support the amendments in my name in the group. I invite members to reject the amendments from Liam Kerr, which would reinstate the word offender, directly contradicting the decision of the Justice Committee at stage 2. To be clear, using the label offender does nothing to improve the bill's technical precision and has no other legal effect. As I say, I move amendment 4 in my name. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I am going to call Liam Kerr to move amendment 4e and to speak to the other amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. All my amendments in this group seek to reverse Daniel Johnson's terminology amendments at stage 2. Parliament cannot fail to have seen the considerable public outcry when this was passed at stage 2. I think that it is important that the full chamber has an opportunity to reflect on the committee's decision. This is the management of offenders bill. Its purpose is to deal with people who have offended, committed a crime. Laws mean something, and they should be clear. If we are referring to offenders, we should call them offenders. Parliament will be interested to know that the key argument presented in committee was that it does not help rehabilitation to label people as offenders after they have served their time. I understand that point, but most of those provisions deal with criminals before they have completed their sentence. The bill talks about how we manage those who are in the system, not so much those who have completed it. Finally, I will not miss a MacArthur, because I presume that you will be speaking later, and I just want to move it on. Finally, there is no doubt that many victims of crime already feel that more is being done to support offenders than those who have suffered. We cannot and should not airbrush from history that a crime, an offence, has been committed. For those reasons, ask Parliament to recognise that an offender is an offender and vote in favour of my amendments. Thank you, Mr Kerr. I call Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given that it was my amendments at stage 2 that created this, I feel that it is a responsibility to speak up for myself at this stage. However, I will be brief. I will try to limit myself to something of a self-imposed 60-second rule throughout this stage 3 amendment debate. Labels do not help, as the cabinet secretary said. Good legislation should have well-defined terminology and should not need to refer to people by anything other than the term people. For that reason, I think that we should support the Government's amendments and reject the conservative ones. Thank you. That is a very popular comment from Mr Johnson. I call Lee MacArthur to be followed by John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was not even intending on observing the 60-second rule until Liam Kerr's invitation to do so. The point that the cabinet secretary and Daniel Johnson have made in relation to the stigmatisation is absolutely fair and valid. I think that it reinforces what we heard through the evidence session throughout our consideration of the bill. I think that the other important fact is that, in extending the provisions to those pre-ruling from the court, it would become impossible were it not for the redefinition, as proposed by the cabinet secretary, that it would certainly be supporting those amendments. I endorse the comments of the cabinet secretary and my colleagues, Daniel Johnson and Liam MacArthur. Airbrushing is a pejorative term, I think that it is meant to be a pejorative term and most certainly will not be support in Liam Kerr's position. I call the cabinet secretary to wind up on amendment 4. There is nothing much to add other than, thank you, colleagues, for the contributions. What I would say to Liam Kerr is that, since taking on this role a year ago, it should always be driven by the data and the exports that are in front of us. He has a lot of respect, I know, for organisations such as The Wise Group and many others that work with those who have committed crimes in the past, and they will tell you that language is important. That change in the legislation will not, for example, make it illegal for anybody or criminalise anybody for using the word offender. They can use that in their daily discourse if they wish to do so. As legislators, we have responsibility to listen to those experts and, as I say, change the law accordingly. I am delighted to have the support of the majority of Parliamentarians to do that. I call Liam Kerr to wind up on to press or withdraw amendment 4A. Like the cabinet secretary, I do not have a great deal to add other than to say that language is important. I do accept that point, and that is why we must call it as it is. For that reason, I move, I press 4A. Thank you very much, Mr Kerr. The question is that amendment 4A be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. This is the first division of the afternoon, so we will suspend for five minutes while I summon members to the chamber. A short suspension of five minutes. Thank you, colleagues. The Parliament is now resumed, and we are going to go straight to the question. The question is that amendment 4A be agreed to, and members may cast their votes now. On amendment 4A, this is the 32nd vote. The result of the vote on amendment 4A, in the name of Liam Kerr, is yes, 26, no, 84. There were no abstentions. The next question is that amendment 4A be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. Again, a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 4B, in the name of Liam Kerr, is yes, 27, no, 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 4A be agreed to, but amendment 4A will pre-empt amendments 5 and 6. Does the cabinet secretary wish to press or withdraw amendment 4? That is moved. The question is that amendment 4A be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 4A, in the name of Humza Yousaf, is yes, 85, no, 27. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Before I move on to the next amendment, which will be 7, can I confirm with Mr Kerr that there is a huge number of amendments that pre-empt other amendments? Can I confirm with Mr Kerr whether or not he wishes to move amendments, in this case, 8, 10, 12 and 14? Presiding Officer, with your permission, I will speak in response rather than just say yes or no. Those amendments seek to make the same changes as that of amendments 4A and 4B. I maintain that this is the right thing to do for certainty and semantics. However, it is clear to me that only the Scottish Conservatives are with me on that. There are extremely important debates to have this afternoon and to ensure time. I note that my comments to 4A and 4B are on the record and I will not be pressing my further amendments in this group and any similar. Thank you very much, Mr Kerr. I just highlighted at this stage that any other member in the chamber is entitled to move any of those amendments at the point at which they are reached. To ensure that that is allowed to happen, I would normally call each one in turn, but in the exceptional circumstances of this case, where we have a very large number of amendments all directed at the same issue, I propose to try to speed up the process slightly. Amendments about this particular subject appear in five blocks, and I will take the same approach for each block of amendments. Can I ask if any other member wishes to move any of the amendments 8, 10, 12 or 14? Thank you very much. As no one indicates that they wish to move, and as all the amendments do the same thing, I propose to invite the cabinet secretary now to move amendments 7, 9, 11 and 13 on block. Thank you very much. There is a separate question. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 7, 9, 11 and 13? In that case, the question is that amendments 7, 9, 11 and 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. We turn now to group 2, Availability of Information to Social Work, when court disposing of a case. Can I call amendment 144 in the name of Liam Kerr in a group of its own, and Liam Kerr to move and to speak to the amendment? I am resubmitting this amendment for Parliament to consider its position. The principle of the amendment founds upon that, during stage 1 evidence, Social Work Scotland told us that, on the information and evidence that criminal justice social work receives to inform our risk and needs assessment, what is sorely lacking is the summaries of evidence that are narrated in court. Without it, we are entirely reliant on the offender's version of events. We know that summaries of court evidence are critical to an objective and accurate risk assessment, and without it, social workers will have less information than they should about how decisions may affect victims. My concern is that victims and the public are unnecessarily put at risk because the right information is not being shared. As I said, I brought that forward at stage 2, and committee members had several concerns. John Finnie asked about what status a summary would have. The answer is that it would only have the weight that the social workers preparing their risk and needs assessment attributed to it. The definitive document remains the risk and needs assessment prepared by criminal justice social work. John Finnie. I am grateful for the member for taking the intervention. The member is perhaps coming on to explain that analysis is none of the impact that this might have on the court services on the already-pressed criminal justice social work services. Liam Kerr. That is a reasonable point. I am grateful for the intervention, because in stage 2, several members raised the concern that the court system would not have the resources to prepare the summary. I understand that, John Finnie. Surely, if something is the right thing to do, it is up to the Government to assess what resources the courts will need, especially for such a crucial bit of communication between the courts and criminal justice social work. The cabinet secretary said in committee that there is no mechanism across all court business for routinely collecting and transmitting such evidence. Surely, that is the problem, and that is what my amendment seeks to address. It would be up to the court to decide what form the summary took, and I am sure that it could create a format that works best for it. My amendment seeks to ensure that social workers have as much evidence as practicable in front of them before making crucial risk assessments, which will inform judges' decisions as to whether an offender is safe to be on our streets. I believe that I have answered the challenges and I seek Parliament's approval to the amendment. I rise briefly in support of that. There is one recurring theme that the committee heard throughout its evidence-taking and, indeed, in other issues that it has heard on in the last year or so, which is the lack of information and data, especially from the courts and also to the courts. I believe that amendment makes good provision for ensuring that that is improved. For those reasons, I think that there is merit support. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak. Thank you, Presiding Officer. That amendment, 144, in exactly this form, was defeated at stage 2, so I am surprised to see that it has been lodged again at stage 3. The amendment, as Liam Kerr has explained, seeks to place a new obligation on the Scottish courts and tribunal service that they make a summary of evidence provided in a case available to local authorities existing their social work function. When we discussed the previous committee, Mr Kerr was asked by Mr Finnie about the practicalities of this, who would produce the summary and what would his status be. We did not get answers to those questions and I am not convinced that we have them from Mr Kerr's remarks. He was also pressed by Fulton MacGregor and I thought quite forensically as to whether or not Liam Kerr had had any discussions with Social Work Scotland, social workers or, indeed, the relevant agencies about the amendment. The answer that we were given by Mr Kerr was the categorical, no, he has not. I will be interested in whether or not Liam Kerr has had discussions with Social Work Scotland or, indeed, the relevant agencies. I am happy to give way if he has. It is crucial, if seeking to improve the process of risk assessment, that we are led by the considerations of the risk management authority as to what information is most relevant to risk. Accordingly, we need to be cautious as parliamentarians that we do not seek to pre-empt those considerations and pre-determine the information that is to be considered as having a bearing on risk. That amendment would extend across all forms of court-imposed electronic monitoring. A social work report is prepared for the court when considering the imposition of an area lower restriction of liberty order, so social work will be aware of the background to those cases anyway. There seems limited merit, therefore, in requiring the court to provide information to a local authority, which they are already likely to have or be aware of. In addition, social work involvement in monitoring an individual, serving a community sentence, will vary depending on the particular community sentence imposed. For example, there is no requirement for a supervising officer to be appointed by a local authority for an individual sentence to an RLO. The provision of a summary of the evidence in those circumstances would obviously clearly be a pointless exorcise. In practical terms, I would also note that it is not clear how the court would be able to identify which local authority is the relevant authority at the time of sentencing. I draw Mr Kerr's attention to amendment 126, in my name, which would create a duty to co-operate between, among others, the Scottish ministers, Scottish courts and tribunal service. That duty to co-operate would include the sharing of information. That duty to co-operate would address the concerns that Mr Kerr has about the sharing of information but would rightly retain the flexibility for the Scottish courts and tribunal service to determine what information it can usefully and practically provide. Amendment 144 presents the same challenges as when it was discussed at stage 2. I would ask Liam Kerr not to press this amendment, and if he does, I would urge members to reject it. I call on Liam Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw this amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to the members who have spoken. I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for his support on this. Cabinet Secretary, what we say is the exact formal, yes it is, because it was right at stage 2 and it is still right at stage 3. You say that you did not get the answers, or that the cabinet secretary says that you did not get the answers, but I am not the Government. I am not in a position. I am able to put the principle forward, and the cabinet secretary said that we would discuss this before stage 3. That has not taken place, cabinet secretary. I am a little bit coming from behind where the cabinet secretary could have helped me on this. I will not, if it is all right, cabinet secretary, because it is not a major point. The point about discussions with social work Scotland that was made in stage 2, which I quoted from social work Scotland, was what the committee heard. What is sorely lacking is the summaries of evidence narrated in court. There may be important information missing from that, particularly in relation to victims. I also draw the cabinet secretary's attention to recommendation 182 of the Justice Committee's stage 1 report, in which the committee calls on the Scottish Government to explore with the SCTS how to routinely supply criminal justice social workers with summaries of evidence. The cabinet secretary says that there is limited merit, but the justice committee was clear on the merits. To my mind, that is why this Parliament must take that forward. Just before I move it, the cabinet secretary alludes to amendment 126. For the avoidance of doubt, cabinet secretary, it is a good amendment and will be voting for it shortly. However, I do not think that that negates why we should vote for amendment 144, which I hear by moving my name. The question never is that amendment 144 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast the votes now. This will be a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 144, in the name of Liam Kerr, is that, yes, 44, no, 69, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I ask the cabinet minister to move amendment 15? Already debated. Thank you. And amendment 15, if agreed, will pre-empt amendment 16. The question is the amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I ask Liam Kerr to confirm that he does not wish to move amendments 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57 and 59. Not moved? Not moved. And I'm going to ask if any other member wishes to move any of these amendments. No. In that case, we move on and I propose to invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 145, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 55, 58 and 60 on block. Moved on block. Thank you very much. Now, does any member object if I put the question on all these amendments on block? Good. So the question is that amendments 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 145, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 52, 53, 55, 58 and 60 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Now, turning to group 3, public authorities duties to cooperate and prepare in relation to prisoners release. Can I call amendment 61 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with the other amendments in this grouping and the cabinet secretary to move amendment 61? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 61 in my name. While we support the principle behind the original amendment at stage 2 on information sharing from Daniel Johnson, we oppose this at stage 2 on the grounds that it was unnecessary and created some practical challenges. The amendment was voted through and now forms section 7A of the bill. The concerns that we raised about this amendment remain valid. Amendment 61 seeks to remove 7A from the bill and amendment 126 proposes an alternative approach to information sharing. The obligation in section 7A is on the Scottish ministers to request information relevant to the monitoring of that prisoner from specified bodies. The specified bodies are Scottish Goats and Tribunal Service, Police Scotland and a relevant local authority. The specified bodies must provide the information requested within 28 days of the request. The practical issues with the amendment that was passed are as follows. The duty to request information arises before the prisoner is released on HDC, but the duty is caveated that it needs only to be complied with where reasonably practicable. The Scottish ministers could therefore release a prisoner on HDC without complying with the duty if they can show that it was not reasonably practicable to do so. The Scottish ministers are obliged to request information prior to releasing a prisoner on HDC, but they are under no obligation to wait for the information being provided before releasing the prisoner. There is no description of what information relevant to monitoring might mean. The Scottish ministers would therefore have a wide power to request any information linked to monitoring of prisoners on HDC. Furthermore, there is no ability in the part of a specified body to refuse the request either in part or in whole. There is no definition of what a relevant local authority might be or how the Scottish ministers are to determine which local authority is relevant to the prisoner. As we know that at stage 2, information is already shared between the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service, Police Scotland, local authorities and the SPS, and the information is used by the Scottish Prison Service in determining applications for HDC. Therefore, our starting position was that that is unnecessary. However, that section may also disrupt current arrangements, creating a requirement to request information at every case that could place an unnecessary burden on the SPS as it might already have the necessary information, or it might not require further information. The timing of the request could also interrupt the determination of HDC. If a request is made and the timeframe set out in legislation now allows 28 days for it to be provided, that could slow down the determination of HDC and lead to available periods for HDC being shortened. As we are sympathetic to the intent behind section 7A, amendment 126 would replace section 7A with measures that are setting out a related but alternative approach. There is a duty in section 1 of the management offenders of Scotland Act 2005 on Scottish ministers and local authorities to co-operate with each other in carrying out respective functions in relation to two specific groups of individuals. Those who are supervised, advised, guided or assisted by a local authority as part of a service provided under sections 27.1, 27.1A and 27.z.a of the 2005 act includes those released from prisoner licence and those supervised under community sentence and those who are detained in custody. That duty to co-operate expressly includes the sharing of information. I believe that amendment 126 retains the original intent behind section 7A, but avoids the difficulties with that section that I have described. As regards amendment 2, lodged by Daniel Johnson, access to suitable accommodation is important in supporting individuals leaving prison to successfully reintegrate and reducing the risk of reoffending. However, I do not believe that amendment 126 is a proportionate or effective means of achieving the same. I believe that risk is losing the current flexibility that allows support to be tailored to the needs of the individual. The Scottish Government already supports a range of interventions that support prisoners—prison leavers—to reintegrate into their community. That includes measures to support them to access accommodation or liberation, for example, the shore standards that is heard at good practice of how the SPS and local government housing authorities will ensure that housing needs of individuals in prison are met. It is important to note that local authorities already have statutory duties to address the needs of individuals presenting as homeless and to provide them information, support and services to individuals who are at risk of homelessness. Therefore, I am not persuaded that there is a need to legislate and require Scottish ministers to take separate action to achieve the same aim. Duplicating existing duties and activities would be inefficient, disruptive, create confusion, regarding responsibility for housing individuals leaving prison. Instead, we should focus on making existing processes as effective as possible. The Scottish Government will be looking at wider legislation and statutory guidance to ensure that everyone who is facing homelessness is able to exercise their right and gain access to appropriate support. That work cannot take place in the context of the justice system alone, and the bill is not the right place to make such substantial changes to housing provision. Therefore, I ask Mr Johnson not to press amendment 2, and if he presses I ask Parliament to reject it. On amendment 128, I welcome Daniel Johnson's effort to encourage us to think about how the justice system could operate differently. Amendment 128 seeks to add a new element to HDSC, requiring that the Scottish ministers take steps to ensure that a person subject to a curfew condition is provided with meaningful activity while subject to the curfew condition. I am not convinced that legislation is required in this area in order to support people in HDSC. Home detention curfew provides an opportunity to support effective reintegration by enabling part of a prisoner's sentence to be served in the community subject to licensed conditions in electronic monitoring. That option can currently be provided alongside other services available to support individuals, leaving short-term sentences, including pre-release planning, voluntary social work through care, the SPS's through care support service, and third sector offender mentoring services. Although well-intentioned, I believe that Daniel Johnson's amendment could create significant restrictions on the way that the HDSC system operates, the definition of meaningful activity is to be prescribed by the Scottish ministers via subordinate legislation, but it must include work of volunteering. However, not every individual on HDSC would be able to or indeed willing to engage with those working or volunteering opportunities. It is not clear whether those individuals would be restricted from accessing HDSC as there could be no meaningful activity provided for them. Ministers do not control the employment market so they could not ensure that work is available for everyone on HDSC. That would be a duty that the Scottish ministers could never comply with. In any event, the ministers prescribing work or volunteering opportunities for people cut across other work or family commitments that they may have. That system does not take account of the need for flexibility to take account of the specific circumstances of the individual. Ultimately, I agree that there is more that we can do to try to help to ensure that those who are released from prison are able to connect with public services and are given opportunities. However, I disagree with an approach that seeks to set a broad and mandatory set of activity rather than allowing those to be determined on a voluntary basis. For those reasons, I would propose to resist this amendment, and I move amendment 61. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Can I call Daniel Johnson to speak to amendment 2, another amendment to this group? I speak to amendment 2 and 1, 2, 8, but before I do, I would like to address the comments made by the cabinet secretary regarding amendments 61 and 1, 2, 6. It is with some regret that I see that the Government have tabled amendment 61. I believe that one of the clear recommendations from HMICS and HMIPS was the need to improve information sharing between agencies. That was one of the critical issues that was found by those agencies regarding the tragic death of Craig McClelland. I recognise that amendment 126 puts in an alternative. I do not believe that it is robust as a legal requirement to share information, which I think would be much more robust. However, if amendment 61 is passed, I do believe that people should support amendment 126. With regard to amendments 2 and 1, 2, 8, I believe that fundamentally what the justice system should aim towards in terms of its duty to protect the public, the best way that it can do is by promoting reform and preventing re-offending. All too often, as the system currently stands, we simply return people to the very circumstances in which they found themselves and led to their offending in the first place. What those two amendments seek to do is to change that. Indeed, the other amendments that I put forward at stage 2 regarding access to a GP and address and other measures sought to rectify that situation. Although I understand that it may be difficult and it may be costly, none the less, those things are vital, because they are not happening. Although, yes, there may well be standards in place, I do not believe that that legal duty is one that currently exists. The shore standards do not have a statutory footing. Indeed, Wales has legislated on such a duty. Therefore, I would simply ask the question if it is good enough for Wales and why it is not good enough for Scotland. As for meaningful activity, I fundamentally believe that the best way that we prevent re-offending is by finding people meaningful work. Yes, that may be difficult. I know that the Scottish Government does not control the employment market, but it is certainly, surely, if people are being released from prison, albeit on HDC, something for them to do must be found if we are going to make sure that they do not re-offend. For those reasons, I will be pressing amendments 2 and 1, 2, 8. Thank you very much. I am going to call Graham Simpson to be full by John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am speaking just now in my capacity as convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I am not going to make any comment on the policy implications of section 7A or the Cabinet Secretary's amendment 61 to remove it from the bill. The committee met this morning to scrutinise the recently lodged supplementary Delegated Powers memorandum. Unfortunately, the breach of the timescale required by standing orders and meant that our only chance to consider it was this morning. The committee was disappointed with the lack of time to effectively scrutinise the changes stemming from stage 2, and we were clearly limited in what we were able to recommend to the Parliament. The committee does, however, acknowledge that the past few months have been a busy legislative period for all of us. We appreciate that oversights do happen, but that should not have happened. However, our report is now published. We make a number of recommendations on the supplementary Delegated Powers. One of those was in relation to section 7A, and the committee agreed that I should highlight those concerns just now, given that members will not have had a chance to read the report. The committee noted that the delegated power in section 7A is particularly wide in its scope, which contrasts with powers in other sections of the bill. The committee also observed that the obligation to request information relevant to the monitoring of the prisoner concerned is potentially very wide-ranging. There will be data protection implications involved in sharing such information about the prisoner. The committee therefore considered that the affirmative, rather than negative procedure, would have been more appropriate for the power of that nature. That might, of course, be a moot point, Presiding Officer, if section 7A is removed today, but I commend the committee's report to the chamber. I was very content with the provisions that were put in my section 7A at stage 2, so we won't be supporting the cabinet secretary's amendment 61 to remove it. I will not be supporting my colleague Daniel Johnson's amendment 128, which is entirely well-meaning. I just think that there are a number of challenges connected with it. In any case, I should say that it should be part of a robust discharge plan for one for a better term, but for many of the reasons that the cabinet secretary outlined, there are practical issues around that. However, I will be supporting Daniel Johnson's amendment 2, because the cabinet secretary talked about statutory duties and good practice. Indeed, he promised us wider legislation and statutory guidance, but everything that we have heard, cabinet secretary, you will know, is about the challenge that is placed in people's discharge because of accommodation. That remains an issue. I think that amendment 2 goes some way to addressing that. If it provides focus, perhaps that is the focus that the cabinet secretary is saying that we will arrive with the wider legislation of a notable incorrectly, or the statutory guidelines that he has intended, it is not working at the moment. We need to have more robust provision of accommodation, so we will be supporting Daniel Johnson's amendment 2. I rise briefly to speak in support of Daniel Johnson's amendments 2 and 128. One of the points of the legislation seems to me to help rehabilitation. I have listened to Daniel Johnson and John Finnie's comments just there, and I think that those measures would and therefore surely have merit. Thus, we will be supporting amendments 2 and 128 in Daniel Johnson's name. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I share Daniel Johnson's curiosity as to why the Government sought to remove section 7A, not least because, as I recall, it was supported unanimously by the committee at stage 2. Had the Government been so concerned at what the committee unanimously agreed at stage 2, there would have been some engagement between stage 2 and stage 3. I think that, like John Finnie, Daniel Johnson in relation to his amendments 2 and 128 makes some very valid points about the key role that gainful activity and indeed housing play in the process of rehabilitation and reintegration. I think that the concern that I have and I have had at stage 2 is that, framed in the way that it is, the implications where that is not in place is that the individual remains in prison and that cannot be in the best interests of that individual either. It is with regret that, while accepting the principle and allowing those amendments, we will not be able to support them. I want to lend my support to the Cabinet Secretary's amendments 6 to 1 and 126, but I want to speak briefly against Daniel Johnson's amendments 2 and 128. Again, like Liam McArthur, I think that there are positive intentions behind him, but they are in the wrong place, in my opinion, as part of the bill. There is a lot of work already going on in this area. We heard that a lot during the committee. There is some good work around housing and employment and, as Daniel Johnson brought forward at stage 2, around health. I think that those are issues that are best left to local service providers who are doing the job every day and not in the hands of MSPs and politicians here. I think that we need to move away from centralising that. I was just finishing up at certain point. John Finnie. Thank you. I am grateful for me for taking intervention in that point. Who would be the local service provider if someone comes from location A, they were arrested from location B and the plan to relocate to location C? Who is the housing provider there? The statutory obligation rests with the local authority. Which local authority, please? I understand that, in that hypothetical situation, the local authority is where the person originally came from, unless arrangements have been made while they have been in custody to move somewhere else. That is exactly the point. Those arrangements have been made every day, and there are services that are in place to do that. As I said earlier, the intentions behind the amendments are positive. In fact, I know that they are, I spoke to Daniel Johnson about them on committee, and I think that they are based on a positive intention. However, I do not think that that is the right place, and I do not think that we should be centralising in that fashion. I will certainly not be supporting those amendments. Thank you very much. I call on the cabinet secretary to wind up in this group and to press amendment 61. I will press amendment 61. I have heard what the committee has to say, but, again, I think that legislation and the face of the bill is the wrong place. For this amendment, although, in principle, I completely understand why Daniel Johnson has brought it forward, but I am hoping that our amendment is seen as an improvement to what was already passed. I can say to Graham Simpson who is speaking on behalf of the committee. I am pleased to see it delegated powers. Law Reform Committee welcomes the fact that the bill was amended at stage 2 to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations that were made under section 91 in accordance with the committee's recommendation. I am also pleased to note that the committee reports that it is content with the delegated power provision as set out in relation to excluded sentences and approved devices, but, of course, it is absolutely right to put on record the lack of time that the committee had. Therefore, let me give my apologies to the committee for the inadvertent breach of standing orders and constraining the time that they had to consider the SDPM, the Supplementary Delegated Powers memorandum. That was delayed as a result of an administrative oversight, but I am very happy to put on record my apologies to the committee for that lack of time. Thank you very much for the question. If the amendment 61 be agreed to, are we agreed or not agreed, we are going to move to division. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 61. Members may have cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 61, in the name of Humza Yousaf, is, yes, 58, no, 55. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. At this point again, may I ask Liam Kerr whether he wishes to move any of the amendments 62, 64, 67, 69, 70A, 71, 72A, 73, 76, 77A, 78, 80, 82, 83A, 84, 86, 88, 98, 91A, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101 and 103. Not moved. Thank you very much. In that case, can I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendments 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100 and 102 on block. Does any member object if I put the question on all these amendments on block? Thank you. So the question is that Parliament agrees amendments 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100 and 102. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. I will turn now to group 4. Persons subject to part 1 monitoring consequences of breach or deemed breach of disposal or condition. Can I call amendment 104 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with the other amendments and cabinet secretary to move amendment 104? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move amendment 104 in my name. Amendment 104 removes the power of arrest in section 12A, which was voted in at stage 2. That enables a constable to arrest an individual where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual has contravened the requirement to wear and refrain from damaging the electronic tag. The implication being that this arrest may be affected without a warrant. The police already have powers to arrest an individual suspected of having committed an offence, but a breach of the electronic monitoring requirements, either by an individual serving a community sentence or subject to license conditions, is not an offence in itself. That power of arrest would not therefore apply when an individual cuts off their tag. The unlawfully at large offence that we created at stage 2 would enable the police to arrest an individual where they cut off their tag and fail to return to custody following recall. Those who are unlawfully at large can be arrested without warrant. It is not clear from the powers of arrest in section 12A subsection 3A what a constable is to do with an individual who is suspected of having breached an electronic monitoring requirement. An individual on licence is only liable to be returned to prison if the licence is revoked. Therefore, a constable arresting an individual only on suspicion that they may have breached their licence could not return that individual to prison. An individual serving a community sentence is only liable to be brought before the court if the breach procedures for that community sentence have been invoked. A constable arresting an individual only on suspicion that they have breached their community sentence could not return that individual to prison or take them to court. There are existing powers for the police, the Scottish ministers and the courts to deal with an individual where they breach the terms of their licence or the community sentence. Those on licence can be recalled to prison and those serving a community sentence can be fined or sentenced afresh even to imprisonment. A further point to note is that Mr Kerr's amendment also uses the word offender, which the justice committee at stage 2 took to great pains to ensure it was emitted from the legislation in which we have confirmed in previous amendments at this stage. It is clear that the power of arrest in section 12A 3A is unnecessary and the creation of a specific statutory power of arrest is a departure from the use of a general power of arrest where an offence has been committed, agreed by the Parliament in 2016. Police Scotland has also expressed its concerns to us about the limitations and how that power could be used. The creation of a power to arrest an individual without a warrant in the absence of a criminal offence being suspected or committed and without a duty on the individual to return to prison would be confusing and could even represent potentially a breach of VCHR article 5. Turning to amendments 105 and 130, which would both create an offence of cutting off a tag, I urge members to reject amendment 105 for the following reasons. First, a near-identical form of this amendment was rejected at stage 2 and my arguments against that amendment continue to apply here. Indeed, the only change to that earlier amendment is the provision of a limited form of statutory defence. Secondly, the new and lawfully-at-large offence ensures that those who cut off their tag and abscond will be committing an offence, making one specific part of the same course of behaviour or further offence is not therefore necessary. Thirdly, the cutting off of the tag offence carries a maximum sentence of 12 months imprisonment. There would be a presumption against imprisonment for this new offence. Under this proposal, the individual may therefore be more likely to receive a fine. Fourthly, there are already sanctions for those who cut off an electronic tag or otherwise breach the conditions of a licence or community sentence. The individual could be recalled to prison or, indeed, returned to court to face further punishment for the breach. Fifthly, the creation of the cutting off of a tag offence could lead to an individual serving a community sentence being fined for the breach of the community sentence and being fined for cutting off the tag, enabling, therefore, two separate financial punishments to be imposed on the individual for the same course of conduct. In contrast, the lawfully-at-large offence would not apply to community sentences, thereby avoiding the risk of double punishment. The defence provided in amendment 105 would not protect an individual whose tag is damaged accidentally or removed forcefully by a third party. A defence of reasonable excuse would be required to ensure that an individual was not convicted of an offence for conduct for which they had no control. The proposed defence would elevate the electronic monitoring requirement above all other conditions in the licence or community sentence, even if those other conditions were more important in protecting the public. For example, an individual staying in their house and cutting off the tag would be committing an offence, but an individual breaching a condition not to go near a primary school would not commit an offence. Amendment 113, in the name of Daniel Johnson, is very similar to amendment 105, so the arguments against them also apply here. Although the defence proposed in Daniel Johnson's amendment is framed differently, it still faces the same criticism as the defence provided in amendment 105. An individual who accidentally damages their tag or an individual whose tag is forcefully removed against their will would not be afforded a defence under that amendment. One additional difficulty with amendment 130 is that there is no specific punishment for the offence, whereas amendment 105 specifies the maximum punishment on somebody's conviction for the cutting off of a tag. There is no punishment specified at all in amendment 130. It is not clear whether the offence that was created by amendment 105 could be tried only summarily, or if it could be tried in solemn proceedings as well. I urge members to vote to reject those two amendments. Amendment 146 is broadly similar to the amendment Margaret Mitchell-Tabled, which was rejected at stage 2. The reasons for rejecting remain the same. The only change is the addition of language that qualifies that the designated person must notify a suspected breach to quote such bodies mentioned in subsection 3, as they consider appropriate. Amendment 146 would place an obligation on the designated person, which would currently be G4S, to report every suspected breach of a community sentence or licence condition to the police, as there are currently no other bodies specified in subsection 3. The breach would also require to be reported whether or not the designated person considers that breach should be addressed by the police or indeed not. That due to report a suspected breach would apply whether or not the individual requires to be recalled in prison in terms of a licence or whether or not any enforcement action is to be taken. For example, an individual who is five minutes late for their HTC curfew would require to be reported to the police, even though the police would not act on that information unless the individual has been recalled, which in most instances one would suspect would not be. The drafting of the amendment means that a section applies where the individual is suspected of having breached a section 3 disposal or section 7 licence condition. There is no reference to an electronic monitoring requirement here, so the section would capture any breach of a disposal or licence listed in section 3 or 7, even where no electronic monitoring requirement is imposed. Finally, the obligation to inform is also confusing, as it specifies, two separate timescales for compliance. Immediately after the suspicion arises, or as soon as is reasonably practicable after the suspicion arises, for all the reasons above our asked members to reject the amendment. Can I call Liam Kerr to speak to amendment 105 and the other amendments in this group? Parliament will be well-cited on the amendment and its reasons and its imperative, in my view, that Parliament has its say. Members will be aware that, as the bill stands, offenders who are out on a tag can cut off their tag and not be considered a criminal offence. That, I find extraordinary. There should be an immediate power of arrest, and this amendment would provide that. The reality of increased tagging is that someone would be in prison but for the tag that they are wearing. We must surely therefore treat the removal of a tag as seriously as had they breached the prison wall. Parliament will be reassured in considering the amendment to note that Scottish Women's Aid made clear to the committee in its stage 1 evidence that a criminal offence for those sorts of breaches is needed in order for there to be a credible deterrent, while Victim Support Scotland, Community Justice Scotland and Positive Prisons called for robust responses to breaches of monitoring conditions. Committee members rightly raised objections at stage 2, which Parliament would no doubt wish to hear answered. Fulton MacGregor was uncomfortable that such an offence seemed punitive. I can only respond that, of course, it is punitive, because the offender has done something akin to breaching the prison wall. The cabinet secretary was concerned that someone might need to remove a tag for medical reasons and would then be further criminalised. I wasn't convinced at stage 2 and I remain unconvinced that this would happen, let alone that I don't foresee some kind of strict liability around that, but I do see the need for reassurance, which is why I've added a defence of removing the tag for medical reasons. Presiding Officer, if this legislation is going to increase the numbers on tags, the appropriate protections must be in place, and that means making it a criminal offence to tamper with or damage a tag. I seek Parliament's support for my amendment. For similar reasons, we will support Daniel Johnson's amendment 1.30, if he chooses to press it, and we will oppose amendment 1.04, which was a sensible amendment at stage 2 because it aimed to ensure that police have powers of arrest where an offender has cut their tag off. That was in response to evidence that the committee heard from the police that there are legal grey areas with regard to their powers to apprehend. That puts it in black and white on the face of the bill. I call Margaret Mitchell to speak to amendment 146. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Police officers do not monitor or control the conditions attached to electronic monitoring. When a breach of those conditions occurs, for example entering its collided area or tampering or removing the tag, the police officer's response is a reactive one. That, in turn, has raised concerns from Women's Aid, Fixing Support Scotland and Community Justice Scotland that the response time to a breach is too long. Amendment 146 therefore seeks to ensure that when there is a suspected breach of disposal or conditions, the relevant bodies are contacted immediately as soon as possible. The relevant bodies are listed as the police service of Scotland or such other bodies, as the Scottish Minister may by regulation specify. The amendment is similar, as the cabinet secretary said, to the one that I lodged at stage 2, but it has been revised to take account of the concerns that the cabinet secretary raised at stage 2 about minor breaches being escalated to the police. Now the amendment provides for discretion and a proportionate response to any breach by stipulating that, immediately or as soon as is reasonably practicable, after a suspected breach has occurred, a person designated under section 111 must notify such bodies mentioned above as they consider appropriate. In other words, the amendment allows for the designated person to use their judgment as to whether they consider that the breach is one that must be responded to immediately, for example by Police Scotland. Given domestic abuse, it would be covered by these possible conditions and a breach could result in a victim immediately being put in danger. I hope that the cabinet secretary will support that, because, crucially, it removes the potential for minor breaches, for example as a result of a technical error to be escalated to the police, but it provides added protection for victims of domestic abuse. Finally, it gives clarity to the procedure to be followed, which is why the Law Society of Scotland supports the amendment. I move amendment 146, in my name. I believe that it is important that we make cutting off a tag and offence for the following reasons. When we look at the circumstances of Craig Maclellan's death, one thing that became clear was that there was a significant number of people, unlawfully at large, who had realised that they could cut off their tag and that, in and of itself, did not constitute an offence, and indeed that they had a good chance of escaping detection. That needs to be corrected. But more importantly than that, when we decide that someone is committed to an offence that requires us to deprive them of their liberty, for them to tamper with the means by which we are restricting or removing their liberty is extremely serious. I believe that that should be an offence, because if we cannot monitor their whereabouts, we cannot monitor whether they are abiding with that restriction of liberty, that must be considered an offence and must be treated. It is not about elevating that over and above other conditions, it is about recognising that this is the primary measure that we are using to remove or deprive people of their liberty in those circumstances. I will give way to the cabinet secretary if he would like to intervene. On that tragic case, which he mentioned, I know that everybody's thoughts on the chamber will be with McClellan family. Does he recognise that the fact that we are bringing forward an offence of being unlawfully at large, actually in the case of James Wright, he would have been arrested because of the offence that we are bringing forward? Therefore, I am not sure that it is a justification for bringing forward a cutting off and a tag being an offence. Daniel Johnson I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention and he is right. I welcome the new offence. It is an important step forward and it does correct many of the issues. However, when someone, as Liam Kerr put it, goes over the prison wall, we do not wait for them to then rob a bank before we arrest them. We arrest them once they go over the wall. We should not wait if someone cuts off a tag. That, in and of itself, should be our grounds for arresting someone. Fulton MacGregor I just want to speak briefly as Liam Kerr in his speech mentioned me. I just want to say that for the record that I did not say that it would be regarded punitive, I said that it could be regarded as overly punitive because the individual circumstances would not be taken into account. There is a wee bit of a plain words there. I think that the official record would be able to show that. Of course, a breach of an electronic moment needs to be taken seriously and dealt with robustly. There is nobody in the chamber who would disagree with that, but we need to get the balance right and the measure to be right. That is why what has been brought forward by the bill is the right way to deal with it and not to play simple politics with it. Fulton MacGregor Thank you very much. I will call on the cabinet secretary to wind up in this group. In that case, we are going to move to the question. The question is that amendment 104 will be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote on amendment 104. This will be a one-minute division, and members may cast their votes now. Amendment 104. The result of the vote on amendment 104 in the name of the cabinet secretary is yes, 68, no, 45. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 105 and ask Liam Kerr to move the amendment? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This will be a 30-second division. The result of the vote on amendment 105 in the name of Liam Kerr is yes, 45, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 106 in the name of the cabinet secretary, cabinet secretary, to move formally? Moved. Thank you. Can I ask Liam Kerr if he wishes to move amendment 106a? If I wish to move 100. This is one of the amendments that leaves out monitor person and replaces with offender. I do not want to move it. Not moved. The question therefore is that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 107 in the name of the cabinet secretary, cabinet secretary, to move? That is moved. Thank you. I will just point out that amendment 107 pre-empts amendment 108 in the name of Liam Kerr. The question is that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I go to amendment 109? Can I ask the cabinet secretary to move amendment 109? Moved. Thank you. And again, in this case, I would point out that if agreed 109 pre-empts amendment 110, the question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I am now going to call amendment 146 in the name of Margaret Mitchell, already debated. Margaret Mitchell to move. Moved. Thank you. That is moved. The question is that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to division. Members, we cast their votes now. This is a 32nd vote. Amendment 146. The result of the vote on amendment 146 in the name of Margaret Mitchell is, yes, 44, no, 69. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Before I call amendment 111, can I ask Liam Kerr if he wishes to move any of the amendments 111A, 112, 113A, 114A, 115A, 116A, 118A and 120? Not moved. I am going to confirm that no other member wishes to move any of those amendments. They do not. Thank you. I will turn, therefore, and I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 111, 113, 115, 117 and 119, already debated, and move them on block. Moved on block. Thank you very much. Does any member object if I put a question on those amendments on block? No. No. Therefore, the question is that amendments 111, 113, 115, 117 and 119 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. I am going to turn now to group 5, Enforcement of Fines and so on. I call amendment 121 in the name of Lewis MacDonald, in a group of its own, and Lewis MacDonald to speak to and move the amendment 121. Thank you very much. The purpose of my amendment is to address an anomaly in the law, which was first raised with me by my constituent Michelle Gavin almost three years ago. An intruder broke her garden fence while trying to avoid a police officer. Rather than taking him to court, the fiscal offered the intruder a fiscal fine, a compensation order requiring him to pay the householder £400 to fix her fence. When I raised her case at stage 2 in April, the money actually paid to my constituent amounted to £7.50. Thanks to the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny, it has now risen to £15. That means that £385 remains outstanding three years after the damage took place. By any standard, the law has failed my victim, just as it has many thousands of others, and that is why change is required. Michelle Gavin has received only a fraction of the compensation order, in part because the perpetrator is under no legal obligation to provide information on his income, savings or benefits, or any other relevant information that would help to ensure that he pays the fiscal fine. It is far harder for the courts to enforce such an order, and that is why my amendment proposes to make completing the declaration of income form, which is relevant in this case, mandatory. When I moved a similar amendment at stage 2, members suggested that it should make provision for reasonable excuse and that it should specify a time limit for completing the form. I have addressed those points in the revised amendment. Perhaps more importantly, the cabinet secretary said at stage 2 that he would rather not rely on declaration of income forms since the necessary information could be obtained direct from UK Government departments, and I am, of course, very open to that approach. The Digital Economy Scotland Act 2017 contains provisions to allow the courts to obtain information about benefits and earnings directly from DWP and HMRC databases. However, that requires the Scottish ministers, of course, to bring forward the necessary regulations to allow the Scottish courts and tribunal service to put the appropriate arrangements in place. I have returned to the issue in order to discover from the cabinet secretary whether such regulations have been drafted, and, if so, when he expects them to be laid. I would also ask whether those regulations will ensure that data sharing will apply to fines that have not yet been paid, as well as to new cases that are decided after the regulations are passed. Michelle Gavin has already waited far too long. My purpose is to ensure that our case can be revisited by the Scottish courts and tribunal service using new powers to obtain information so that she can obtain the money to which she is entitled. Whether those powers come from this amendment or, alternatively, from Government regulations on sharing data, and I look forward to the cabinet secretary's contribution and move amendment 121 in my name. Thank you very much, Ms MacDonald, and I call on the cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As at stage 2, when an almost identical amendment was voted down, I welcomed Lewis MacDonald's interest in improving fines enforcement. The commitment of all parties to this important work is welcome, and I appreciate the fact that he is acting on behalf of a constituent in his region. Fines, collection rates in Scotland are high. I welcome the continuing efforts that the Scottish courts and tribunal service puts into enforcement. A recent statistic shows that 90 per cent of the value of sheriff court and JP fines imposed during the three-year period between 2015-16 and 2017-18 had either been paid or was not tracked to be paid. I accept that the remainder is a hard nut to crack, and I appreciate that that is exactly what Lewis MacDonald's amendment is aimed at trying to sort. I am clear that his amendments 1 to 1, though, are not the best way of going about that. Despite some changes being made by Mr MacDonald since stage 2, the amendments remain somewhat flawed. Among other issues, failure to obey a court order is a contempt of court. The penalties for contempt of court are set out in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. They depend on the court, but in all cases they exceed the £1,000 set by Lewis MacDonald's amendment and include the possibility of imprisonment. In fact, the offence that he is seeking to create does not even match the existing deterrent that is already in place, so there is no justification for creating a new criminal offence for conduct that can already be dealt with by a court. There are other technicalities that I could go into if necessary, but more fundamentally, from a policy point of view, I am concerned about the circularity, something that I mentioned at stage 2 of creating a new offence, attaching a penalty of a fine in precisely those cases where the individuals concerned have demonstrated their failure to engage with fine enforcement officers already. I note that the offence appears to be little used in England and Wales, which suggests that there is little point in creating one up here in the first place. There is a better way of dealing with this. Lewis MacDonald asked the update from the Government in terms of regulations. He is right that we want the Scottish courts and tribunal service to obtain relevant information about a person's income directly from the Department of Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs, so I can confirm to Lewis MacDonald that, before the end of the year, we will be putting draft regulations before the Parliament to enable that to happen. What that means is that, instead of asking the defaulting individual for information about incomes and benefits, the fine enforcement officers will be able to obtain that information directly from the Department of Work and Pensions and HM Revenue and Customs. That will be a far more effective way that I would suggest of dealing with people who have already proved themselves reluctant to engage with the court service. That does not create a circular offence. And somebody, despite some of the changes since stage 2, to his amendment— Yes, of course. Please, Mr Donaldson. I am very grateful and I welcome the commitment that is given in terms of timescale. Can he confirm that, when those regulations are passed, they will permit the courts and tribunal service to pursue defaulters for fines that have already previously been imposed and that have not yet been paid? I do not know whether or not we have that ability to be retrospective, so we will forgive me. I am afraid that I could not say that until we draft the regulations, until we come to a determination with our own legal advice and, of course, by speaking to DWP and HM Revenue and Customs. I do recognise that it is a very important matter, particularly because of Mr MacDonald's constituent that has been waiting three years for that fine to be imposed. So what I can say is that, when we return back from recess, when we are drafting those regulations, perhaps I can meet with Mr MacDonald to give him as much assurance as is possible that we will do everything that we possibly can, so that people like his constituent and many others that may well be in that position that we can do what we can to help them to have those fines paid off. So I will endeavour to involve him in some of that conversation around the drafting of the regulations. I hope that, for all the reasons that I have outlined, Mr MacDonald will not press, but, if he does, I will ask members to reject his amendments. I thank you very much. Can I ask Lewis MacDonald to wind up and to press or withdraw on this amendment? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I do welcome the commitment that the cabinet secretary has made in relation to timing and also his offer of a meeting to ensure that the changes that do go through Parliament are such as to assist in the case of Michelle Gavin and, no doubt, many other cases that are outstanding. I look forward to that discussion with him soon after the summer recess, I hope, and, on that basis, I will not press this amendment. I thank you very much. Can I just confirm, is the Parliament happy for Mr MacDonald to withdraw this amendment? Thank you. We turn now to group 6, which is a group of minor and technical amendments. Can I call amendment 122, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with the other amendments, as shown in the groupings, and call on the cabinet secretary to speak and to move amendment 122. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendments in this group are all minor technical amendments to tidy the bill up, but I do not think that anything will be controversial amongst them, so I will not keep members back by saying too much about them. Amendments 122, 123, 133 and 136 ensure that the prisoners in criminal proceedings Scotland Act 1993 is referred to consistently throughout the bill by the Labour of the 1993 Act. Amendments 131 and 132 adjust some language in section 43C that was added at stage 2, so that it is consistent with the language that is normally used in provisions of this type. Amendment 143 corrects a typo, the word act appears once too often. The other amendments in this group move sections around to improve the accessibility of legislation. Everything that is about the parole board as an institution will sit in part 3, and all the substantive provisions about prisoners will sit in a new part after part 3. Therefore, I move amendment 122 in my name. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Can I turn to group 7, the independence of the parole board for Scotland, and call amendment 1 in the name of Daniel Johnson in a group in the zone. Daniel Johnson to move and speak to amendment 1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As I rise up, I am very mindful of two key facts. First of all, the correspondence that I have had from the Cabinet Secretary and I thank him for that, and also my understanding that the Government does not intend to bring forward legislation on the parole board. So I will bear that in mind in terms of what is said in this. I do not intend to speak for long. However, the parole board does do a particularly important work in terms of its determinations of individuals and whether or not they continue to pose risk to public safety and whether or not they should be relieved from prison. Is therefore critical that their work is carried out in an independent way? Their work is not always easy, requires fine and balanced judgments, and therefore their independence is important. I think that the independence that is in statute, that we all have a duty to uphold in terms of the judiciary, should be mirrored for the parole board. However, I recognise that there may be technical issues with that, and I will listen to what the cabinet secretary has to say. Thank you very much, and I call on the cabinet secretary. I thank Daniel Johnson for his amendments. I also thank him for the constructive conversation that we have had in the various stages of the bill. I also put on record, as Daniel Johnson does, rightly that the parole board members do an incredibly difficult job, because they do it very well. It is a remarkably difficult job. It is one that has to be and rightly is free from political interference and, indeed, governmental interference. The independence of the parole board is something that I think all of us should unite in defending, and I am sure that we all do. I sympathise with the purpose of amendment 1, but I consider that section 44 of the bill goes far enough in reinstating the independence of the parole board. Perhaps, to be brief as possible, I will touch on where my areas of concern may be. The area that causes me most concern is the Scottish ministers' power to recall a person to custody for a breach of their licence conditions. It is my view that any such action to revoke a licence by Scottish ministers would run contrary to the proposed amendment. It effectively involves Scottish ministers revoking the person's licence as set out by the parole board and could be seen by some as interfering with the board's independence. I am sure that members will agree that protection of the public demands it. It is appropriate that the Scottish ministers can make a decision to revoke a licence without having to wait for the next time that the parole board will convene to consider the case. I would be happy to expand with more detail on this, or, indeed, other concerns should members so wish. For the reason of highlight, I believe that amendment may have unintended and potentially damaging consequences to the overall parole system. I consider section 44 to be sufficient to restate the independence of the parole board, therefore I ask Daniel Johnson not to press this amendment. If he is otherwise minded, I urge other members to reject it. I invite Daniel Johnson to wind up and depress or withdraw this amendment. Very briefly, Presiding Officer, I have heard what the Cabinet Secretary has to say and I understand the reservations. If the Government does bring forward legislation in the coming months and years, I do think that we need to consider very carefully the role of the parole board both in terms of independence and the fact that, while in many respects it is a tribunal, like much of what the other courts do, it is not identical and its role is important and needs careful consideration. However, with the comments in mind that the cabinet secretary has just made, I will not be pressing the amendment. Thank you very much. I invite the chamber to agree that Daniel Johnson may withdraw amendment 1. As agreed. Can I call amendment 123, the name of the cabinet secretary? Can the cabinet secretary to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed. I will agree. I agree. Turn now to group 8, prisoners control of release on licence. Can I call amendment 124, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendment 127 and asked the cabinet secretary to move amendment 124? I think that I will also move amendment 124 in my name. Amendment 124 seeks to make a change to section 3AA of the prisoners and criminal proceedings Scotland Act 1993, in order to provide greater flexibility in the structure of HDC and to clarify the impact of HDC on the parole boards assessment of parole. The direct impact of this change will be minimal in terms of eligibility for HDC. However, I believe that, in the context of historically high levels of prison population, this change is required so that ministers have sufficient powers to configure HDC differently in future, should they ever need to do so. I believe that this is a prudent step to take now, while there is an available legislative vehicle. That amendment firstly proposes a change in how the minimum amount of time spent in custody before becoming eligible for HDC is framed in legislation. Currently, a prisoner can only be eligible for HDC after serving one quarter or four weeks of their sentence, whichever is greater. Subsection 2 will change that so that a prisoner must simply serve one quarter of the sentence before they can be eligible for HDC. The Scottish ministers currently have a power to modify the requirement to serve a minimum of four weeks via subordinate legislation, but not the absolute minimum requirement for a prisoner to serve one quarter of their sentence. Subsection 3 would enable the Scottish ministers via subordinate legislation to modify the minimum amount of time that must be served for HDC eligibility should they ever need to do so. If it were ever necessary to change that minimum requirement, that 25 per cent of a sentence is served before someone became eligible for HDC, then any such proposal would come back to Parliament to approve under subordinate legislation, subject, importantly, to the affirmative procedure rather than requiring future primary legislation. That is a pragmatic change that would ensure a consistency with the already broad range of powers that ministers have to modify the HDC regime via subordinate legislation. The Scottish ministers have the power to modify the following aspects of HDC via subordinate legislation. The minimum sentence, which a short-term prisoner must be serving to be eligible for HDC, that is currently three months. The number of weeks that must be served before a short-term prisoner can be eligible for HDC. The number of days leading up to the halfway stage of a prisoner sentence during which the HDC can be granted and the statutory exclusions from HDC. However, although the Scottish ministers have the power to modify the minimum number of weeks served before eligibility, that is currently four weeks, there is no power to modify the requirement that one quarter of the sentence must be served. The requirement to have served a requisite amount of a sentence before being eligible for HDC remains a barrier to flexibility in how the system can be configured. Under the powers proposed, Scottish ministers could change the minimum time that must be served before a prisoner can be eligible for HDC, either by reference to a specific period of the prisoner sentence or a specified period of time. The two-pronged approach of requiring either four weeks or one quarter of the sentence to be served is being replaced with a simple requirement to serve one quarter of the sentence and ministers would retain a power to modify that requirement. I would stress and I should stress very importantly that we are not proposing to change the requirement that a prisoner must serve 25 per cent of the sentence. However, this amendment provides the flexibility for ministers be it present or future to work with Parliament to act quickly if ever required. While I would have preferred to have had the opportunity at committee stages of this bill to discuss and debate this change or, indeed, to have taken it forward under new legislation, the prison population has continued to change over recent weeks with prison numbers creeping steadily upwards. I feel, therefore, I have to consider acting now to ask Parliament to consider this option as a pragmatic future proofing of the available policy responses. There are, of course, other measures that we are exploring in terms of operational capacity within the existing prison estate and indeed looking across the operation of the entire justice system and seeking to address the rising prison population. That change to HDC is relatively minor nature. However, the fact that it needs to be considered should perhaps make us all pause and reflect. We have the highest prison population per capita in Western Europe, not a statistic to be proud of. There has been positive collaboration on many parts of the bill to date, including the support of electronic monitoring as a form of alternative to prison. I hope that collaboration across parties will extend into future parliamentary terms as it is important that we continue to seek alternatives to incarceration across all our legislative and policy choices. The final change that was made by amendment 124 is to clarify that the legislation underpinning HDC does not require the parole board to make a decision on parole by a specific date in order to enable a long-term prisoner to access HDC. Long-term prisoners are only eligible for HDC if they have been pre-approved for parole at the halfway stage of the sentence by the parole board. The amendment clarifies that the window during which a long-term prisoner can be granted HDC is restricted by the timing of the parole board's decision to recommend release on parole. The decision on parole takes precedence that is not expedited in order to enable a long-term prisoner to spend a longer period on HDC. In terms of amendment 127, excuse me, this change is being taken forward in response to Margaret Mitchell's original amendment at stage 2, which proposed that statutory HDC guidance should be produced and laid before Parliament. As I indicated at stage 2, I am sympathetic to the intent behind the original amendment. I am grateful to the convener, to Daniel Johnson and Liam Kerr for working with us on this approach. I hope that this satisfies what they are looking for in this area. The amendment sidesteps two areas of concern with the previously drafted amendment. It avoids, including material that duplicates other existing provisions in the bill. It also doesn't create a circular obligation on the Scottish ministers, on Scottish ministers to have regard to their own guidance. What we are proposing is that the Scottish ministers should be obliged to publish a statutory HDC operating protocol that would include the following heads of information. The process of risk assessment that is carried out before a prisoner is released on licence under section 3A, the factors taken into account in carrying out such risk assessments, the procedures for monitoring a prisoner while released on licence under section 3AA, the process for investigating a suspected failure to comply with a condition including in a licence under section 3AA and the process by which a licence under section 3AA is revoked and a prisoner recalled to prisoner as a result. We have included a requirement that the police, SCTS, local authorities, parole board and the risk management authority would have to be consulted in the preparation of the protocol. In addition, the protocol would require to be laid in Parliament within six months of royal assent and, therefore, kept under review. Finally, the inclusion on the face of the bill of two specific heads of information in relation to risk, one on risk assessment and one on factors to be taken into account and carrying out such a risk assessment. We hope that we will satisfy what was being looked for by members in relation to risk. The heads of information contained in the amendment will ensure the publication of information about the entire HDC process, including the risk assessment prior to the grant of HDC, the monitoring of risk in the community and the revocation of HDC. The requirement to lay the protocol before Parliament will also give Parliament an opportunity to scrutinise the risk assessment procedures utilised for the purposes of HDC. I urge members to support both these amendments and I move amendment 124. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I call Margaret Mitchell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In terms of amendment 127, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting with me to discuss the need for stronger risk assessment before electronic monitoring. As he says at stage 2, I tried to push for robust risk assessment procedures and for details of the risk assessment tool to be shared with Parliament before the bill has passed. I am pleased that our discussions have at least led the cabinet secretary to lodge an amendment at stage 3, which will ensure that the details of how risk will be assessed will be consulted on. A report produced for Parliament within six months of royal assent if the bill passes today. On that basis, I am happy to support amendment 127 in the cabinet secretary's name. Thank you very much. I am going to call Daniel Johnson to be followed by John Finnie. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Can I begin by expressing my support for amendment 127? I think that that is a positive step forward. My only regret with it is that it doesn't have a legal obligation for that guidance to be followed, which would make a substantive difference, but I will cover that off when we come to risk assessment later on in this debate. However, I would like to express my concern about amendment 124. I would like to express that concern for three reasons. First of all, the rationale. While I completely agree with the cabinet secretary, we must have concerted effort to reduce our prison population and we must seek alternatives to incarceration. I worry that this is a measure in which making that intention explicit and solely about that actually potentially risks the very intent that the cabinet secretary set out to. We reduce the prison population by reducing offending, in my view, not by simply recategorising people. Secondly, I worry about the power that he is giving ministers, allowing them to alter the minimum threshold before HDC. I would worry whether that is appropriate or not. Indeed, I am almost counterintuitive because, although I believe that we should be avoiding short prison sentences, at the end of the day, removing the threshold of four weeks, I would wonder what the point of sending to someone to prison for less than four weeks is. I just think that that is counterintuitive. Fundamentally, and finally, is that simply Parliament has not had the ability to scrutinise that. I think that that is a huge regret. For those reasons, I really do not believe that amendment 124 can be supported. It perhaps could have been if it was introduced earlier, but I do not believe that it can be having been introduced at this late stage. Thank you, and I call on John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Greens will be supporting both amendments, and I think that there is a useful contribution to what has been a very detailed debate that we have had about this whole issue, particularly the question of risk assessment. I wonder how any summing up of the cabinet secretary could comment what likely impact that could have on the numbers, because it was very depressing to see the most recent figures we saw about those being granted home detention that there had been a significant drop, and that was no doubt due to the risk aversion that had built into the system. So, if you could comment on that, but he certainly has a support in both of these amendments, please. And can I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up on this group? Thank you. I thank members for the contribution. If I can maybe try to focus on some of the questions that have been asked of me in relation to 1-2-4. In relation to Dianne Johnson's concerns, just to give him some reassurance, it would be through the affirmative procedures, therefore Parliament would have the ability to scrutinise and debate any changes. Let me just put on record once again, as I did in my remarks, we are not proposing any changes to that minimum time period. It is simply to allow ministers to have that flexibility. In terms of what I would say, similar to what John Finnie has said, is that my belief is that the pendulum has perhaps swung too far in the other direction. The numbers are very low in terms of those coming out on the number of members of this chamber have written to me to express their concerns about that very point. No, that is not about, as he suggested, perhaps just recategorising people at all, but it is looking at the HDC regime as a whole and seeing where sensible changes can be made with always the protection of the public first and foremost in our mind. In terms of scrutiny, let me say that our amendments obviously were lodged by the deadline that they were meant to be. That is, of course, a good place to scrutinise them, of course, if they could have been introduced earlier. I would have preferred that, so he will forgive me that they were not. To answer John Finnie's point, we are not proposing any changes to the eligibility, so there would not be a change in the numbers, but, as he is aware, the two inspectors at HMICS and HMIPS did a follow-up inspection of the review of HDC. I think that there is a lot in there that would help to negate and mitigate some of that risk aversion, which I think that he rightly talks about. Again, the protection of the public first and foremost in our mind is possible to look at the HDC regime and ensure that it is being used in a proportionate and balanced manner, one that is giving people the opportunity to reintegrate back into the communities and hopefully reduce re-offending. I thank Margaret Mitchell for the helpful comments that she has made throughout the stages of the debate and, indeed, just a moment ago in relation to my previous amendment. Thank you very much. So we turn to the question, and the question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote on amendment 124, and members may cast their votes now. This will be a one-minute division on amendment 124. The result of the vote on amendment 124 in the name of the cabinet secretary is, yes, 69, no, 44. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. We are going to turn now to group 9, the Parol Board for Scotland decision making provision of assistance and information. Can I call amendment 3, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, grouped with amendment 125, and ask Gordon Lindhurst to move amendment 3 and speak to all the amendments in this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would move amendment 3 to put it very briefly. The purpose of this amendment is to set out in it, and it is to do with parole board hearings and basically seeking to ensure that a prisoner whose case the board considers is able to understand the matters discussed at the hearing. And in technical terms, it is simply to bring the provision for those who appear in front of the parole board into line with the provisions for those who are detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003 and who have the provisions made available to them as a result of that act. And the point is, of course, to provide in particular appropriate support for parole board hearings to, for example, vulnerable prisoners. So let me conclude with the words of the cabinet secretary in his letter to me of 10 June, and I quote, he said, It is clear that your suggestion has merit. Now, my delight at those words is equaled only by my disappointment that I understand his intention is not to support my amendment today, but I do intend to move the amendment and press it. Thank you very much. And can I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 125 and the other amendment in the group? I mean, I never aim to disappoint, but I'm afraid in this case I probably will. If accepted, amendment 3 would result in a small part of the parole board procedure being provided in primary legislation, while the remainder would be provided in secondary legislation in the parole board Scotland rules 2001. So while I think Gordon Lindhurst makes a strong argument for the principle of what he's suggesting, I think all of us would unite around the principle of vulnerable prisoners being given support in a way that Gordon Lindhurst suggests. Largly I have an issue with where that is and the unintended consequences of the problems it may well concur. I also thank Gordon Lindhurst. He has been very constructive in his approach, although we have a disagreement about his amendment. He has been very constructive in his approach and we've tried to reassure each other mutually as best we possibly can. I also know that he comes at this from a point of experience, of course, in his own professional background, no doubt as well. So the result of this would be that any further changes to the provisions set out in this amendment would require a further act of the Scottish Parliament rather than being able to be taken forward via secondary legislation. In this instance, I remain of the view that it's entirely appropriate that matters for procedure of the parole board should be provided for by secondary legislation. That provides us with the speed and flexibility to change aspects of the parole board procedure at a quicker pace should the need to do so be identified. For that reason, I consider that matters relating to procedure are for the parole board rules rather than this bill. In addition, I know that Gordon Lindhurst and other members will be aware of that. The consultation transforming parole in Scotland, which closed in 27 March, included proposals to provide additional support to prisoners in the parole process. We are currently considering the responses to the consultation and, as I stated at stage 2, I think in my letter to Gordon Lindhurst when Gordon Lindhurst lodged the similar amendment stage 2, I consider the proposals and this amendment should be taken forward as part of the response to this consultation. I've already given Gordon Lindhurst my assurance that this would happen but let me put it on record here once again. We're planning a revision of the parole board rules at a later stage once all potential changes to the rules have been identified. If Gordon Lindhurst wants to meet me in advance of that and to have a discussion in advance of that, of course, I'd be more than happy to do so. If his amendment doesn't pass, of course, this vote. Notwithstanding my views on the appropriateness of this for primary legislation, I also have some considerable concerns with certain aspects of the amendment. Those are in respect of the clarity of some of the terms used in relation to the scope of the provision. I can't expand on those matters if the member would like me to do so. For those reasons, I would urge Gordon Lindhurst not to press this amendment and, if he does, I would ask members to reject it. Moving to my amendment 1-5, which I move in my name, this amends section 40A of the bill as inserted at stage 2 by Mary Fee. Section 40A would make it mandatory that, before making a recommendation to release a prisoner under section 1 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings Act 1993, the parole board must take into account the impact of its decision on the prisoner's family and the ability of the prisoner to reintegrate with their family. Can I say from the offset that I am sympathetic to the intention of this provision? I also think that it would be fair to put on record the amount of work, a tremendous amount of work that Mary Fee has done in relation to the families of those who are in prison. It is also worth putting on record the great work of organisations such as Family Outside who have informed many parliamentarians in this chamber about the impact of imprisonment on family members. I am sympathetic, but I have various issues namely that Mary Fee's amendment that was passed at stage 2 lacks qualification and specification as to who would be considered quote unquote a family member. Also that the requirement is provided for in a mandatory sense regardless of the relevance to individual cases for example where the prisoner has no intention to contact the family it would not seem appropriate. Finally, I believe that it could be difficult for the parole board to satisfy this requirement in all cases. In terms of attaining the views of the family to enable them to consider the impact the prisoner's release may have on them. I have brought forward amendment 1 to 5 to adjust the powers to make the parole board's rules of procedure to include specific reference to consideration of the likely impact of any recommendations of the parole board on prisoners families. I believe that this is a more flexible approach which will put reference to the impact on a prisoner's family of a recommendation to release on the face of the 1993 act but allow for any detailed provision to be made in the parole board rules where I consider this is better placed and there is more flexibility as I've already mentioned in my response to Gordon Lindhurst's amendment. I would therefore urge members to support amendment 1 to 5 which I move in my name. Thank you very much. Can I call Liam McArthur? Thank you very much. Presiding Officer, I perhaps advise the cabinet secretary that he may come to regret the claim that he never aims to disappoint but assure him that on amendment 125 we will be supporting that and recognise the work that Mary Phee not just on the justice committee when she was a member of that committee but I think during her time in Parliament has dedicated a great deal of time to make great strides on. I think in relation to amendment 3 can I thank Gordon Lindhurst for bringing this back at stage 3? I think he set out the case very well to the committee at stage 2. I'm grateful to him for sharing the correspondence that he and the cabinet secretary have had in the interim and while I accept the cabinet secretary's point about not wanting to build in too much rigidity to the work of the parole board. I think that the general principles that are set out in amendment 3 are ones I find difficult to see altering over time. I think that the point is well made that the wording reflects what is already in the 2003 mental health act and therefore for that reason we will be supporting amendment 3. Thank you very much and can I invite Gordon Lindhurst to wind up or to add any comment to the stage and to press a withdrawal? Thank you. I have nothing further to add Presiding Officer but I do press the motion. Thank you very much so the question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to division. Members be cast to votes now on amendment 3. This is a one minute division. Amendment 3, a one minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 3 in the name of Gordon Lindhurst is yes, 49, no, 64. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 1, 2, 5, 1, 2, 6 and 1, 2, 7 on block? Moved on block. Moved on block. Does any member object if I put those three amendments on block? The question therefore is that amendments 1, 2, 5, 1, 2, 7 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 2 and invite Daniel Johnson to move amendment 2? That moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members be cast to votes now. This will be a 30-second division on amendment 2. The result of the vote on amendment 2 in the name of Daniel Johnson is yes, 50, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 128 in the name of Daniel Johnson and Daniel Johnson to move? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members be cast to votes now. On amendment 128. The result of the vote on amendment 128 in the name of Daniel Johnson is yes, 44, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We turn now to group 10, parole board for Scotland recommendations publication of tests. Can I invite Daniel Johnson to move and speak to amendment 129 in a group on its own? Thank you, Presiding Officer. As we've already heard this afternoon, the role that the parole board plays in our justice system is an incredibly important one, but it can also be one that is finally balanced and one that is not always obvious in terms of the process to those outside the criminal justice system. Indeed, I believe that one of the most important things that we must pursue in the justice system is transparency, and that's what this amendment seeks to do in setting out the requirement for a statutory specification for a test or test under which the parole board would carry out its decisions. The current position is that some tests are specified, but those vary, and the legislation is silent in other areas. That therefore leads to an inconsistent and confusing situation for all involved. Indeed, this is something that the parole board brought forward in written evidence to the committee, and I believe that the adoption of a test will enhance transparency in the justice system. I also thank at this point the cabinet secretary for the dialogue that we've had in this regard. I believe that that has been incredibly useful. I would also like to point out to members that the amendment, while it specifies a test, leaves it to the parole board to devise that and publish it, which I believe provides for the flexibility that would be required in terms of taking that forward. However, I'll rest my arguments there. Thank you. Thank you. Can I invite Liam McArthur to speak? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Just very briefly, I can understand the intent behind Daniel Johnson's amendment. I can't help but observe, though, that, in the space of two groupings, he's gone from standing up for the independence of the parole board to an amendment that I think cuts across some of that independence. Therefore, I think that we will not be supporting that amendment. I call on the cabinet secretary. I just simply say that I welcome amendment 129 from Daniel Johnson at stage 2 when Daniel Johnson brought forward a similar amendment that I indicated support and principle subject to the removal of provisions relating to the publication of a summary of parole board recommendations, which I believe are suited better on the parole board rules. So I'm pleased that Daniel Johnson has agreed to remove the requirement to publish a summary of the recommendations and therefore very happy to support the amendment in his name. Daniel Johnson, does Daniel Johnson wish to add any comments by way of winding up? I will just very briefly presiding off. Just to Liam McArthur's point, the critical point here is that this does not impose the test on the parole board. Simply request that they publish it. The test itself would be for the parole board to devise. So that is a critical point which I believe leaves the independence of the parole board intact. Thank you. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're not agreed. In that case, we'll move to a division and members may cast a vote now. This is a one minute vote on amendment 129. The result of the vote on amendment number 129 in the name of Daniel Johnson is yes, 107, no, 5. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 130 in the name of Daniel Johnson, which was debated previously? Daniel Johnson to move or not move. Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. This will be a 30-second division on amendment 130. The result of the vote on amendment number 130 in the name of Daniel Johnson is yes, 45, no, 67. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 131 to 137 on bloc? Moved on bloc. Thank you very much. Does any member object if I put the question on amendments 131 to 137 on bloc? No. Very good. The question is that Parliament agrees amendments 131 to 137. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Thank you. Can I turn to group 11, assessment of risk posed by offenders, and call amendment 138 in the name of Liam Kerr, grouped with amendment 139, Liam Kerr to speak and move to the amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is something that has concerned me right from the start. The Justice Committee's stage 1 report recognised at recommendation 182 that robust risk assessment procedures are critical to the effective use of HDCs and other forms of electronic monitoring. The committee agrees that decisions on electronic monitoring are informed by proper and appropriate assessments. I have listened to representations throughout on this, and I acknowledge the cabinet secretary's willingness to discuss this, but I still come back to the same principle. Surely before we do anything to increase the numbers of people on electronic monitoring, we must have a robust and trusted assessment tool. My amendment simply requires the Scottish Government to develop that tool. It also requires the courts to have regard to the tool when disposing of cases, and it requires ministers to publish a report on the operation of the risk assessment tool. At stage 2, it was raised that there have been some improvements to HDC assessment, but I come back to the point that I have made throughout that we cannot be too restricted in our focus on home detention curfew. We must apply rigorous risk assessment across all early release from prison. Furthermore, the cabinet secretary said that it was not clear what the tool would look like, but I would respond that that is for the Scottish Government to determine as the amendment clearly sets out. Flexibility for different forms of release on licence is not precluded. For those reasons, the bill requires the safety and reassurance provided by a risk assessment tool. I commend the amendment to the chamber, and for similar reasons and for the avoidance of doubt, we will vote for amendment 139 in the name of Daniel Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr Kerr. I call Daniel Johnson to speak to amendment 139. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Liam Kerr has pointed out, the assessment of risk is absolutely critical to the bill and, indeed, following the events that have informed the passage of the bill. Again, I can quote—this is not the first time that I have referenced this quote— from the HMIPS report referring to risk assessment, the inspector said that, although an assessment process clearly existed, it may not be regarded by some to meet the definition of robust. I think that that is a very clear call for the requirement for a robust system of risk assessment to be put in place, and indeed, I believe, to make a requirement by law. Now, I recognise that amendment 127 does put in place guidance around this, and that goes a long way towards meeting those requirements. However, as I said previously, there is no legal requirement to apply that guidance, which I think weakens that. While there may be recourse to judicial review, as everyone in this chamber will know, that you need particularly deep pockets to take that course of action. I think that the bill would have been stronger if there was a legal requirement not only to apply those guidelines, but to actually, for that risk assessment, to be carried out for people being put on HDC and that being stipulated in black letter on the face of the bill. I think that it is with regret that that is being opposed by the Government this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am going to call on the cabinet secretary to speak to this group. I know that risk assessment was discussed in some detail during stage 2. As you know, I have brought forward my amendment 127 at stage 3 to address some of those concerns. At stage 2, the risk management authority wrote to the justice committee expressing their concern about what was being proposed at that stage by Liam Kerr in relation to the development of a risk assessment tool. I know that both the risk management authority and the parole board have written again to the justice committee expressing their concern about the return of the similar amendments 1 through 8 and 1 through 9 at stage 3. The approach that the Scottish Government has taken of setting out the details of risk assessment in an operational protocol, which must be laid before Parliament, as I spoke to previously, provides further reassurance about risk assessment arrangements. Without some of the practical problems that amendments 1 through 8 and 1 through 9 would cause. In relation to 1 through 8, that is identical to Liam Kerr's amendment on risk assessment, which was rejected at stage 2. Accordingly, all of the arguments presented at stage 2 apply here. Namely, there is no definition of quote unquote a risk assessment tool, so it is difficult to determine what the Scottish Government must do to comply with this obligation. It is not clear what sort of risk assessment tool would require to be created, one to assist the decision to release a prisoner or one to assist the management of risk once the prisoner is released. Also, the creation of one risk assessment tool for all forms of early release on licence, temporary release, HDC and parole overlooks a very different nature of those various forms of early release. The duty to create a risk assessment tool would apply to all forms of release from prison, including automatic early release, and release at the end of a prisoner sentence. The Scottish ministers would be obliged to create a risk assessment process to assist a prisoner who is duty-bound to release and who would be released unconditionally. Amendment 138 would also duplicate existing risk assessment processes across all forms of early release on licence. There are existing statutory provisions requiring risk assessment for the purposes of HDC, temporary release and indeed parole. There is a duty to consult certain bodies and it may be implied that those bodies are to have regard to the risk assessment tool. One of the bodies that must be consulted is the parole board, which is completely independent of the Scottish ministers. Any implication that parole board is bound by a risk assessment developed by Scottish ministers could of course call into question that independence. It could also give rise to a potential challenge to the parole board's decision on parole under ECH article 6. That is a right to a fair trial. Indeed, the parole board expressed concerns about this amendment and have written to the Justice Committee about this at stage 2 and the deed ahead of stage 3. It is disappointing that it seems that those concerns have been ignored. As drafted courts would have to take account of this tool when imposing a community sentence listed in section 32 of the bill and imposing a community sentence, the court is not assessing risk for the purpose of release from prison, so this risk assessment tool would have very limited relevance. Courts are experienced in making assessments of risk. We must guard against creating legislation that risks impinging on judicial independence. I would also note that this amendment seeks to reintroduce the word offender back into the bill that the committee sought to exclude at stage 2, in which we have sought to exclude here at stage 3. In relation to amendment 139, the amendment would also duplicate the existing statutory requirement to conduct a risk assessment for the purpose of releasing a prisoner on AACC. In addition and more pressingly, there is a significant draft of concern that makes 139 unworkable as a risk assessment provision if it forms part of the bill. The wording of subsection 1 makes it clear that the section applies where a person is subject to a curfew condition. That means that the section only applies after a decision to release has been taken. It would preclude any of the provisions being applicable to pre-release risk assessment. Accordingly, the duties relating to risk assessments in subsection 2 and 3 would be impossible to comply with, as those duties would only apply to prisoners who have already been granted HDC. Both of those amendments seek to address risk. However, primary legislation already requires that there is a risk assessment prior to releasing an individual on HDC, temporary release or parole. Amendment 127 of my name would place an obligation on the Scottish Government to prepare and publish an operating protocol on HDC that would set out the procedure behind the HDC regime, including the process for risk assessment, as I have already discussed. I believe that this approach is more robust than what is proposed in amendments 138 and 139, while still meeting the intentions behind those amendments to ensure greater transparency behind the risk assessment process. Accordingly, I urge members to reject those amendments, which are unnecessary and in some places unworkable and should not form part of the bill. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Can I call on Liam Kerr to wind up in the section? I have nothing in particular to add, Presiding Officer, other than to say to the cabinet secretary that it is abundantly clear from the drafting what it involves. I specifically said that there were other forms not precluded, and I have to say that I agree that it is regrettable that the cabinet secretary does not support development of a robust risk assessment tool. I move amendment 138 in my name. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a division on amendment 138. This will be a one-minute vote, and members may cast their votes now. On amendment 138. The result of the votes on amendment 138 in the name of Liam Kerr is, yes, 44, no, 68. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call, I invite Daniel Johnson to move amendment 139? Not moved. We are going to turn now to group 12, which is the mandatory FAF, fatal accident inquiry, where a person is subject to a curfew condition commits murder. Can I call amendment 140 in the name of Neil Bibby, grouped with amendments 140A and 141, and invite Neil Bibby to move amendment 140 and to speak to all the amendments in this group? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Members across the chamber will be well aware of the tragic case of Craig McLean. His murder should never have happened and it should never have been allowed to happen. As the committee noted in its stage 1 report, the justice secretary asked both HMIPS and HMICS to conduct reviews into the HDC regime. However, those reviews were described simply as process reviews by the Government, and they were not specifically tasked with looking at what went wrong in this case and why. Recommendations were made, some of which are being acted on today, which is welcome. However, they also established that there had been significant failings leading up to the murder. However, there has not been a specific inquiry into why that was allowed to happen and whether it could have been prevented. I believe that a full independent inquiry is required to investigate the system failures that led to this death, to help the McLean family to find the answers that have been eluding them, to hold the state and the authorities to account, to do so under the independent leadership and direction of a sheriff, and to allow the sheriff to make recommendations on what has to change if this kind of tragedy is to be prevented in future. Because an inquiry is not just in the interests of a family searching for answers, it is clearly and demonstrably in the public interest too. If an independent inquiry is not granted willingly by the Government or by the Lord Advocate using his discretionary powers, then the law must change to make it mandatory. Section 2 of the Inquiries and Sudden Deaths Act 2016 should be amended to include cases where a murder is committed by a prisoner on a HDC. If a fatal accident inquiry is commonplace for deaths on the prison state, then why is a principle is it not automatic in cases where a prisoner commits a murder in the community? The amendment differs from the amendment that I brought to the committee at stage 2. The cabinet secretary was concerned that the drafting had been too broad and I had not specified which deaths would be captured by the amendment. The redraft clarifies that it would apply only to cases where a murder is committed by someone subject to a curfew condition. There was also some debate at stage 2 of whether it was right that the Parliament, so soon after the passage of the 2016 act, should review where FAIs are mandated automatically. Presiding Officer, it is my judgment that the circumstances in the McClellan case are so important that the timing becomes a secondary consideration. Where someone on a tag commits a murder, the system has failed, there absolutely must be an inquiry. It is not a technical question, it is not a legalistic question, in fact there should be no question about it at all. If Parliament believes that tag murders should be subject to the FAI regime as a matter principle, then it can vote to change the law today and make it happen. Over 5,000 people have signed a petition calling for inquiry to take place, not just in this case but in any other tag murder. The power to change the law and do it right by the McClellan family is in our hands. I would urge members across the chamber to back my amendment, do the right thing and do what it takes to make sure the lessons of this tragedy are fully learned. Can I call on Liam Kerr to move amendment 140A and speak to the amendment in this group? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just very briefly, I'm very pleased to support this cross-party effort to ensure not only that Craig McClellan's family get the answers they've been denied, but that other such tragedies and failures of the justice system are comprehensively investigated in future. My amendment 140A expands the scope of Neil Bibby's amendment to cover all prisoners released from prison on licence. I see no reason why there should not be a robust inquiry into every death caused by someone who is released early from prison because the authorities responsible for their release have to be answerable in those cases. I therefore move amendment 140A. Thank you very much. Can I call John Finnie to be followed by Liam McArthur? John Finnie. Excuse me. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is fundamentally a debate about whether the discretion that supported the Lord Advocate Act in the public interest is sufficient to address those concerns or whether it should be on the face of this legislation. That's always the case. Now, the obligation is, as I say, to act in the public interest. I have to say unquestionably, I think that the public interest would be certainly having an inquiry in this instance. However, I don't support it being mandatory. I also, as a secondary issue, wonder if it's limited by having the word murder in there. I mean, if there was a death result in someone who was in a finding of culpable homicide, that wouldn't appear to apply in this instance. But I think that the discretion should remain with the Lord Advocate and I hope that he exercises the discretion to call an inquiry in this instance. Liam McArthur, to be filled by Johann Lamont. Thank you. Can I commend Neil Bibby on bringing forward his amendment? And I think that heading some of the issues that were raised at stage 2, I think that he's absolutely right to point out the fact that not only in this case is that the McClellan family who are left waiting for answers but actually in terms of the public more generally the absence of answers to what went wrong in this instance and how we go about putting them right I think heightens the level of risk. So, while I accept John Finnie's concerns around the issue in relation to the Lord Advocate's discretion, I think that the concern here is that the fatal accident inquiry system at present is encountering far too many delays and I think that that is something that absolutely needs to be addressed and for that reason we will be supporting the amendment 140 in Neil Bibby's name. I call Johann Lamont. Thank you. This is a debate round curfew measures and so on and it's been something that's been part of the parliamentary debate since the very first days of the Parliament itself. And it is essential if we're going to move to this system and support this system more that people feel confident. They have to feel confident that it's monitored properly and that there are consequences to the breach. And I think therefore an issue where if somebody in prison killed another person in prison there would be an automatic fatal accident inquiry. Somebody whose liberty has been restricted but are on a home detention curfew. Logic tells me that they should too have a fatal accident inquiry. It's essential in my view to have confidence in the system that we don't treat them differently but we recognise that the same thing has happened. John Finnie talks about it not being mandatory but it is mandatory if it's in prison or if it happens in a care setting. We have to explain why it would not be mandatory in these circumstances. I believe it's our duty to support individuals who come to us in tragic circumstances not just to support them but to understand why it happens and look at the process or the system or the law that is not doing the right thing. I think that this amendment very simply ensures that the experience of somebody like the family in this circumstance is treated the same as if it had happened in prison itself. And I would certainly be very pleased if there is cross-party support for something that recognises a gap in the process and would give confidence to the system if it was addressed by this amendment. Thank you and I call on the cabinet secretary to speak to this group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I speak to the amendment can I also once again put on record my sympathy and sympathy of the Government to the McLeiland family? I also know that a number of members right across the chamber have met the McLeiland family, have come to me. I know they have spoken to a lot of advocate also about changes in the law that they may want to see and other circumstances surrounding this case which they would wish to see improved. Can I thank those members for the constructive way in which they have had those conversations where there has been agreement and in some cases of course where there has not been agreement on the way forward. I do not doubt the sincerity of everybody involved in trying to get as possible to get a better system around the HDC after the tragic murder of Craig McLeiland. Amendment 140 is similar to the one that was brought forward by Neil Bibby at stage 2. I remain, as I say, sympathetic to the aims of the amendment but the Scottish Government must resist for the same reasons that I outlined at stage 2. The categories of mandatory FAIs were considered and legislated for in the context of inquiries into fatal accidents in Southern Death Scotland Act 2016 that passed Parliament with unanimous support. Of course I will. Johann Lamont I understand the argument about timing but this case challenges what that legislation offered and if it challenges it we need to address it. It is something very straightforward it is expanding a category which is already mandatory if the person was murdered in prison but not if the person is outside prison with the same conditions as if they were in prison. It is something that has emerged since and surely we have a responsibility to respond to that because we can do it and use this legislation as a means of doing so. Cabinet Secretary Can I thank Johann Lamont for her intervention? It is worth just giving some context to the previous changes that were made in 2016 that were passed were after a careful review by Lord Cullen and very lengthy consultation and indeed lengthy parliamentary consideration. In terms of Johann Lamont's point about bettering the system of HDC after a tragedy of course we should not be closed minded to changes after a terrible tragedy like the one that the McClellan family have suffered. That is why we have I would say a more robust and a better HDC process now in place that came in the back of the independent inspectorate's review. In terms of our considerations in 2016 the end result was a scheme that specified a mandatory FAI in the narrow circumstances of death and custody and death in the course of a person's employment. I think we have to take great care before making any changes and as I say they followed lengthy consultation and consideration. I do not favour the addition of further categories of mandatory FAI. Those matters I think these would better the Lord Advocate's discretion. And for example may result in a requirement to hold an FAI even if the circumstances are straightforward albeit tragic and the bereaved families do not want one. Where the circumstances justify the Crown will undertake a death investigation and may in addition to any criminal proceedings investigate any other matters which bear in the circumstances of the death and indeed instruct a discretionary FAI as is the case for the tragic case of Craig McClellan. The Crown have the ability to instruct an FAI and of course this currently sits with the independent Lord Advocate for consideration. The Crown will always engage with the families of the victims in that regard both in the context of the criminal proceedings and under the family layers on the charter in relation to any wider death investigation. There are accordingly mechanisms whereby if appropriate cases and investigation will be undertaken as I say into such cases. The ordinary course in the 2016 act is that even in the case of mandatory FAIs as I say the Lord Advocate may determine that circumstances have been adequately established in related criminal proceedings and determine on that ground that an FAI would not be justified. There is no equivalent qualification in the proposed amendments where it will be certain that there would be related criminal proceedings. I know that this amendment has been lodged by Neil Bibby after the tragic case of Craig McClellan and as I say as things stand I know that the Lord Advocate is considering the specific circumstances of that case and of course it is for him to make that determination. Finally, on points of drafting firstly the requirement for a murder conviction might produce odd results if an FAI is required in that circumstance but not in a culpable homicide conviction as John Finnie mentioned in his remarks. Secondly it may also be strange for an FAI to be mandatory in the case of a murder committed by an individual in HDC but for example not by an individual on parole or temporary lease. Thirdly it is most unusual to make retrospective provision in any legislation and a specific policy justification would be required given the existing powers to order a discretionary FAI I'm not convinced that retrospective application of this provision is justified. For this reason I provided I would ask that Neil Bibby does not press amendments but if he does then I'd urge the Parliament to reject them. Amendment 140A in the name of Liam Kerr is a minor change to amendment 140 to refer to those released on licence under section 3AA of the 1993 act rather than those subject to a curfucondition under section 12AA of the act. Those two groups are the same as those released on HDC licence under section 3AA will be subject to a curfucondition under section 12AA. In any event I'd urge Parliament to reject the underlying amendment 140 I'd also urge Parliament to reject amendment 140A. Amendment 141 in the name of Neil Bibby would add amendment 140 to the list of provisions in section 49 of the bill which are to be commenced on royal assent again as I would urge Parliament to reject the underlying amendment 140 I'd urge Parliament to reject amendment 141. Thank you very much Cabinet Secretary can I invite Neil Bibby to wind up on amendment 140? Thank you, Presiding Officer. We've heard a number of different arguments in the chamber but I've not heard a principled argument against making a fatal accident inquiry automatic in cases like this one. I'm being no doubt this is a matter of principle. The precedent that this Parliament can make legislation to mandate a fatal accident inquiry has already been set. The question for the chamber today is whether we believe in principled inquiries into tag murders should be required or not. I believe they should. I also believe that any change in the law should be backdated to include the McClellan case. And I believe that a full independent inquiry is now essential if we are to restore public confidence in HDCs and the justice system. And as Johann Lamont said, if after everything they have been through the family of Craig McClellan still do not have confidence in the HDC system then how can any of us who are passing this legislation today? What happened to Craig McClellan should never have happened. It was a tragic failure of the system that should have kept him and his community safe. Across the chamber there are MSPs who believe that a fatal accident inquiry is needed and I'm very much welcome what John Finnie said in his contribution about that. There are over 5,000 people in our communities that agree that this inquiry should have started by now. To the member saying that this amendment is not needed or that the Lord Advocate has discretionary powers, I would say that this tragedy is a case study in why they are wrong. This amendment is necessary because there hasn't been a public inquiry. This amendment is necessary because the Lord Advocate has yet to instruct a fatal accident inquiry and there's nothing on the statute compelling him to do so. Presiding Officer, I'll support the amendment in the name of Liam Kerr because I can accept the argument for extending the scope of my amendment but I cannot accept that my amendment is unnecessary and I'll conclude on that point. Throughout stage 2 and stage 3 we've heard Government and members in the chamber with position searching for arguments rather than arguments to justify their position. Disgrace is an overused word in political debate but I have no hesitation in saying it would be a disgrace if this amendment were to be defeated today. But defeat for this amendment does not mark the end of the fight for a fatal accident inquiry. I would say to all those who have expressed sympathy with the family, all those who have been shocked to move by what has happened, all those appalled at the indifferences where the McLellans have been treated and I would say to the Lord Advocate to that come what may, the case for an inquiry into the McLellans case is impossible to ignore and it's unthinkable that it should be refused. Can I ask Liam Kerr if he wishes to add any comments on amendment 140A and to press a withdrawal? The only comments I wish to add are that I associate myself and my colleagues with Neil Bibby's comments in that regard and move amendment 140A in my name. Thank you very much. The question therefore is that amendment 140A be agreed to. Are we agreed? No. We're not agreed. We will move to a vote and this will be a one-minute division on amendment 140A. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 140A in the name of Liam Kerr is yes, 50, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. This is a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 140A in the name of Neil Bibby is yes, 50, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We turn now to group 13, restriction of liberty orders. Can I call amendment 147 in the name of Margaret Mitchell in a group in its own and Margaret Mitchell to move and speak to the amendment? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 147 is similar to my previous amendment at stage 2. The amendment seeks to amend the criminal procedure Scotland 1995 act to impose particular restrictions of liberty for offenders. In particular, this amendment is aimed at and intended to focus upon domestic abuse cases and prevent offenders from causing further distress. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary expressed concern that examples such as a partner's house or a child's school were explicitly mentioned in the amendment and therefore in the bill. In response, I have removed the four example references, leaving it to Scottish ministers to specify places that must be excluded. As such, the amendment will provide an extra safeguard to domestic abuse victims where perpetrators are released on electronic tag. I move amendment 147 in my name. Thank you very much, Ms Mitchell. Can I call Fulton MacGregor? As the convener of the Justice Committee said, there we had to discuss this amendment in stage 2 also. I am still not clear today what difference the amendment would make in a real practical sense if it was to be passed, because a court, as we know, can already designate a specified place through an RLO and does so regularly. I acknowledge that the convener is attempting to work alongside women's aid, but I am not sure that this particular amendment will deliver on the key concerns that it has, because it is limited to only one form of monitoring. I think that the passing of the recent domestic abuse legislation by this Government is a much more holistic approach to tackling the scourge of domestic abuse, and I do not think that this amendment goes anywhere near to achieving it. Thank you very much, and I invite the cabinet secretary to comment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Some of the challenges with this amendment remain, as they were, when the amendment was lodged in largely similar terms and was rejected at stage 2. I do not believe that there is a requirement for the additional ability for ministers to prescribe a specified place. Courts already are able to restrict people on an RLO, a restriction of liberty order, away from or to a broad range of types of specified places, and they already do so under the current radio frequency service. People can currently be restricted away from, for example, a partner's house. Courts have under the current service used electronic monitoring to make local supermarkets a quote-unquote specified place to deter persistent shoplifters. A restriction of liberty order may, and I'm going to directly quote from section 245A of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995 here, they may, and I quote, restrict the offender's movement to such extent as the court thinks fit. And without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing may include provision. A, requiring the offender to be in such place as may be specified for such periods or periods that each day or week as may be specified. Or B, requiring the offender not to be in such place or places or such classes or classes of place or places at such time or during such periods as may be specified." Those are already broad powers. The GPS monitoring capabilities when introduced will just change the way in which those specified places are monitored. We do not see any need to change how those specified places are actually defined. Indeed, there's a significant risk that if ministers were to further prescribe in legislation the places that can be specified in an RLO it might limit the power of the court to only specify those places which are therefore prescribed. We're unsure why the ability to prescribe the places which may be specified in an RLO if it were to be beneficial would not extend to other forms of electronic monitoring such as monitoring of licence conditions or of sexual offences prevention orders. Overall, this bill has largely sought to leave untouched the underlying orders that can be electronically monitored. As to do so, risks opening up a number of unintended consequences that we've not had the opportunity to consider as part of the evidence taken on the bill to date. On that basis, I cannot see a clear benefit from the amendment of this nature at Arge Margaret Mitchell, not to press it and if the amendment is pressed urge members to reject it. Thank you very much. I now call on Margaret Mitchell to wind up and to press or withdraw this amendment. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To respond to both Fulton MacGregor and the Cabinet Secretary's point about courts more certainly having the power to list specific places where the perpetrator could be excluded from in reality and in practical terms very often, pocurator ffiskars are under such pressure that their handed case notes as they go into court and may not be in possession of all the full facts, including areas that should be specified under the exclusion zones. That gives the power in these circumstances for that to be rectified by going to ministers to allow them to fill in the gaps. On that basis, Cabinet Secretary, I move the amendment to my name. Thank you. The question, therefore, is that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote on amendment 147. Members be cast their votes now. This is a one-minute division on amendment 147. The result of the vote on amendment number 147 in the name of Margaret Mitchell is yes, 27, no, 87. There were no abstentions that amendment is, therefore, not agreed. Can I ask Neil Bibby if he wishes to move amendment 141? Previously debated. That has not moved. Can I turn now to group 14, commencement provisions, and I call amendment 142 in the name of Liam Kerr. And I ask Liam Kerr to move and speak to this amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the consequences of this bill is that there should be a considerable expansion of the use of community sentences in a context in which nearly one in three are not completed. We have heard in the context of the presumption SSI that there are a number of challenges within the community system already. And I cannot see that it is wise to significantly increase the numbers going into that system without first having ensured that those challenges have been addressed. And secondly, that the stated goal of promoting rehabilitation and preventing reconviction is able to be achieved. To that end, it seems sensible to me to put increased resources into the community system, deliver a modest improvement to the completion rate and then start from a position of strength and confidence when pushing more criminals into that system. Now, at stage 2, some in committee raised points about the complex reasons that community orders are not completed and the often chaotic lifestyles of those on them. I don't dispute that, but that I think makes my point for me. Before pushing more of these people into that system, surely we need to reassure ourselves that the services are there to support people to serve that sentence. Because if the support is not there or may not be there, the offender should not be in the community. And I think that that is a key point. Victim support Scotland told the committee that and I quote, communities have no faith in community sentencing. I take their word for it. The basic improvement called for by this amendment can help to give that confidence to the public and victims that community orders are a robust alternative to prison. And we must set ourselves a high bar to ensure that community orders are as much as a deterrent as prison and that they'll keep the public and victims safe and are seen to achieve the punishment that is one of the tenets of that system. To that end, I propose a modest amendment which may help to achieve that and I move it in my name. Thank you very much, Mr Kerr. I call Daniel Johnson to be followed by Lee MacArthur. Daniel Johnson. I'm just going to rise to speak very briefly against this amendment. I mean, I think that it is simply a wrecking amendment. And one which I think is also based on a false premise. There's nothing in this bill in and of itself which necessitates the expansion of community orders or the increasing use of tags. What this simply does is allow new technology to be applied. Now I agree with one thing that Liam Kerr said which is that we should see considerable increase in investment in community sentences. I believe that that is required. I don't believe that we spend enough on that in order to make them successful. But I don't believe this amendment that we should essentially make it put considerable delays on the introduction of the use of this new and very useful and valuable technology for tagging. And I don't think that's acceptable. Thank you. Thank you. I call Liam MacArthur to be followed by the cabinet secretary. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed there by Daniel Johnson. This does seem to me a wrecking amendment. All the evidence shows that in terms of rehabilitation community-based sentences have a better track record than incarceration particularly for short prison sentences. And by Liam Kerr's own logic the lack of resources within the prison estate at the present time in order to support those emerging back into the community would suggest that we shouldn't be sending them to prison in the first place. So as I did at stage 2 I will be opposing the amendment and as I said I think it stands the evidence on its head. I thank Daniel Johnson and Liam MacArthur for their contributions. I also urge members to reject amendment 142. They are very similar to amendments that he bought at stage 2 that the committee rejected at that time. A couple of points to make about the amendment does seem to me pretty perverse to tie commencement of the bill to community payback order completion. One of the things that bring this act into force will do is allow electronically monitored restricted movement requirements to be imposed as part of a CPO as a first disposal in a case. We know that when similar requirements have been imposed through restriction of liberty order completion rates that actually exceeded 80 per cent Mr Kerr's amendment insists that completion rates increase first and only then are the tools to help improve completion rates that this bill offers to become available. I suppose it's kind of like saying that you can have the allen keys only after you've finished assembling the flat pack. The effects of amendment 142 in relation to the parts of the bill that are about CPOs would, as I say, be perverse. The amendment is all the more bizarre because it links CPO completion rates to the commencement not only of the bits of the bill that are about CPOs but to the commencement of everything in the bill. So why should the coming into force of the rules about disclosure of convictions or the power to arrest prisoners on lawfully at large or the provision about appointments to the parole board? Why should all of these things depend on CPO completion rates? It doesn't really make any sense. Liam Kerr talks about a deterrent and we have to ensure that CPOs are deterrent on that logic. Unfortunately, of course, short prison sentences that we're looking to bring forward are presumption against, of course, which his party rejected. That short sentences, people are convicted nearly twice as often than they are when they are given a community alternative. So by his own logic, then short custodial sentences are, in no way, a deterrent. So where would those who have committed a crime end up? So for all those reasons and the reasons that are mentioned by Daniel Johnson and Liam MacArthur, urge members to reject amendment 142. Thank you and the call on Liam Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 142. Yeah, thank you, Presiding Officer. Just really to say, I mean this is not a wrecking amendment at all. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of ambition shown by the various members who spoke. I still cannot accept that it isn't sensible to ensure that the system is working before increasing the pressure on it. And in that regard, I remain on the side of victim support Scotland, even if no one else does. For which reason I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. And the question is that amendment 142 be agreed. Are we agreed? No. We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now and this will be a one minute division on amendment 142. Thank you very much. The result of the vote on amendment 142 in the name of Liam Kerr is yes, 26, no, 86. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 143? Cabinet Secretary to move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 143 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed that that can end consideration of amendments. Now this stage, members may be aware, I am required understanding orders to decide whether or not any provision in this bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral franchise or system for Scottish Parliament elections. It does no such thing in my opinion, therefore it does not require a supermajority at stage 3. Now before we move to the debating stage, I propose taking a short break to allow members to just refresh themselves. We'll resume at 10.2. So a 10 minute break, a 10 minute suspension in fact. So Parliament is suspended until just after 10 to 7. 26. The next item of business is stage 3 debate on motion 17893 in the name of Humza Yousaf on the management of offender Scotland bill. Can I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press a request to speak buttons? And I call on Humza Yousaf to speak to and move the motion for up to seven minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Remind me never to get on your wrong side. I very much of course move the motion in my name. I'm very pleased to be opening this stage 3 debate on the management of offenders Scotland bill. I'd like to thank members and clerks of the justice committee for their very thoughtful and diligent consideration of this bill at stages 1 and 2. I know we've not obviously agreed on everything neither we ever should, I think, in these matters. But I know that the conversation has been both sincere but also very constructive as well. As members will know, additional evidence was taken on the bill in light of the tragic murder of Craig McClelland. That has been referenced in the stage 3 amendment discussion. I'd like to extend once again my sympathies to his family. We were asked in June 2018 by Craig's family to respond to the circumstances of his death. We were also asked by members of this Parliament how we would respond. I know, for example, Ruth Davidson asked us to consider the creation of a further offence. We have listened and responded. We accepted an additional punitive element that was needed for home detention curfew and that a new offence was appropriate. We created the offence that HMICS recommended and that would be considered. The bill creates the new offence of remaining unlawfully at large and it also improves the available powers of recall from home detention curfew. Those legislative measures sit alongside a significant number of operational improvements that have been made to HDC. In May of this year, the follow-up reports from Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons and indeed HMICS showed positive progress against their recommendations. I'd also like to record my thanks to colleagues in Police Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service and the respective inspectorates for the work that they have undertaken to date to strengthen the HDC regime. That is unlikely, I know, to provide much, if any, comfort to Craig's family for the loss that they have suffered. However, the improvement of the HDC regime are the right steps for us to have taken. With that legislation, we have sought to make important and progressive reforms designed to deliver on the Scottish Government's commitment to reduce re-offending, ensuring that Scotland's justice system retains its focus on prevention and, importantly, rehabilitation while maintaining public safety and enhancing support for victims. We have got that balance absolutely right. In relation to various parts of the bill, in relation to part 1 of the bill, it provides for the expansion of electronic monitoring as part of our continued development of community-based alternatives to prison. The electronic monitoring provisions of the bill provide an overarching set of principles for the imposition of electronic monitoring. The prevail provides clarity as to when and how electronic monitoring can be imposed either by the courts in relation to criminal proceedings or by Scottish ministers in relation to release on licence from detention or imprisonment. The bill also creates a standard set of obligations that clearly describe what it requires of an individual who is subject to monitoring. The bill also empowers ministers to make regulations to specify the types of devices that can be used for the purpose of monitoring. The introduction of new technologies such as GPS technology presents opportunities to improve the effectiveness of electronic monitoring, for example through the use of exclusion zones that could offer victims additional reassurance. Electronic monitoring using just the existing RF radio frequency technology that we have available today has proven itself to be an effective tool available to the justice system. We look forward to working with our partners in the justice system to develop services around the new technological uses that the bill enables. We will use electronic monitoring in a proportionate way to target further reductions in reoffending, providing structure to monitoring to keep people safe and secure and helping people to move on with their lives away from the justice system. In part 2 of the bill, the Deputy Presiding Officer, part 2 of the bill is about reforming the system of disclosure of past convictions when wanting to gain general employment, for example working on a shop or an office or when applying for home insurance. Members will be aware of the recently introduced disclosure bill that is seeking to reform higher-level disclosure that is used to protect vulnerable groups. The bill does not directly change higher-level disclosure in any way. The current length of disclosure periods are too long. That has created an imbalance between the need for general protection for the public and allowing people to move on with their lives. Part 2 seeks to rebalance this issue. The evidence is clear. A system that requires too much disclosure can have a negative impact on people's lives. I have a struck, Presiding Officer, by members of this chamber who told me that they had interacted with the likes of the wise group, for example, an excellent organisation. Those people who had previously committed crimes had been in prison and they often talked about the fact that they wanted to move their lives on. However, the stigma around disclosure but the real practical impact of disclosure meant that they felt and at least there was this perception, if not the reality, the perception that their CVs or their job applications were put straight in the shredder once their application for disclosure was received. The bill will reduce the periods of disclosure for the majority of sentences. It will bring more people within the scope of the protections under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It will increase the clarity, accessibility and terminology used in the legislation. Part 2 will see the most fundamental reforms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in Scotland since it was legislated for and led to the most progressive reforms of that legislation in the UK. I am pleased that this part of the bill received general support from the Justice Committee right throughout stages 1 and to accept that legislation is of course important but clearly cultural change is important too. That is why we have made a commitment to help to try and bring about a cultural change in this area. We are going to work with employers to help to change their perceptions of people with convictions. People with convictions do have much potential. Part 2 will be an aid to tackling inequality. It will help to prevent those that are already marginalised in our society becoming more marginalised due to the lack of employment opportunities that may result in them remaining involved in the criminal justice system. All the evidence and all the research in this area has shown that stigma can have a real impact on employment and a lack of employment can have a real impact in terms of continuing to re-offend. Therefore, as I often say in these debates, Presiding Officer, this is not about hard or soft justice but about smart justice. As a result, we believe that those reforms will also help to reduce re-offending. Finally, on part 3 of the bill, it deals with matters relating to the parole board for Scotland and its activities. The provisions in the bill make some minor technical amendments to existing legislation, make some changes to the appointments and reappointments arrangements for parole board, reinforce the continued independence of the parole board and, importantly, provide for the administrative and accountability arrangements for the parole board to be set out in secondary legislation. There are some initial reforms in improvement, but as I have already said in previous debates, the consultation on parole has closed. We will analyse the results and will take forward further changes on parole. In conclusion, the bill takes forward a number of important changes to improve the criminal justice system in Scotland. It positions us well as a country looking to the future, not just in terms of how we embrace new technological developments, but most importantly in how we configure a justice system that is both progressive and one that is based on the evidence of what is effective in reducing re-offending while, importantly and crucially, keeping people safe. I therefore move to the management of offender Scotland bill that will be passed in my name. Liam Kerr, up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak for the Scottish Conservatives on the management of offender's bill. The bill has rightly commanded a lot of time both in committee and in this chamber, but arguably not enough. Because I fear that there is a considerable chance that it will put the public at increased risk and deny justice to the victims of crime, and it is because of those implications that I reiterate my concern from stage 1 that we have dealt with three possible considerable issues at once. Yes, Mr Finnie. John Finnie, for the member taking intervention, did the member think that it is entirely responsible to say that this piece of legislation will put the public at increased risk? Liam Kerr. It is entirely responsible, Mr Finnie, to say what the truth of the matter is, which is, as I shall go on to say, I think that this bill could put the public at increased risk because of some of the amendments that have not been put through today, as we will find out. Presiding Officer, the point that I was just making is that we have rolled three issues into one. Part 3 of this bill makes small reforms to the parole boards, the detail of which the cabinet secretary covered, but it has not had the attention or the coverage, the scrutiny, if you like, of part 1. And it does not deal with the Michelle's law campaign. I have explicit victim and family welfare assessments, more use of exclusion zones, allowing victims and families to attend and speak at hearings, etc. Presiding Officer, I'm concerned we've missed an opportunity to take a step back, review the whole parole board and its operation and bring forward a bill directly related to this area. I make the same point about part 2 of the bill. Again, the cabinet secretary has outlined to Parliament the principles dealt with. We know, we agree that getting a job is one of the best routes out of offending behaviour and striking the appropriate balance between societies and an employer's right to know about prior convictions with the ability of a person with convictions to move on is a difficult one. We support these reforms, but I really do believe that they should have commanded stand-alone scrutiny. But part 1 is the most substantive section. It will see an increase in criminals on tags in the community. Now, in the stage 1 debate, I stated very clearly that we would have to see improvements to risk assessments and the response to breaches at stages 2 and 3, but we have not. Now, of course, we are happy to support improvements to the technology of electronic monitoring, but I remain concerned that this bill will extend its scope to ever more serious criminals at the expense of public safety. Whatever, if it is very brief, please, Mr Johnson. Daniel Johnson. I thank the member for giving me a minute. Can he just substantiate that point? Because in and of itself, I do not understand why this bill will increase the number out on tags. Other provisions that the Government bring forward might do, but this one simply changes the technology, does it not? Liam Kerr. Well, no, I do not think that it does just simply change the technology. I think that the implication of what is being put forward here will put more people out on the tag. So I stand by that assertion, because whatever the Cabinet Secretary's assurances, the key public safety test has not been met. The Cabinet Secretary has rightly reminded us of the reasons why the original bill was postponed and further evidence taken. He talks about the shocking, unprovoked and devastating murder of Craig McClelland. Now, although there has been limited improvement to home detention curfew, and I'm glad the Cabinet Secretary acknowledges Ruth Davidson's pressure in bringing that forward, the reality is that that tragedy could have happened on any other type of early release. So my amendments tried to address this. I tried to mandate a risk assessment tool right through this process. The Justice Committee demanded it after all, because surely before we do anything that increases the numbers on electronic monitoring, we need to have a robust and trusted assessment tool. But the SNP voted it down, and the record will show that the Cabinet Secretary said it is not needed. I shall leave it to others to make the case otherwise. I also argued that cutting off a tag should automatically constitute a criminal offence. I find it utterly incomprehensible that the bill allows some offenders to cut off their tag and face no criminal sanction. The unlawfully at large offence isn't good enough. It will not apply to those on community centres who cut off their tags and it will result in delays as the authorities establish whether an offender is unlawfully at large. The SNP removed the power of arrest on suspicion that I put in and lowered the minimum period that someone spends in jail before early release. It also decided that it wasn't appropriate to demand better completion rates on community orders. Again, I struggle to understand that. I acknowledge there are reasons why completion rates are what they are. But surely before you put more people into that system you try and improve it to avoid the risk that the system becomes overloaded with consequences for the offender and for public safety. Presiding Officer, the record will show that I did what I could and I shall take no pleasure whatsoever from being proved correct in the future. On which note, I come back to a point that I have made throughout this process. No matter to whom or which agency I pose the question what is most important in considering release on a tag public protection, punishment or rehabilitation, no one would clearly say public protection is paramount. The ethos of this bill is something other than public protection. I think it's about keeping people out of the expensive prison system. I think it's not about not offending criminals by calling them relevant persons. I think it is less about reconviction rates and more about saving money. And I think that those considerations figure more prominently than considerations of public safety and justice to victims. Presiding Officer, I fear that this bill was proposed by the Cabinet Secretary's predecessor in an atmosphere of complacency and with a view to extending tagging into inappropriate cases. And I fear that this bill has failed to learn the lessons of tragic cases like that of Craig McClelland. For those reasons, Presiding Officer, my fears for the consequences mean that the Scottish Conservatives cannot vote in favour of this bill today. Thank you. Mary Fee, five minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer. In opening for Scottish Labour tonight, can I once again thank the clerks and the members of the Justice Committee for their very thorough scrutiny of the management of offenders Scotland bill. This bill will strengthen the safety and security of communities across Scotland, and it will assist in keeping people out of prison. During the stage 1 debate when discussing electronic monitoring, I referred to the view from families outside, which said, without structured supports in place, electronic monitoring becomes a purely punitive measure. And whilst I do welcome the reforms to electronic monitoring, not a single penny of additional funding is being made available to address the underlying causes of criminal behaviour. And without that, Presiding Officer, we are setting up people to fail on their release from prison. And for the reforms to be truly successful, they must be backed by substantial budgets in community justice, in social work and in wider services that tackle poverty, health inequalities and promote education. I see the cabinet secretary desperate again. Hamza Yousaf. I thank Mary Fee for giving way and I just want to give her reassurance that I hope she recognises that the criminal justice social work budget is being ring-fenced and protected to the tune of £100 million. Plus additional funding has been provided for community justice. I don't take away from her point that we should always continue to look to see how we can increase that provision, but does she recognise that at least those two elements, criminal justice social work provision, has been ring-fenced and also there has been an increase in the budget of the latest spending review to community alternatives? Mary Fee. I do recognise the points that the cabinet secretary has made, but I think that if we are to be truly successful in rehabilitating individuals and keeping them out of prison, we need to fully resource and support not just them but also their families and its crucial budgets are put in place to do that. Individuals who are released on home detention curfew are often some of the most vulnerable people in society and it is our duty to provide that support which protects people with convictions but also supports victims and the wider community. Our current justice system frequently sets people up to fail and we do need the support and services that people need on release from prison and those include access to GPs, to housing support and to a correspondence address. The third sector has played a vital part in supporting people through the criminal justice system and it needs guarantees of funding to ensure that support remains in place to assist people away from a life of crime and a life of inequality. Sadly, those guarantees can be limited. Electronic monitoring can support the rehabilitation and reintegration of people with convictions back into their community but to ensure that those who are on release through electronic monitoring and home detention must know what conditions are being placed on them. I welcome the expansion of electronic monitoring. However, the risk assessment processes relating to that must be strengthened and the multi-agency approach as recommended by HMICS must be put in place. Many people in the chamber today have spoken about the tragic death of Craig McClelland and it serves as a reminder to us that public protection must be paramount. Craig's family is also campaigning for authorities to learn further answers and further lessons from the tragedy. We support their call that every murder committed by someone on a home detention curfew should lead to a fatal accident inquiry. I am grateful for the supportive comments from colleagues in the chamber today for Neil Bibby's amendment although I am as the family will be saddened that this amendment has fallen. I also welcome the new offence created at stage 2 in relation to those who breach their licence conditions. The new offence of being unlawfully at large must be robust with the right support and powers made available to police and prison services to prevent further deaths like that of Craig McClelland. Before I finish, I want to discuss the provisions in the bill relating to disclosure of spent convictions. There can be no guarantees that people who have served a prison sentence will not face any stigma. However, we must act to ensure that any stigma does not prevent someone from living a full and meaningful life, working to provide for them and their families. We know that disclosure is complex and rightly required to protect vulnerable groups. We support the reforms to disclosure that will encourage people with convictions to feel welcome in society and in the workplace. The Scottish Government must raise awareness with the public, in particular with employers and businesses, to prevent stigma limiting the opportunities to work for those with spent convictions. Let me finish by repeating the quote from families outside, which stated that without structured supports in place, electronic monitoring becomes a purely punitive measure. For the measures in the bill to be successful, we must provide the appropriate level of care and aftercare for people with convictions. That will benefit society as a whole, and I will be happy to vote in favour of that piece of legislation at decision time tonight. John Finnie, four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is good legislation, and it is all the better for having been scrutinised in detail. I am therefore a bit surprised to hear my colleague Liam Kerr suggest that there was anything other than thorough that scrutiny. I do not recall any aspect where we said we did not look into and indeed we defer to take additional evidence, so that is disappointing to hear. The case for reform for this legislation was strongly made. There were consultations in 2013 and 2017, and it is progressive legislation, and I do not think that we should apologise for it, or where it sits in the criminal justice landscape in relation to other provisions that have been talked about, including disclosure and the presumption against short sentences. Scotland has a shameful number of people in its prisons, and we need to empty those prisons, and we need to close some of those prisons. We need to ensure that public safety's paramount in electronic monitoring can play a part in that. The previous regime that was referred to as a result of those consultations showed that it was viewed as a high standard, although there was regional variation. Of course, when we talk about technology and some of the restraints of technology, what we want is a uniform system applying across our country with all its challenges to make sure that everyone has access to all the programmes. Punishment is a role, but it is also about the role that electronic monitoring can play in supporting rehabilitative purposes. If I quote from the spice briefing that mentions the working group report, and it said, it's a versified form of control that can be imposed either as a punishment or to support rehabilitative purposes, the use of electronic monitoring as a standalone punishment should remain a legitimate sentencing option. However, its various forms, EM, should now be integrated with measures with a proven track record of preventing and reducing further offending which assist individuals to desist from crime. I think that there are a lot of opportunities going ahead. There are a lot of opportunities with organisations working together, not simply the statutory organisations, but the vital role that the third sector plays in many of those honourable groups that have been already mentioned. Restriction of liberty orders, drug treatment testing orders, community payback orders, sexual offence prevention orders, are all have a role to play in this system. Now, one of the suggestions of transdermal monitoring, I think, is interesting. I'm sure that we want to future proof our legislation to ensure that the technology comes on board. But at the end of the day, I hope, I hope, we never lose fact that it's actually humans we're talking about. Humans with housing needs that have been touched on, humans with medical needs, and that their humanity comes into the system rather than it be a totally automated system because it's the individual and their individual circumstances that we must have. I think that the role that can play pre-trial and in lieu of remand, I think that it is something that can't be underestimated. And the role that can play, for instance, pre-release in allowing prisoners to go out for housing and for GPs, things like that. In all of that, the pivotal role of the criminal justice social work is absolutely paramount. Now, some of the licensed conditions about location, alcohol and drugs, I think, are commendable and the concerns, certainly, of women's aid part to being addressed by the way this legislation has been brought forward. Coordination of the public services we've repeatedly heard is important. We have the police, we have the prison, we have the courts, we have the social work. I have to say in the brief time how to step with that is the role of a private company and I would have liked to have seen that taken into Scottish Greens in house. So we are next, new technologies, the direction of travel is more progressive. We must reduce the number of people in prison. We must, of course, see to that by diversion from prosecutions and lots of other things. This is very positive and Scottish Greens will be voting for it at decision time. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Liam McArthur, four minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by thanking those who gave evidence to the committee to our clerk, Spice and others? I thank my Justice Committee colleagues as well for the collaborative work that's gone into the scrutiny of this bill. And so it's all the more disappointing to hear the remarks from Liam Kerr earlier, which I think amounted to dog whistle scaremongering. And I think the inconvenient truth is that all the evidence suggests that short-term prison sentences are more disruptive and actually make communities less safe. So we will be supporting the legislation this evening. I think that Mary Fee made an entirely valid point about the way in which this is implemented will be crucial in particular as we heard time and again use of electronic monitoring for those who would have been released in any case would not be acceptable on the up-tariffing, but they need to be properly resourced. Similarly, electronic monitoring as an alternative to GUSTA holding those on remand resourcing again will be key in of itself. Electronic monitoring is insufficient to address issues of public confidence, but it is also the case that without other supports around the individual concern it simply risks setting them up to fail. As families outside observed without structured supports in place, electronic monitoring becomes a purely punitive measure that fails to address the reasons for the offending or to reduce the likelihood of breach due to pressures of unstable housing, substance misuse, poverty, chaotic environments and damaging relationships, as Mary Fee suggested. That must be about improving the chances of rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals within their communities while offering assurances to those communities. In many respects that will be the measure of whether or not this legislation is successful as we hope it will be. It hinges, of course, on assessments and judgments of risk. As I said in the stage 1 debate for those assessments to be robust information and expertise has to be appropriately gathered and shared. Criminal justice social workers must have access to the information that they need in compiling their reports. While seeking views from everyone who might be affected including family members will be important in assessing the suitability of an individual for electronic monitoring. Where electronic monitoring does not work despite best efforts and best judgments we must be prepared to act. I welcome therefore the decision to create a separate offence of remaining unlawfully at large. That was given added weight by the findings of the two inspectorate reports. Last autumn is a sensible move towards giving the public reassurance while also taking steps to make our criminal justice system more progressive. Of course this is little to address the loss and anguish felt by the family of Craig McClellan who was so brutally and sensuously murdered in 2017. Despite those two inspectorate reports the family is still waiting for answers as to what happened and how others can be spared the agony they continue to suffer. It was an appeal pending that agony deepens. I was disappointed therefore that we did not pass Neil Bevy's amendment and Liam Kerr's amendment to that that would have made a fatal accident inquiry automatic in such circumstances. I've said before the current delays in FAIs are unacceptable. The impact on families we've lost loved ones is unimaginable but it also prevents lessons being learned and where necessary laws being changed and that cannot be right. The changes in rules governing the disclosure of convictions bringing them more in line south of the border makes sense and I think we also now need to see employers drop the simplistic and generally irrelevant tick box approach to asking potential employees about convictions. We know that people can and do stop offending and that employment is often a key factor in that assistance. In the interests of public safety therefore reducing the barriers to employment again makes sense. Deputy Presiding Officer passing legislation is inevitably the easy part making the changes a success will take effort collaboration and resources while Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the bill at decision time this evening we continue to hold government to account in ensuring that ministers will will the means as well as willing the ends. Thank you. Now move to the open debate and speeches of four minutes please. I have a little bit of time in hand for interventions if members wish to take them. I have Rona Mackay followed by Maurice Corry. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Firstly, as deputy convener of the Justice Committee can I thank all the clerks for their hard work in helping us to get the bill to this stage as always they've done an excellent job and can I also thank all our expert witnesses who gave evidence with clarity and professionalism. Presiding Officer this is a very important bill complex in parts as we've heard but it will pave the way for how we assist a culture change and penal reform in Scotland. It's essential that we get it right and I believe the amendments made at stage 2 have been beneficial in achieving that. The three parts of the bill are the expansion and streamlining of the uses of electronic monitoring a review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which will change the rules relating to disclosure of convictions and a review and clarification of the role of the parole board. It brings about a number of reforms which I believe are badly needed to ensure that Scotland's justice system retains its focus on prevention and rehabilitation while enhancing support for victims. With electronic monitoring we know that the key feature in this measure is risk assessment which is why we believe that it should only be used after a comprehensive assessment is made taking everything into account when it comes to public safety and this is why amendment 127 is so important. When it comes to compliance we shouldn't forget as the law society briefing reminds us that many of those subject to electronic monitoring will be amongst the most vulnerable in society whose chaotic lifestyles prevent compliance with provisions of such monitoring. It is therefore essential that the full remit of electronic monitoring is understood by those for whom this is an option and the consequences of non-compliance are made clear to them. In addition, the public must have confidence that their safety will not be compromised by this disposal and all efforts should be made to highlight the reasoning for this measure in terms of reducing re-offending and securing rehabilitation. Presiding officer, the committee have highlighted the requirement for adequate budgets to be put in place for criminal, social workers and services to support people who may be subject to such monitoring. Funding of such services many performed by excellent third sector agencies is crucial to the success of any extended role in electronic monitoring and the Scottish Government's commitment to rehabilitation of offenders. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's comments and reassurance in response to Mary Fee. A vital aspect is of course to keep people out of prison wherever possible. We know the damage that imprisonment does to women, families and, in particular, children. Nancy Lawkes of Families Outside says that electronic monitoring offers a valuable tool for reducing the use of imprisonment. Prison fractures families whereas with the right support in place electronic monitoring can keep families together thereby maintaining social supports and reducing the risk of further offending. We also know that short sentences do not work which is why the Government's presumption against short sentences policy is crucial. That is an important part of the reform jigsaw. The Scottish Government is also taking steps to bolster the law, creating a new offence of being unlawfully at large, which gives police more powers to apprehend prisoners who are escaping justice. The parole reforms aims to simplify and modernise process while placing the... Yes. Liam Kerr. I'm very grateful. Does the member not acknowledge that the unlawfully at large defence is actually quite restricted in so far as it only applies to certain categories? Rona Mackay. Well, it certainly applies to the most serious categories, which is what we're trying to address. I'm not actually sure what that intervention was meant to achieve. The parole reforms, the bill explicitly states that parole board will continue to act as an independent tribunal using professional expertise to ensure the safety of the public. Presiding officer, the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Scotland's justice system retains its focus on prevention and rehabilitation while enhancing support for victims. I believe that the management of offenders Scotland Bill puts these priorities in place and provides the road map to a fairer, safer justice system for the people of Scotland. Thank you. Maurice Corry, followed by James Kelly. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I too thank the clerks of the committee for their hard work and for the witnesses' evidence given to the committee as well. People in Scotland need to have the utmost confidence in their justice system. Our sentencing must be both credible and reliable. However, replacing more prison sentences with community sentences will not lead to the desired outcome that we all want, especially for victims of crime. Without adequate risk assessments or enabling a swift response to breaches of electronic monitoring, this public confidence is dangerously taken for granted. The management of offenders bill seeks to promote an expansion to community sentencing as well as forms to parole and the disclosure of convictions. Those reforms may be positive steps forward in the right direction. However, it is the expansion of electronic monitoring in relation to community sentences that stops the bill short from being truly effective. Of course, we have to strike the right balance, securing community safety while honouring the rights for offenders to be rehabilitated, but we are all surely agreed that when it concerns serious crime, the safety of our communities is paramount, just as calls for that. Therefore, does it really serve our local areas to expand on community sentencing? Expand on that, and we are widening the risk of re-offence. And offenders justly deserve a punishment that fits their crime. Yes, I will give it. Hamza Yousaf? I really—I do not say this lightly, but I find this contribution derisory, frankly. Would the member not accept that all the research points of the fact that community alternatives are much more effective in reducing re-offending? And if that is the case, does that not mean less victims of crime? And what he is doing is completely counterproductive to victims? Maurice Corry? Presiding Officer, I thank the cabinet secretary, but then we look to look at it that at the moment only one in three are never completed. Okay, other sentences? Well, some do, obviously, not the exact figures. Yeah. Excuse me, it's not a private conversation. Are you willing to have another intervention, Mr Corry? The fact— Excuse me, Hamza Yousaf? I thank Maurice Corry for taking another intervention, but by that logic does he not understand more people go back to prison in terms of after a short prison sentence, then for those who end up failing a community payback or, by his logic, short prison sentences should be abolished and therefore he should vote for that tomorrow. Maurice Corry? No, I don't agree with the cabinet secretary on that, because there are two different types of prisoners, as we say, that those who are very difficult to, shall we say, rehabilitate, and those actually have happened once and they are seeing the light, shall we say, all right, so we can see that. And I've seen that in my visits to several prisons in Scotland and the cabinet secretary, where people are trying to rehabilitate, we, even with imprisonment at the moment, but obviously we need to be very careful that we don't have one-size-fits-all, and that's the point I'm making, Presiding Officer, Mayor Caryl. But what this bill proposes, which we'll see, is an increase in the use of fines and community sentences and does not go far enough to ensure public safety. I will not deny that this bill puts forward some worthy proposals. For instance, part two of the bill, which focuses on the disclosure of convictions, is certainly a step in the right direction. It aims to reduce the length of time people must disclose convictions after serving their time. And currently, sentences must be disclosed when applying for new work or further education under the timetable set for the 1974 Disclosure Act. Of course, disclosing these spent sentences for a long period can negatively hamper opportunities to move on from past offences. And for reform defenders, this change would allow them to move forward. It would encourage them to reintegrate and contribute to society. And I do not question this part of the bill. However, I do question the purpose of this bill to hand out more community sentences that may ultimately fail to be impactful. For example, we know that a third, as I said earlier on, of community sentences are not completed and indeed the completion rate of community payback orders has remained virtually untrained for the last three years. With that in mind, I am not convinced that this bill will enable a just outcome. And of course, it is right to explore alternatives to prison, a blanket prison punishment for every person and every crime would not be right. But these alternatives are only effective when they are appropriate and allow proper justice for victims. Perhaps it would be more worthwhile to focus on improving electronic monitoring and making it as effective as it can be. For instance, police officers should be given greater powers to respond more quickly to breaches of electronic monitoring. And moreover, if risk assessments were permitted to include greater victim information for justice social workers, that would allow for more insightful and appropriate decisions to be made on a firm basis. And I refer to my comment to the cabinet secretary in relation to different types of prisoners that we have. And for me, the main concern is this bill's lack of uniform response to removing an electronic tag. And indeed, an offender can cut off or tamper with an electronic tag, yet this bill fails to make it an automatic criminal offence to do so. And this can have catastrophic results, as we saw, which Royby mentioned, with the murder of Craig McClellan by James Wright. Although cases such as this have rightly informed amendments to this bill, this example has also confronted us with the risk in encouraging community sentencing expansion. And I recognise that breaching sexual offence or sexual harm prevention orders is rightfully seen as an offence. Yet a breach of other types of orders, including drug treatment and testing, restriction of liberty community payback orders still do not mount to offence. And surely every community order and licence condition should stipulate that removing a tag is an immediate criminal offence. As victim support Scotland has highlighted, and has already been highlighted by my colleague Liam Kerr, to keep victims safe, we must respond strongly and clearly to any breaches of electronic monitoring. This is the only way to be truly effective for our communities and for our victims. And to conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, as I said in this chamber before, the bill seeks to reform offenders, but in doing so it overlooks the needs of victims. Those victims deserve a fair and just outcome, one that places the community safety at the very forefront in their daily lives. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. As an on-member of the Justice Committee, I just start by paying tribute to the committee for the due consideration of the bill and well aware of how much work has gone into it. And you can tell by how members are speaking today how seriously they have taken that job. I think that there are two main strands to the bill before us today. It is a consideration of public safety in relation to the people being released on tags and the associated electronic monitoring and also the important issue of rehabilitation. I think that in terms of public safety, it is important that the public have confidence and they can have confidence in relation to some of the elements of part one of the bill which discusses the extension of electronic monitoring. I think that there has been some big steps forward in technology in recent years, particularly in relation to GPS. And that allows those that have been released under electronic tag to be properly monitored to ensure that their tag remains in place and that the chances of them breaching that are minimised. I think that it is also important that there is proper multi-agency work to back this up. And I think in regards to that there are some budget issues that do need to be addressed. I think that third sector organisations need proper budget support as do the funding of electronic monitoring. I think that it is disappointing that the amendments in the name of Neil Bibby were not passed in relation to the tragic case of Craig McClelland. I want to pay tribute to Neil Bibby for the way he brought forward those amendments not only today but throughout the process of the bill. It seems to me looking at it logically if someone commits a murder in the prison system or the care system and there is therefore a fatal accident inquiry it would seem to me logical that someone who is on an electronic tag and commits a murder there should also be a fatal accident inquiry. And I think that that would have been better been placed on the face of the bill. I think that there are key issues as Mary Fee and John Finnie have spoken about in relation to rehabilitation in order to reduce re-offending and reduce the pressure on prisons. Sadly, too many prisoners when they leave prison they are released out on to the street and they don't have adequate support. Groups like the wise group carry out a lot of really important work and I think that's what we should be doing more to support. As other speakers have said for people to go back out into the community they need stability in their life so they need support around housing not be put in a situation where they might be homeless they need access to a GP to deal with health issues and support to try and get into employment. All those three factors would give important stability which would hopefully help those not get into a situation of re-offending and returning to prison. I think the issues just briefly the issues around the parole board are important. As we go forward it's important that there's a sufficient level of expertise in the parole board the measures on the bill partly address that and I know there are other issues to consider going forward. In summing up, Deputy Presiding Officer Scottish Labour will obviously support the bill in the vote here at stage 3 but I think it's important that there's proper follow-through work in terms of funding a multi-agency work and supporting key activity around stability for prisoners to reduce re-offending to make the objectives of the bill a success. And the last of the open debate contributions is from Jenny Gilruth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd also like to thank the Justice Committee clerks our witnesses and my fellow MSPs for all their work and helping to get us to stage 3 today. This legislation is of course part of a bigger jigsaw in terms of Scotland's justice reforms and as section 4 of the policy memorandum makes clear the management of offender Scotland bill brings forward a number of reforms designed to deliver on the Scottish Government's commitment to continue to transform the way in which Scotland deals with offenders. That is a careful balancing act for any Government between protecting victims and ensuring the need for the justice system to focus on rehabilitation and prevention. One of the key measures in this legislation as we've heard is the introduction of GPS technology to improve the use of electronic monitoring. Last section 6 of the policy memorandum states that the expansion of electronic monitoring supports the broader community justice policies of preventing and reducing re-offending by increasing the options available to manage and monitor offenders in the community and to further protect public safety. As Scottish Women's Aids told the committee electronic monitoring and particularly the use of GPS technologies may help to ensure that perpetrators of domestic abuse serving sentences in the community released on bail or on home detention curfew. Adhere to the terms and restrictions imposed thereby improving protection of women, children and young people who have experienced domestic abuse. Nonetheless, Scottish Women's Aids said where keen to highlight that GPS does not detect all forms of domestic abuse and legislated for by this Parliament just last year. That can include manipulation by text message for example or social media communication. Electronic monitoring is therefore clearly not for all offenders and the national strategy for community justice makes clear that alternatives to prison will not be appropriate for some people. Part 2 of today's… Yes, I will. Liam Kerr As she thinks that the member is making important points there, she also agrees with Scottish Women's Aid that we need much harder sanctions if someone cuts off their tag to make sure that those exact scenarios that she has outlined can hopefully be prevented. Jenny Gilruth I thank Liam Kerr for that intervention. We have heard from Liam Kerr similar points being made throughout today's amendments. I am not necessarily sure I was convinced on either point. Scottish Women's Aid also made points with regard to the fear that women might see, for example, if the offender was out on a tag and they were able to see the offender moving around. It could actually increase their anxiety. There are a number of different things that we have taken into consideration throughout the deliberations on the committee that we are now at stage 3. We have considered so I would like to now move on and make a wee bit of progress, but I take his point. Part 2 of today's legislation considers a fundamental reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Its focus is on ensuring that there is a balance between the rights of people, not to disclose previous offending behaviour and the need for general public protection. As NACRO told the Justice Committee in their written submission, criminal record disclosure is one of the main barriers that people with criminal records face when trying to secure employment. Our experience indicates that this is largely due to employer perceptions and misunderstandings, often based on false assumptions around perceived risks to an organisation's security and harm prevention. As well as a belief that people with criminal records lack personal attributes such as honesty and reliability. Expanding the use of electronic monitoring where appropriate should also be considered in terms of Scotland's imprisonment rate, as John Finlay alluded to in his contribution. As Sarah Armstrong from the Centre for Crime and Justice Research told the Justice Committee just a couple of weeks ago, if Scotland were a US state, we would be on a par with Texas or Louisiana in terms of how many people we lock up. Dr Armstrong describes Scotland as a paradox of a country, so committed to social welfare investment and yet still making such huge use of an incredibly expensive resource as prison. Now Liam Kerr spoke about costs in his contribution and I actually do want to talk about costs here. Dr Hannah Graham has pointed out that the average cost per prisoner place is £35,325 per year. In contrast, the average unit cost of a community payback order is £1,771 and electronic monitoring or tagging as it is known costs just £965 per year, a fraction of the cost of imprisonment for a country with quite shamefully one of the highest prison rates in Western Europe. Notwithstanding, investing in alternatives to prison shouldn't just be about costs, as Liam Kerr implied. We must measure the impact of what dispensations Sherrys has at their disposal and indeed, as Mr Kerr's colleague David Goll, the UK Justice Secretary, recently said, we need to move to a more imaginative approach to crime and punishment with a focus on rehabilitation in the community. So we must ensure that there are a range of different and robust alternatives to incarceration which allow the justice system to interpret rather the cycle of criminality without consistently relying on prison as a fallback option. And Presiding Officer, I know to sound well over time so I'll conclude there. Thank you. Now move to the closing speeches and I do have a little bit of time in hand. So Mr John Snacken, I'll allow you up to six minutes if you wish. Why thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been something of a marathon and I'd just like to acknowledge the bill team sitting at the back who I think in particular have had quite a long process. But I think it has been necessary given the circumstances. But can I begin in my concluding remarks talking about the benefits of the bill because I think that there are key benefits and I believe James Kelly in many ways set out those quite importantly. New technology brings with it new possibilities of doing things more effectively and indeed providing new possibilities in terms of monitoring individuals. The fact that we can't currently use GPS for electronic tagging I think speaks to the need for this bill and likewise while we took evidence in committee from Karen McCluskey and others about the possibilities of electronic tags which can monitor alcohol levels or other substances in the bloodstream I think it's clear the benefits that over the very old fashion radio tags that we're currently used. I think this does I think provide for more effective orders and I think more effective monitoring of those that we choose to release from prison but likewise I think provisions around disclosure I think are important I think we need to ensure that we make it easier for people to reintegrate in society, not harder. Likewise I think that the modest changes to the parole board are welcome by not being overly prescriptive about those who do it and indeed I truly welcome the addition of the test that has been included at stage 3. I think it's really important that our justice system is transparent. If people don't understand how our justice system works then how do we expect them to trust it? By having an explicit and published test or a set of tests I believe that we can ensure that we have the level of transparency that we need in parole because after all it is an incredibly difficult and important decision that we're entrusting them to do. But ultimately I think as we consider how we vote this evening we do need to consider the circumstances around Craig McClellan's murder. They were tragic and I think they showed deficiencies in the regime as it stood at the time. I also, and I conceded in stage 1, I think it possibly showed deficiencies in the evidence that the committee took. I'm not sure we asked the questions about what happens when people breach. Are there sufficient powers as they stood? I think those were questions which were asked subsequent to those events and they were the right questions. And indeed, I believe that the implementation of a new offence helps in place the robust measures that are required so that when someone breaches that we can apprehend them. And likewise, the guidance on risk I think improves matters in terms of the risk assessment that simply wasn't robust enough in the words of the prison inspector. And likewise, I think that the future risk management work that's been promised by the cabinet secretary along with the risk management authority will indeed enhance that. That's not to say that it's not without its shortcomings. I regret that we did not pass amendments around fatal accident inquiries. I think the point that Neil Bibby made, in particular, this is essentially the same principle but applied to a slightly different context. If it's right that we investigate the failures that have occurred when a death occurs in custody, when a death occurs while someone is released on tag, I think that we need to ask the same questions, the questions that can really only be asked in a fatal accident inquiry. Likewise, I believe that the remains work to be done around interagency working. The most major deficiencies in regard to Craig McClellan's case was the information being passed from between SPS and the police. We need to do an awful lot more work to make sure that simply cannot happen again. The fact that some of the issues raised were down to simple things like the police not communicating what email addresses they were using, I find astonishing and, quite simply, I think that we need to bottom out why that happened. Finally, I do think that we should have made an offence to cut off a tag. This is the means by which we are monitoring people and for good reason. I think that that simple act of them tampering or removing that means of monitoring them is very serious and should automatically allow the police to apprehend them in and of itself. However, I would caution my colleagues across the chamber on the Conservative benches. I agree with Liam McArthur on what he said to Liam Kerr. I think that there is a degree of dog, not just a degree, a substantial amount of dog whistle politics going on. Fundamentally, this bill does not increase the scope of community justice provisions. There are no new sentences or disposals created by this bill. Indeed, the arguments that they make this afternoon may well apply to the presumption against short sentences. There is an argument to be had, one that I would disagree with, but an argument to be had, but the place for it is then not here. By making it here, you are deliberately misconstruing and deliberately misrepresenting the provisions of the bill. That is dangerously irresponsible. I would just say that it flies in the face of both evidence and, indeed, what their colleagues in the UK Parliament and UK Government are saying themselves. Can I make one simple suggestion to my Conservative colleagues? Can they go take a walk with Rory? Ultimately, though, I think that this is something of a missed opportunity. While the provisions, I think, are useful, I think that this bill more properly should have been looking at what happens when we release prisoners from prison. How do we make sure that their reintroduction to society is more successful? What do they need in order for that to happen? I think that Mary Fee was actually writing in her opening remarks. My amendments at both stage 2 and stage 3 around GPs, proof of ID, address, housing, and what I recognise that they may not have been as well-developed as they need to be. However, those are the things that we need to examine in future legislation. That is the missed opportunity with this bill. The possibility of looking more holistically about how we can make sure that people who were released from prison are successful, success judged by the fact that they no longer re-offend success, judged by the fact that they have meaningful and gainful employment success, judged by the fact that they are not released into homelessness. I would say to the cabinet secretary in the future that we need more debates and that it is incumbent on the Government to make time for the debates to discuss the big issues about what the purpose of the justice system is, the purpose of prison and how we make sure that people are successful when they are released from prison, not unsuccessful. That would be my plea in closing this debate for Labour to the cabinet secretary in this debate. Thank you. I now call Margaret Mitchell. Around six minutes please, Ms Mitchell. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank all the witnesses who gave evidence and I thank the justice clerks and members for all their hard work on this bill. But I too consider this to be an opportunity lost in that the management of offender for very different reasons for those expressed by Daniel Johnson makes references to offender in the title. And this has meant it's not possible to expand the use of electronic monitoring to include interim disposals such as Bail that are made before a person has been convicted on an offence. So tragically, remand prisoners who are the one group of individuals within the criminal justice system who would most need and who should have benefited from the expansion of electronic monitoring cannot be included. If this bill had been about the extension of electronic monitoring to include remand prisoners it would have had cross-party support and would have been passed unanimously this evening. The cabinet secretary may not be prepared to acknowledge this fact today but the amendments which he tried to lodge at stage 2 and which had to be ruled in admissible because this bill is about post-conviction confirm that sadly this is the case. Instead the bill is in three parts. Part 2 reduces the length of time people have to disclose convictions after serving them. It also extends the range of sentences that can become spent and as such this part had the support of the entire committee. Part 3 makes reforms to the parole board for Scotland and seeks to remove the requirement for the parole board to include a High Court judge and a psychiatrist. There was some considerable debate about this provision. In particular it seems bizarre in the extreme that after the committee had concluded its stage 1 report the Scottish Government lodged a wide-ranging consultation on parole. However it is part 1 which covers electronic monitor and expand monitoring and expands and streamlines the use of electronic monitoring which contains by far the most worrying and contentious provisions in this area where the committee is divided. In particular the provisions will make it possible to replace some jail sentences according to the former cabinet secretary of justice. Electronic monitoring could be used for individuals who are being considered for a short-term prison sentence and this could and probably will include those convicted of domestic abuse. Various stage 3 amendments have therefore sought to address the breach of electronic monitoring obligations. In terms of response times to breaches Victim Support Scotland said it takes too long for someone to be found in breach. The amendment I lodged at stage 2 and then again at stage 3 today calling for an immediate or an as soon as possible response by Police Scotland sought to provide that effective response crucially where deemed necessary. Is disappointing this did not pass today. Robust risk assessments are crucial. Home dissension curfus allow prisoners to spend up to a quarter of their sentence in the community winning an electronic tab. The curfus condition requires criminals to remain at a particular place for a set period each day. However, James Wright was able to breach his home detention curfus conditions and to stab father of three Craig Maclellan to death despite being unlawfully at large for almost six months. The Scottish Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have all called for an independent inquiry into Craig Maclellan's death and Neil Biddy did so very effectively again today with his amendment. For without this no one can be totally confident that the solutions proposed will be adequate. And it is regrettable therefore that the Scottish Government has refused a full independent inquiry. Finally, Presiding Officer, the wise group has stressed unless the extension of electronic monitoring is sufficiently resourced then offenders are being set up to fail. In response, the Justice Committee called on the Scottish Government to provide adequate budgets and said that electronic monitoring should only be used after a comprehensive assessment of risk, particularly for those individuals who would otherwise have been incarcerated. Presiding Officer, as neither of those conditions have been adequately fulfilled, the Scottish Conservatives will be voting against the management of offender Scotland bill this evening. I now call on the cabinet secretary to conclude the debate. If you could take us up to decision time, please, Mr Anderson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank members across the chamber for their contributions to the debate, at least most of them. I would like to extend my thanks to all those who have been a part of scrutinising and shaping the bill during its passage through Parliament. I would also like to thank the Scottish Government's bill team and their wider colleagues in the Scottish Government for all their working in drafting the bill. They have been an excellent bill team that I have worked with a couple of cabinet secretaries to get this bill into good shape as it is today. I can also put on record my thanks to the cabinet secretary to my predecessor, Michael Matheson, for all the hard work that he did on the bill at its introductions. Can I turn to the contributions that have been made? I was not planning to spend much time on the Conservative contributions, but I cannot let their, frankly, naked opportunism go at all for the Conservatives for such often intelligent people to have made such asinine remarks during their closing speeches. I find derisery and I find incredible. Liam McArthur called it dog whistle politics. He is right in that. He called it grandstanding politics. He is right in that. But I have to say that opposition is as predictable as it is, frankly, tiresome, because we know that it is just playing to their gallery. We know the pattern. I would bet my mortgage on it that there will be a press release from Liam Kerr and the Conservatives tonight or tomorrow littered with the phrase soft justice. This will be picked up by his friends and the Daily Mail, the Daily Express. He will play to his gallery but not successfully because the majority of Scots do feel safe. I say to Liam Kerr and to the Conservatives but particularly to Liam Kerr I have a great amount of time for him but he is losing and is losing credibility quickly on this issue. The research, the data demonstrates clearly that progressive justice reforms like the ones that we are proposing today and the ones that we will vote on tomorrow are going to reduce re-offending. That means less victims in crime. In fact, whenever progressive reforms are brought to this chamber Liam Kerr and the Conservatives fail time and time again. They present a false picture Presiding Officer that there is a binary choice to be made between victims versus those that have committed crime. That is simply not the case. It is very possible to be on the side of victims just as we are just as every member of this chamber is but also want to improve the chances and rehabilitation chances of those who have committed crimes. It is not a binary choice that I will. Liam Kerr I am grateful to the cabinet secretary so is it his position that a proper risk assessment tool and sanctions for cutting off a tag is merely dog whistle politics on a binary choice? I think he has used several policy positions and he has used several hooks to do what he was always going to do when this bill was introduced which was vote against it. He was always going to vote against this bill because it simply did not play to the gallery that he wishes to play to. And it just does not diminish it doesn't just diminish the Conservatives to present this false choice between victims versus the rehabilitation of those who commit crimes. It is frankly an insult to all of his colleagues across this chamber who believe that if we improve the chances of rehabilitation for offenders then we reduce re-offending and as a result we have less victims of crime. Let me just take some of the points that were made. Maurice Corry said that of course he couldn't support the bill because of the rates of CPO completion. And he talked about imprisonment as an alternative. The reconviction rates in fact of those in short sentences are really twice as high as those who are given a community payback order. That is simply an argument for further community alternatives not to back more punitive short prison sentences. So I am disappointed but I am not surprised at the dog whistle as Liam McArthur called the dog whistle politics of the Conservatives. And I would say and make that plea as Daniel Johnson did to the Conservatives that perhaps you should take a walk with Rory as he described that you should speak to your Government colleagues down in the UK Government like David Glock somebody I have a lot of time for. Many others that have looked towards Scotland and said that there are much that they can learn from our policies in terms of rehabilitation of those who commit crimes. As for other contributions that have been made across this chamber can I thank Mary Fee for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech in contribution too? I want to give her those reassurances the questions that she asks of the Government in terms of further spend on community alternatives. That is we have stepped up to that challenge in the spending review. What I would say to Mary Fee if I can throw back a challenge come the next spending review that would be helpful of labour came with proposals to the cabinet secretary of finance to say yep, this is where we want to see some of that money spent. Let's enter into a productive dialogue in that regard. An excellent speech by John Finnie. I thought Rona Mackay, Jenny Gilruth also. Daniel Johnson may be a special mention. I see he's gone all fresco since he's left the front bench. His tie is off. He looks more relaxed. But as always, regardless of whether he's at the front bench or the back bench, he made a very considered speech an excellent speech actually. And one that I think the Conservatives and others outside of here would do well to listen to. And I take his point about the Government having to reflect on the fact that we can potentially bring forward further debates around other issues that affect prisoners for example, support to housing support to GP services and indeed other through care support. So once again, a presenting officer, just to end on, I'm very proud to be moving this motion in my name, this bill at stage 3. I think it's part of a wider package of progressive justice reforms that we have brought forward as a Government. And at the heart of those reforms is that we have the absolute belief that people are capable of change. We believe that those that have committed crimes can transform their lives, can be productive members of society, can contribute back to society and can change their lives for the better. And this bill is one part of that suite of measures. We will vote tomorrow on the presumption against short sentences of 12 months. It's a suite of measures that we will bring forward that says, yes, we are on the side absolutely of victims and we will continue to improve their justice journey in the criminal justice system and throughout the criminal justice system. But hand in hand with that goes the belief that people can change and that rehabilitation and the belief in rehabilitation is absolutely paramount. And with that I'm delighted to move the motion of my name and commend this bill to the Parliament. Thank you. That concludes our stage 3 debate on the management of a Fender Scotland Bill. And before we turn to decision time, our next item of business is the election of a member for appointment to the Scottish Parliamentary corporate body. I've received one valid nomination for appointment. The nomination is Rhoda Grant. So I'm going to put the question to the chamber. The question is that Rhoda Grant be selected for appointment to the Scottish Parliament corporate body and members should press their yes, no or abstain buttons now. They voted yes 108. There were no votes against. There were no abstentions. So Rhoda Grant Rhoda Grant is duly selected for appointment to the SPCB and I congratulate Rhoda Grant on her appointment. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business at decision time. The question is that motion 17893 in the name of Humzae Yousaf on the management of a Fender Scotland Bill be agreed and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 17893 in the name of Humzae Yousaf is yes 82, no 26. There were no abstentions. The motion is agreed and the management of a Fender Scotland Bill is passed. Thank you. That concludes the decision time. We are going to move on to members' business shortly in the name of Gil Paterson on health issues raised by aircraft noise. We will just take a few moments for ministers and members to change seats.