���˿���

Amendments 4 and 5 have been lodged following meetings with my constituent Linda McDonald, who, since her own personal experience, has campaigned to ensure that dangerous prisoners are not released without sufficient monitoring.

For context, amendment 4 relates to the multi-agency public protection arrangements—better known as MAPPA—that were established by the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Act 2005. The 2005 act imposes a duty on responsible authorities in a local authority area jointly to establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks that are posed by certain categories of offenders—for example, sex offenders who are subject to notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

A few months ago, Linda McDonald contacted me, in my capacity as a member of the committee, to discuss her petition to drive change in the parole system to prevent dangerous prisoners from being released without sufficient monitoring.

Returning to the draft legislation that we are discussing, amendment 4 aims to ensure that level 3 MAPPA prisoners are monitored in the same way as other sex offenders, with regular check-ins with police and justice social workers. It would require ministers to review and report on the impact of part 2 of the bill on MAPPA. The report would, in particular, include consideration of whether changes were required to national guidance on how MAPPA offenders are monitored after release from custody and on ensuring a consistent approach across Scotland.

Amendment 5 would ensure greater scrutiny and analysis of the extent to which the operation of the bill will impact on resources. It would ensure that the reforms that are proposed are implementable.

I move amendment 4.

I will speak to amendment 72 and the consequential amendments in my name, which seek to remove subsections (1) and (2) of proposed section 3AB, relating to further powers to release long-term prisoners.

Although the committee has considered some evidence on those provisions, I think that it is fair to say that other aspects of the bill have received greater scrutiny. We want to have a far better understanding of what the implications of the provisions would be if they were passed.

Victims organisations, particularly Victim Support Scotland, and other organisations have expressed numerous concerns about the implications of those provisions. It is unclear why the Scottish Government feels that they are necessary, and I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary and the explanation as to why the Scottish Government has included the proposals.

I look forward to having sight of the Government’s amendment on the safety of victims, because many of the concerns that are being expressed relate to victims. Amendment 75, in the name of Jamie Greene, reflects some of the concerns, which it attempts to address.

My amendments would remove the provisions that would, in essence, permit the Scottish ministers to release long-term prisoners at a point 180 days before the prisoner’s parole qualifying date, provided that the Parole Board had not recommended that the prisoner be released on licence.

My amendments are not only probing amendments; I have lodged them on the basis that the Government’s amendments overreach.

I will listen carefully to what the cabinet secretary has to say in response to my comments. I am interested in hearing what engagement there has been with Victim Support Scotland and other organisations that are expressing detailed concerns about the implications of the legislation and what attempts have been made to ensure that the genuine concerns that are being raised are addressed. This might be an issue that we come back to at a later stage.

I do not intend to press the amendment, but I am interested in exploring the issues further as the bill progresses. I want to get a better understanding of why the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government believe that section 5 is necessary, particularly given everything that the cabinet secretary has said this morning, and whether the court already has the ability to take into account time spent on electronic monitoring. I will not press the amendment today, but we need to scrutinise the issue further, and the sentiments that I have expressed today will guide our position on the issue. It is fair to say that the committee was not completely clear on where section 5 has come from. If the cabinet secretary could give more information on that as the bill progresses, that would be appreciated.

Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 8 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Section 6—Prisoners not to be released on certain days of the week

I will seek to withdraw amendment 4. However, I intend to come back to the issue at stage 3 and will look carefully at what the cabinet secretary said about the drafting of the amendment. Indeed, I would be happy to work with others to ensure that the wording is as acceptable as possible to as many members as possible who are willing to support it.

On amendment 5, I look forward to seeing what the cabinet secretary comes back with and, depending on that, I might bring the matter back at stage 3.

Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.

Before section 12

Amendment 5 not moved.

Sections 12 to 15 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

I lodged amendment 38 after working with Victim Support Scotland and other victims organisations, which are concerned about the implications of section 8. I have looked in detail at that section’s wording, and it is fair to say that the concerns are about its being widely drafted; about the fact that some detail will be in regulations, so we do not know what further detail the Government will provide; and about the lack of certainty over the definition of an emergency.

I am sympathetic to the approach that Jamie Greene has outlined in amendment 93. The power in section 8 will be permanent, so, over time, it could be used in a number of situations, including scenarios that we do not currently envisage. The provision therefore needs to be tightly defined. I am sympathetic to what the cabinet secretary has said about the extreme circumstances in which it might be necessary to take such action, but, if Parliament is to pass the bill, those circumstances must be tightly defined.

It is not my intention to push any of my amendments to a vote at this stage. However, they raise important issues in relation to the involvement of victims, which we have already discussed, and of victims organisations and the resource challenges that the justice system faces, which are unlikely to be impacted by anything in the legislation that is being proposed by the Scottish Government.

On amendment 44, as I understand it, the evidence that the committee has received indicates that the type of activities that are available to people who are on remand is greatly restricted compared with those available to convicted prisoners. It might be that the Scottish Prison Service’s practice is changing over time. It would be useful to get more information about that before the next stage of the bill.

As I said, I do not plan to press any of my amendments at this stage.

Amendment 42, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 14 to 18 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendment 43 not moved.

Amendments 19 and 20 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to.

Amendments 3 and 44 not moved.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 45 is a technical amendment that was agreed with Victim Support Scotland. Section 11 suggests that a victim support organisation that is acting as a supporter can, of its own volition and without the victim’s specific consent, ask for information under that section. Amendment 45 would require specific consent.

Victims organisations do not believe that it is appropriate that the bill should proceed as drafted, as they believe that it would undermine victims’ agency, override victims’ autonomy and consent and undermine their trust in professionals if they were aware that information could be provided without specific consent, and that it would make victims less willing to engage in the future.

Amendment 45 would ensure that a victim support organisation can obtain the relevant information only if given express permission to do so by the victim or, in certain circumstances, on the victim’s behalf or on behalf of the organisation.

Amendment 46, which is a consequential amendment, was also agreed with Victim Support Scotland. It refers to the section allowing victim support organisations to obtain information around the victim’s right to make representations when a prisoner is being considered for release on licence. The view is that the wording of the section as drafted is problematic and raises similar issues to those raised in relation to amendment 45. The suggestion is that one way of dealing with that would be to remove that wording from the bill.

Amendment 48, again, was discussed and agreed with Victim Support Scotland. It stipulates that there must be victims’ consent to each stage—for example, victims’ consent in relation to information-sharing provisions. It replicates the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 regarding the information-sharing provisions. The approach that is outlined is the approach that is being asked for by organisations that work with and represent victims. For that reason, I lodged amendment 48 to hear the cabinet secretary’s thinking on the issue and the Scottish Government’s response to the representations that have been made to members of the committee and, I suspect, to the Scottish Government.

I move amendment 45.

As Russell Findlay said, my amendment 39 is similar to amendment 95, in his name. Amendment 39 was informed, again, by conversations with Victim Support Scotland and other victims organisations. They confirm what I think that we all already know, which is that victims are not routinely consulted or involved in initiatives that are intended to address offending.

Proposed new section 34A(2) of the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 sets out a list of “persons” who must

“comply with a request by the Scottish Ministers to engage in the development, management and delivery of a release plan”

for a prisoner. Amendment 39 stipulates that the persons and organisations that are listed must have regard to victims and victims organisations and must explicitly ensure that they are involved and consulted at all stages of the development, management and delivery of a release plan.

My amendment 40 would require the Scottish Government to report within one year on how the release planning process is working and to carry out a consultation on the published guidance. I note that Jamie Greene’s alternative position is to allow a longer period of time for the Government to report. I am flexible with regard to the period of time that it is believed will be required.

Section 9 imposes a duty on the persons listed to engage in the development, management and delivery of a release plan if they are requested to do so by the minister. Amendment 40 is an attempt to ensure that the process that is set out is as effective and manageable as possible for the organisations involved, and that it leads to the right outcomes.

My amendment 41 follows on from the debate on women in custody that we had at last week’s meeting. It would require ministers to carry out a review of release planning for women in custody. A key motivation for the amendment is our knowledge of the experiences and profile of women in custody, as well as the lack of data in this area.

As we know, Scotland has one of the largest female prison populations in Europe, almost 40 per cent of whom have not been convicted. Many of those women are very vulnerable, a high proportion are mothers and carers, and many have suffered brain injuries as a result of repeated domestic abuse. Refocusing the use of remand in relation to women is a wider debate, but amendment 41 seeks to ensure that some of those special circumstances, and the profile of women offenders, are factored in at the release planning stage.

What is the cabinet secretary’s view on the current access to education, training and cultural experiences for those on remand compared with that for those who have been convicted? What is her understanding of how the Scottish prison system operates?

Amendment 6 follows on neatly from our discussion last week about amendment 67, which Collette Stevenson lodged. [Interruption.] I apologise—I need to clear my throat.

Amendment 6 would add on a provision to allow a court to take into account compliance with bail conditions, including electronic monitoring and curfew arrangements. It would enable the court to take into account compliance with such conditions when sentencing, so that the sentence was either reduced or increased. I believe that courts already do that; the amendment would simplify codify a practice that already takes place, when the court takes into account all the circumstances in considering the appropriate sentence in the situation.

I was sympathetic to Collette Stevenson’s amendment 67, to remove section 5, which concerns consideration of the time that has been spent under electronic monitoring. I am very aware that electronic monitoring is imposed only when an accused poses a real risk. Electronic monitoring is used to avoid remand; it has never been considered to be a punishment or a sentence.

Amendment 6 takes a better approach than amendment 67 proposed, because it would give the court more discretion. In reality, the court already takes account of such issues—for example, if an accused person had not complied with curfew arrangements, had attempted to approach the complainer or had not complied with electronic monitoring requirements, the court would take that into account when considering what the appropriate sentence for the individual was. When an individual has complied with requirements from the court, the court often bears that in mind when considering sentencing. Amendment 6 would give the court more discretion to take into account all the circumstances.

I move amendment 6.