���˿���

That is my understanding. We should bear in mind that short-term prisoners are in prison for up to four years, so they include people who are serving sentences for some pretty significant crimes such as crimes involving violence and sexual violence. If, following release by virtue of a Parole Board process, they reoffend, they would be required to serve the rest of their sentence.

Potentially, yes.

Quite a lot of points have been raised on the amendment, and I will try to cover them all. First, I note that the cabinet secretary acknowledges that evidence was taken on the matter at the consultation stage. Indeed, there was a significant amount of evidence in support of ending automatic early release. However, the issue did not make it into the final bill.

Fulton MacGregor made the fair point that we have not heard a great deal of evidence on the issue, and, as the cabinet secretary said, there could be consequences—not least financial ones, but others, too—for the Scottish Prison Service and others. However, Jamie Greene was correct to say that the Parole Board is a demand-led service. The Government made the commitment eight years ago, so if, by virtue of my raising the issue here, the matter is put back on the agenda and gives us food for thought, lodging amendment 70 was probably worth while.

On Pauline McNeill’s point about parity, it is slightly academic, but there would be, in effect, the same system for long-term and short-term prisoners; the system would not differentiate between them. There are short-term prisoners who are extremely dangerous, who know that they will automatically get out halfway through their sentence—whether that is after six months, a year or whatever—and who go on to commit serious crimes. Amendment 70 would provide a mechanism for identifying those individuals and preventing that from happening.

With all that said, I am minded not to press amendment 70, for all the reasons that have been given. However, it might be worth revisiting the issue in some way at stage 3.

Amendment 70, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 71 moved—[Russell Findlay].

I absolutely agree with what Jamie Greene said.

There are a couple of other small points to make. The victim notification scheme was mentioned—we know that it is not working and that the review has been pretty harsh in its assessment, but I do not think that the bill offers as a substitute—certainly not given the way in which the scheme is not working just now—a robust mechanism to ensure that victims’ voices are properly heard. I look forward to bringing my amendment back in a better and more competent shape.

I am also slightly mindful of a more general approach that I am hearing more about, whereby there is almost a justification not to inform victims because to do so can cause them further distress. I think that that view is at odds with reality—it is not in itself a reason not to keep people informed, and I have not heard victim support organisations talking about that as an issue.

To recap, I look forward to having a rethink and, I hope, working together to find a way to bring my amendment back in better shape.

I seek to withdraw it.

Amendment 95, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 39, 96 to 98, 40 and 99 not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 41 not moved.

I understand the reasoning, and I understand that the drug deaths task force backed the suggestion of ending Friday release, but we still lack knowledge about the possible ramifications of this. On that basis, I press amendment 68.

I understand that distinction, cabinet secretary. You have explained it in your response, which is why I am minded, at this stage, not to move my amendment. You have already expressed a willingness to work with members to find a way forward on that.

How does the cabinet secretary respond to the concerns that victim support organisations have expressed about her amendments?

My three amendments in this group—68, 69 and 71—relate to the days on which prisoners can be released, although amendment 71, which I will come to last, serves a slightly different purpose to amendments 68 and 69.

The practice of limiting release days already exists by virtue of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which prevents release on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays. The bill seeks further limits, and it does so by amending the 1993 act. The bill would also prevent release on Fridays and on the days before public holidays.

However, what is perhaps not obvious from the bill is that Thursdays will, in effect, also become non-release days, although there will be exceptions to that. If a prisoner’s release date happens to fall on a Friday, they will instead be released on a Thursday. However, if a prisoner’s release date is a Thursday, they will not be released on that day.

I do not recall hearing any evidence about ending Thursday release, although the committee did hear concerns about ending Friday release. The Scottish Police Federation, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland and the Wise Group would all rather see improved support services. Whatever your views about ending Friday release, it seems slightly unambitious, albeit understandable. Less ambitious still, and harder to understand, would be to end Thursday release. We are almost just accepting a part-time support service.

Witnesses told us that the key is to have proper support in place in relation to medication, housing and benefits, and not necessarily to reduce the number of release days. I suspect that ending Thursday release would require the Scottish Prison Service to make significant changes to how it works. It would put potential burdens on support services, whether that is criminal justice social work or people at the Wise Group. Narrowing release dates would in effect put additional pressure on a struggling system. Even if the motives behind it are well meaning, it would surely increase the likelihood of prisoners not being supported and would therefore increase the risk of their reoffending. If so, that might ultimately lead to a risk to public safety, which is why amendment 68, in particular, is so important. I will be interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to that.

Amendment 69 is consequential to amendment 68 so needs no further explanation.

Finally, amendment 71 should be considered separately from amendments 68 and 69, even if they are not successful. Essentially, amendment 71 is about scrutiny and transparency. It would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of proposed new limits to prisoner release days, whatever they might end up being. Given the far-reaching nature of what the bill seeks to do and the misgivings that we have heard in evidence, some of which I have touched on, I cannot see why the Government would oppose amendment 71.

Section 9 relates to the planning for a prisoner’s release. I have four amendments in the group—95, 96, 97 and 98—which seek to ensure that victims’ voices are heard, their rights are respected and their wellbeing is paramount. I am sure that we can all agree with those aims.

The bill as drafted defines a release plan as a plan to prepare a prisoner for release and to facilitate their reintegration into the community. The bill requires local authorities, health boards, Police Scotland, Skills Development Scotland and integration joint boards to engage in that process.

However, we say that victims should also have an input. Amendment 95 would therefore require victim support services to contribute to the process. I was pleased to receive an email last night in which victims’ rights groups expressed their strong support of amendment 95 and other amendments in this group. For the record, those groups are Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and ASSIST. I hope that the cabinet secretary agrees with them, and I am keen to hear her response.

Amendment 98, which is consequential to amendment 95, defines victim support services as they are currently defined in statute.

Amendment 39 from Katy Clark is similar in effect to my amendment 95. It would require the bodies that are involved in developing a release plan to consider the role that victims organisations have in the release plans. Although it is not exactly the same as my amendment, it would have a similar effect, so I will support it if it is pressed.

I turn to amendments 96 and 97. Release plans in section 9 of the bill apply to relevant individuals. By “relevant individual”, the bill means a prisoner, whether they have been sentenced or are on remand. I want not only victim support services to be consulted in the development of release plans, as per amendment 95, but there to be a release plan for victims, which is what amendment 97 would achieve. That would ensure that their interests were at the heart of release plan considerations. A release plan will not solve every issue, but it will make it clear what a victim can expect when an offender is released.

Amendment 96 is a consequential amendment to ensure that release plans can be properly applied to victims without needing measures that would apply only to offenders.

Katy Clark’s amendment 40 states that, within one year of section 9 coming into force, ministers would be required to publish guidance and standards that are applicable to release plans and that a public consultation should also be carried out. My colleague Jamie Greene will speak to his amendment 99, which is similar to Katy Clark’s amendment. However, he has been more generous to the Government, allowing it three years rather than one year in which to take those steps.

Amendment 41, in the name of Katy Clark, would require the Scottish Government to review release planning for women. Specifically, the review must consider caring responsibilities, health issues and offending history. That reporting requirement would allow for more information to be made public on release plans so that we can observe how they will work in practice, and I am therefore happy to support that, too.

I move amendment 95.