Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Okay. I was going to come on to your point about the statutory requirement for them to be involved. However, I make the more general and broader point that they see a role for themselves in planning for release and the general consultation around that.

The amendments relate to the sharing of information about victims with third party organisations. If I understand Katy Clark’s amendments 45, 47 and 48 correctly, they would remove the ability of a supporter of a victim to be given the information in certain circumstances.

I agree with Katy Clark, but I believe that there is perhaps a different way of achieving that goal, through my amendments 102 to 104, which would ensure that information is still available to those who want it but, crucially, when there is the consent and support of victims. It leaves open what could be a useful channel of communication.

I note that the victim support organisations have made representations to committee members and are quite critical of some of the cabinet secretary’s amendments in this group. Those organisations oppose six of those amendments and they are asking for one of them not to be moved and, if one were to proceed, for it to be subject to substantial revision.

I think that my amendments would be a better solution than the one that is proposed in Katy Clark’s amendments, but I am happy to hear more, because there might be something that is not obvious to me.

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.