Seòmar agus comataidhean

As the cabinet secretary says, the policy intent is to increase support for those leaving custody. However, given the lack of evidence that we have heard about the specific issue of Thursday becoming mostly a non-release day, with the exceptions that we have touched on, it seems quite a big step. We are effectively going to have—

Yes.

Yes, but we do not know anything about the number of people who are released on Friday, do we? We have not heard any evidence as to the proportion who are typically released on a Friday and who would now be released on a Thursday. Do you have those numbers to hand?

Amendment 70 seeks to change the way that short-term prisoners are released in Scotland. Currently, every single prisoner who is sentenced to less than four years is automatically released halfway through their prison sentence, with no questions asked. Regardless of how badly they might have behaved or the severity of their offence, they are guaranteed not to serve their full sentence—they will serve half of it at best.

In 2015, the First Minister at the time, Nicola Sturgeon, committed to abolishing automatic early release, stating:

“Our objective remains to end the policy of automatic early release completely as soon as we are able to.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2015; c 19.]

We are eight years on and that has still not happened, with the law having been changed only in relation to long-term offenders.

Previously, long-term offenders—those serving a sentence of four years or more—were automatically released after serving two thirds of their sentence. However, a long-term prisoner can now be released only if they have served half their sentence and, crucially, have been directed for release by the Parole Board for Scotland.

My amendment would replicate the terminology that is used for releasing long-term offenders for short-term offenders—those sentenced to less than four years. Specifically, it states that short-term offenders may be released from prison only once the Parole Board directs their release and after they have served at least half their sentence.

I could cite a number of cases in which people who have been automatically released have gone on to commit serious crimes, including murder. It is not unreasonable to surmise that some of those people would have been deemed unsafe for automatic early release and, therefore, members of the public might well have been protected. It is ultimately about public safety. I hope that the committee and the cabinet secretary agree.

I move amendment 70.

Yes. I was going to refer to that in summing up, so it might be better if I address that then.

The point was that Alan Geddes died because the state failed that particular prisoner. The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland’s report is absolutely damning, and Sandra Geddes deserves great credit for campaigning so effectively, having lost her brother in such horrific circumstances, and for working alongside Douglas Lumsden to get to this point. It is very welcome that the Scottish Government is showing a willingness to find some form of way forward, so I thank the member for that.

They would be representative of victims. They would be able to—

I note the cabinet secretary’s acknowledgement that the views of victim support organisations and, indeed, of victims are crucial—except when they are not.

The issue appears to be that the cabinet secretary cannot see what role victim support organisations “would play”. That phrase was stated on more than one occasion. However, victim support organisations see my amendments as valid and they see—

I will try not to go over the same ground that others have covered. If the Scottish Government wants to fundamentally change sentencing such that electronic monitoring on remand counts towards a discount on a future prison sentence, that needs to be done as a stand-alone piece of work. It should not be snuck into this bill, which is about bail and remand. Jamie Greene’s amendment to the motion for yesterday’s Scottish Government justice debate pre-empted this discussion. He raised the subject because it is such an important and fundamental issue.

Bail conditions are commonplace. People might not welcome being subject to bail conditions, but it is a readily understood factor of the justice system that, although people are innocent until proven guilty, they might be subject to particular conditions pending the outcome of proceedings, whereas sentencing is a fundamentally different thing, which is the point that Victim Support Scotland made very strongly in representations to the committee.

When we questioned him about this, the previous cabinet secretary told the committee that such bail conditions are a diminution of rights. He seemed to be arguing that the direction of travel should be that sentencing should reflect that limitation on people’s rights. However, that position needs to be properly explained and properly evidenced, which is what is lacking.

Will the minister take an intervention?