Will we move to Group 6, which is time spent on Electronically Monitored BALE? I call amendment 24 in the name of Jamie Greene, grouped with amendments 25 and 2. Jamie Greene to move amendment 24, and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me just get my bearings. Group 6 is a section of the bill that is around time spent on electronically monitored bill, which, for most folk, is commonly known as the issue of electronic tagging, as a condition of bail. As drafted at the moment, section 5 would require judges to consider the period of time that an offender has spent on electronically monitored bail when passing a custodial sentence. The bill before us states that if the court is passing a sentence of imprisonment, then time spent on electronically monitored bail will be somehow equitable by a prescribed formula for the purposes of sentencing. In other words, this may lead to a reduction in an offender's sentence if they have spent time on electronic monitoring, and that sentence is backdated accordingly to include that time spent. I know that they are just coming back from their tea break, so they will be full of sugar and rowdy. I do hope that they will listen to what we have to say. It is quite an important part of the bill. I have a couple of points to make about this, which I hope we can reflect on. My colleague and I have taken two, as he will spot from the amendments, quite different approaches to how we resolve this issue. The first is about the policy context of the Government's proposal, perhaps even the legal context. That is what the point of electronically tagged bail is. It is commonly perceived to be a condition of bail. Indeed, a judge or a sheriff may use it as a tool to avoid remanding someone into custody by releasing them on bail with a condition such as electronic monitoring. Someone who has been bailed in this manner has not yet been convicted of any crime. They are, by all intents and purposes, an accused person. A sentence, however, is the custodial punishment given after someone has been convicted of a crime. The two are not the same. The second point that I want to make about this proposal is more of a moral one rather than a technical one. I think that this proposal, because it goes as far as to dictate the formula by which judges should use in this scenario, the Government is proposing that two days spent on electronically monitored tagging will somehow equate to one day spent in prison in custody. I would argue that time spent in your house or at work or outside with friends or in the shops with an electronic tag on is in no way the same or equal to prison time. The formula mandates how much time judges must take off on offender's sentence if they are going to prison. It is not clear entirely to the committee where this idea A came from, B where the formula came from and whether it was cooked up in research by academics or policy advisers to the Government. It is entirely unclear, but it is the moral argument which is an important one because for the complainant in these scenarios or indeed the victim, time spent worrying that the offender is out there if an electronic tag is in no way equal to the scenario where they know that that person is in custody behind bars. The third point that I want to make is that I have no idea what this element has to do with this bill whatsoever. This is a bill and release bill, not a sentencing bill, and for me that is separate legislation. My comments and my views do not stand alone on this. There have been a number of concerns raised to the committee and to members, and that was reiterated in the briefing that we got just ahead of today's debate. Three organisations, Victim Support Scotland, Assist and Scotland's Women's Aid, were very explicit and clear about this section of the bill and this proposal. They said that we do not believe that any time spent on electronic monitoring should count as time served. It could not be more simple. The sentence received for a serious crime, including domestic abuse, sexual violence or rape, should consider the severity of the crime, victim safety and victim protection, rather than time spent subject to electronic monitoring. It has been suggested that time spent on bail with EM could be interpreted as being somehow more limiting to the accused, but this is an artificial and inaccurate construction. Kate Wallace from VSS went further. She said that a custodial sentence is completely different from electronic monitoring at home, so we continue to disagree on that. Scottish Women's Aid was equally damming of this proposal. Electronic monitoring is only partial inconvenience to the movements of the accused, which it is, and is not in any way comparable to time spent on remand and should not be treated any differently from any other form of bail, which goes to my first technical point. At stage 2, the issue came up—the cabinet secretary will know—an amendment was brought forward by Collette Stevenson, perhaps after conversation with some of the victims' organisations and, as is the prerogative of any backbencher to do so. I was disappointed that she chose not to push those amendments, perhaps under pressure from the Government benches, when they were handed to her perhaps in good faith by those victims' organisations. I did, however, push those amendments at stage 2, and they were rejected again on a four-four split, which I think is quite telling. I do not blame members for bringing those amendments forward. Indeed, I am sure that they were heartfelt. What I have decided to do is that, if the Government insists on maintaining this bizarre proposal in this legislation, then I have two amendments to try and resolve it. Amendment 24 is clear that, when passing the sentence, rather than the court must take into account the bail period, including that period of electronic monitoring, it changes the word must to me. Again, it is a simple change, but it gives that discretion that, if in the judge's eyes, in that scenario, he feels it appropriate to take into account the time to spend electronic monitoring, he may do so when passing the sentence. However, it is not a must, it is not an absolute. The second amendment 25 removes the formula. Again, the bizarre formula that two days spent electronically is tied equates to one day in prison, which it does not. I think that everyone knows that, and there has been no evidence given to support that formula whatsoever. My amendments take two different approaches. My colleague has a third and perhaps a different way, and he will speak to that accordingly. Importantly, though, the committee felt overwhelmingly strong about that as well. The stage 1 report made a very specific recommendation to the Government, and I am not convinced that the Government has responded to that recommendation. We said that it is our view that sheriffs and judges are best placed to determine the extent to which time spent on electronic monitoring should be deducted from the length of custodial sentences. We were clear that the formula does not work and is not appropriate. That was a cross-party consensus on the committee. There was no division on that recommendation, number 228. 229 said that we were content that, if the bill does allow for time spent to be taken into account, if the court so decides, it may be a helpful change. No such change was forthcoming, and no Government amendment was forthcoming, which is why I have had to bring one forward. We were very clear that it is an important principle that the courts are to be given a degree of discretion to determine such matters themselves and should not be prescribed on the face of primary legislation the way that the Government has done. I look forward to hearing what the Government has to say about this issue, but I really think that they are going to struggle to defend this one. I have got one amendment number 2 in this group, and it is a small number, but a big amendment, as it completely removes section 5 from the bill. To reiterate what my colleague Jamie Greene has just said, the bill, as drafted, would allow judges to deduct time off a prison sentence based on time spent on bail while wearing an electronic tag. The bill states that two days' subject to electronic monitoring is equivalent to one day behind bars. That cannot be right as a point of principle. As Jamie Greene has said, bail is not a punishment. The subject to bail is not yet convicted, and the bill is entirely about bail and release, and it is not about sentencing. I believe that those proposals could have unintended consequences that could be far reaching. I would like to refer to an FOI request covering the period from May 2022 to March 2023, which I think could be useful for members. At that time, 638 accused criminals in Scotland were subject to electronically monitored bail. They spent an average of 120 days under those bail conditions, so using the proposed two-for-one formula set out in the bill, that means that they could each expect to have 60 days or two months deducted from an eventual prison sentence. I incredibly admit that those calculations are somewhat rudimentary. That equates to a combined reduction of 112 years less jail time. I believe that that would risk undermining public faith and justice, and it would add to an existing perception of a gulf between sentencing spin and the reality. I believe that it would also be a gift to career criminals and their creative lawyers. Surely, an offender with an electronic tag would be further incentivised to postpone their trial if every single delay that they chalk up would result in less prison time. I think that that risks fueling court churn and making the court backlogs even worse than they already are. The outcome of that would be further misery and uncertainty for victims and other witnesses. You have already heard from Jamie Greene about amendments 24 and 25, which seek to improve or address those issues. I agree with his solutions and we are working as a team, but I see his amendments as a plan B. I think that the better solution and the more efficient approach would be to scrap section 5 in its entirety. Members should note that victim support Scotland supports the amendment. I know that Jamie Greene touched on that as well, and that an SNP member of the criminal justice committee proposed a similar amendment at stage 2. She cited, I quote, huge concerns only to drop her own amendment, which we supported at stage 2. If the Government is serious about this two-for-one deal for prisoners, it must go away and produce properly researched and a coherent argument for it, not this back-of-a-pack approach. I appreciate that this is one of the areas where there is a stark difference of opinion between victim support organisations and most others who have engaged with this bill over the past year or so. As social work Scotland stated during committee scrutiny, electronic monitoring is, I quote, punitive, restrictive and intrusive. It is therefore, and I pick that quote up again, right that the court considers this when imposing a prison sentence. I know that Kate Wallace and others, as Jamie Greene has already mentioned, others who oppose taking this electronic monitored bail time into consideration when sentencing are of the view that a custodial sentence is completely different to electronic monitoring at home. I agree. However, I am also of the view that it is different to bail without any form of monitoring or surveillance. I believe that putting someone on bail and subjecting them to electronic monitoring is a not insignificant curtailment of their rights, their right to freedom of movement, their right not to be monitored by the state to name just two. Electronic monitoring is a restriction of liberty. Our laws should recognise that and do so in a fair and consistent way. Section 5 of the bill seeks to provide a new power for the court to take into account any time that an accused person spends on a relevant electronically monitored curfew condition of bail and to treat it as time served in relation to any custodial sentence that passes. It does this by granting discretion. Discretion to the court to decide how much of a period subject to such a curfew condition should be taken into account. The court has complete discretion on this key question. It can be none of the period, some of the period or all of the period. Once the court has decided this key question, a formula is used to convert the period in a consistent and fair manner for the purposes of calculating the time served portion of a sentence. As members have said, every two days subject to a relevant curfew from the qualifying bail period becomes one day of time served should the court wish to implement that. Question from Mr Greene about where this comes from is based on a very similar formula operating in England and Wales. As I have explained, discretion is provided to the court to assess the circumstances of a specific case before it decides whether an accused person should have some, all or none of their bail period accounted for. That allows consideration of the conduct of an accused person while subject to the relevant curfew condition. Clearly, a person who did not comply with a relevant curfew is not likely to have any period accounted for in their custodial sentence. This is very much best left to the court to decide in any given case. The bill ensures that the court has the necessary and important discretion. The combined effect of amendment 24 and 25 would be to still provide the court with a statutory discretion to account for time spent on a relevant curfew condition but to do so in such a way that there would be no legal requirement for consistency across the country. That is because there would be no formula set out in statute for the court to use in converting a time period subject to a relevant curfew condition for the purposes of time served of a custodial sentence. It would lead to the potential for inconsistency in how the relevant time period is converted for time served purposes and it is not how the law in England and Wales approaches this area, which the proposals on the bill have been informed by. I would therefore ask Mr Greed not to press amendment 24 and 25 and, if he does, that members vote against him. Amendment 2, in the name of Russell Finlay, seeks to remove section 5 from the bill in its entirety. The principle of enabling time spent on electronically monitored curfew bill to be accounted for at sentencing was consulted on by the Scottish Government in 2021. It was in the bill at introduction and, of course, the Criminal Justice Committee have given it due scrutiny and consideration. It is worth noting that it was supported in the Criminal Justice Committee stage 1 report that said that allowing time spent on electronic monitoring to be taken into account at sentencing if the court decides is a helpful change, although I do acknowledge that there are different views among committee members, as we have heard today. Presiding Officer, while a person who is subject to electronically monitored bill with a curfew condition is not in the same position as someone in custody, such a measure does represent a restriction on their liberty. The bill therefore enables the court to take a licence of this if it chooses to do so in a proportionate way when a custodial sentence is imposed. As I have mentioned, this is a measure that brings Scotland into line with similar arrangements in England and Wales, and the committee report on balance reported favourably upon it. I therefore ask Mr Finlay not to press amendment 2, but, if he does, I would ask the chamber to vote against it. Jamie Greene, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 24. I thank members for participating in this short group, and I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments. I just wanted to sum up with a number of points, and it really reflects perhaps on the point that Maggie Chapman made about the correlation between being electronically monitored whilst on bail versus being in custody. The whole premise of the bill, which we discussed at great length earlier, was that the Government is trying to reduce the amount of people that are being remanded, and one of the tools in which that has proven over the past couple of years is the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail. In some ways, it is an incentive to keep people out of custody when they can be monitored in other ways. There are many other conditions of bail, as we know. It is not the same, though, as somebody who has been convicted of a crime. If someone has been given a custodial sentence, well, two things. One is that it is quite likely to be a serious crime given the presumption against short sentences, which would rule out any form of custodial sentence. Secondly, there is the aspect that I think many of the victim support organisations rightly raise is the fairness aspect. I propose the scenario in which someone is on bail. As we know, there are lengthy delays to trials. There is also the added element in which Russell Finlay rightly pointed out, which is the issue of court churn and, in many cases, delaying tactics used by an accused. It is feasible that somebody could spend a tremendous amount of time on bail under electronic monitoring, only to then be given a custodial sentence when that trial diet finally comes to court. The sentence is A, backdated, and B, according to its formula, is converted into a reduction as well. The two together could mean potentially, in a second, but the potential there is that somebody who could be given a custodial sentence, given the seriousness of the types offences that generally result in a custodial sentence, could effectively walk out of the court that day as a result of A, the delay in the trial, and B, the electronic monitoring formula. I think that victim support has got on a right to say that the two are not the same, and that there is a sense of unfairness and injustice in that, and it is that reason that I brought the amendments forward today. I am happy to give way. As I always said in my remarks, time on curfew electronic monitoring in the community is not the same as a custodial sentence, but I wonder if Mr Greene would accept that, in terms of the bill, there is no compulsion on the court to take time on electronic monitoring into consideration that the court has complete discretion in this matter, and may choose not to implement that. Jamie Greene In that case, perhaps the cabinet secretary would be happy to accept my amendment, which makes that abundantly clear. In section 5, where we say time spent on electronically monitored bail, after section 210 of the 1995 act, consideration of time spent on electronically monitored bail, when passing sentence, the court must have regard to the bail period and so on and so forth. It is all on page 4 of the bill. By changing the word must to me, it makes it abundantly clear that it could be a matter of discretion for judges, which, if that is the policy intention, is fine, but at the moment the must is what concerns me, which is why I brought the amendment forward. It is not entirely clear that the judges do have full discretion. If they had full discretion, surely they would be the ones who would decide how much time should be deducted from the sentence, not a prescribed formula on the face of primary legislation coming from politicians. I am not convinced that they have full discretion in the matter. In that sense, that is why my second amendment seeks to remove the formula stated because no evidence has been given to back it up. There is no equation that says that two days spent electronically monitored is in any way the same as a day spent in custody in anyone who has ever been in, so I had a prison to visit or to speak to. People will know that it is an entirely different environment and that those who are on bail, being electronically monitored, understand that there is a conditional bail, but that the two are in no way the same and they are certainly not a punishment. Any victim of crime who has experienced a serious offence will be quite astonished to think that somebody's sentence will be reduced as a result of wearing a tag. It has lost its sense of fairness and is that which I am trying to reintroduce into the legislation. For that reason, I move my amendment. Thank you. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 24 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 28, no, 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 25 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 24. Jamie Greene, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Pam Duncan-Glancy. My app would not refresh. I would have voted no. The result of the vote on amendment 25 in the name of Jamie Greene is yes, 28, no, 86. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 2 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 24. Russell Finlay, to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 2 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 28, no, 85. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move on to group 7, reports on bail and remand. I call amendment 26 in the name of Jamie Greene. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings, Jamie Greene to move, amendment 26 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'll only speak to my own amendments in this group in the interests of time. Amendment 26 relates to—well, this entire group relates to a new section of the bill that was added at stage 2, section 5A, by the cabinet secretary in response to many requests, members right across the board on additional reporting requirements on how this bill would affect the justice system. Essentially, section 5A requires Scottish ministers to produce a quite wide-ranging report on bail and remand in a number of statistics such as the remand population of prisons and the number of offences that people are convicted for and all that is set out in the bill at stage 2. Amendment 26 is a fairly simple one. It would require that Scottish ministers first of all consult with victims and or support organisations when producing this report. Consultation is helpful in addition to statistical analysis, because as part of that report, we will be recording the number of convictions for bail-related offences to be reported, including offences committed by individuals on bail. I think that because of that, behind those statistics of bail-related offences, generally are often the victims of the primary crime itself of which the bail condition is attached to and subsequent breach thereof. It is unclear to me how a report on the use of bail and remand as dictated by the rest of the bill could be properly informed without consulting with those victims of crime to whom the statistics relate, which is why I would ask members to support amendment 26. Amendment 26 is also supported by victims' organisations. Amendment 34 is technical consequential because it describes what is a victim support service. In another group, the cabinet secretary commented that that was used. The words victim support services were used in another amendment but were not defined, but they are defined in amendment 34. Perhaps not in the same section, but I did catch up eventually on that and it tries to go somewhere using appropriate language as recommended by drafters. Amendment 79, I think, as for a more overarching and a fundamental ask that I have of the Government, and that is the impact that the bill will have. So essentially, rather than just the statistical numbers, which reports often have, reports can also be qualitative and quantitative in its nature. I think that it is important that, whatever your views on the elements of the bill or the bill, the Government analyses how it has affected the remand population because, ultimately, that seems to be the main driver of the legislation. It is certainly part one. Importantly, it would require ministers to assess how many changes to the remand population has impacted victims, which is the second ask, and the experience of victims, which is something that we talk about often. Given some of the uncertainties of the outcomes that some of the other measures of the bill will have, it is entirely right to ask that the report that the Government does looks at what effect the remand population and changes to increases, decreases will have. In fact, I would go as far as saying that if we only learned two things in this report, it is one, what is the effect that the bill has had on the remand population, and, secondly, what effect has it had on the experiences of victims in our justice system. That, in itself, would be a good report and good information. That is why I have included this amendment. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will look upon it sympathetically and not see it as overly onerous. It does not go into any great detail to dictate how detailed or lent to that report must be, but I think that it would be useful information. Amendments 28 and 29 are two very specific metrics on the data side that I would like to see included in the report. Amendment 28 specifies the use of particular types of bill that should be recorded in the report that the ministers will publish. It specifically references the type of electronically monitored bill, which, as we just discussed, could be used to detect time from a future sentence. I think that that would be helpful information. Amendment 29 goes a little bit further on that and asks that ministers record the number of people who enter the prison population following a conviction for a bill-related offence, first of all, and, specifically, and secondly, having been accused of a further offence. The reason for that is quite a simple one. It is really important that, if the bill numbers do increase, I would like to know how many of those people end up back in the system as a direct result of a bill-related offence. That is helpful data for us to see whether the bill has produced good outcomes or otherwise. Equally, people who have been billed, perhaps as a result of changes to the test or others, who then go on to commit other types of offences, I think any collection of data that shows the nature of those offences as they come back into the system. We do know that there is a reoffending rate at how many of those are on bail or on release from previous convictions. More data is better than less, in my view, on that. I hope that members will look sympathetically on my asks and that the Government will not see them as difficulties. Indeed, if the Government seeks to reject those as they may do, I suspect that, in the cabinet secretary's comments, I would ask for at least a willingness to, when they produce the guidance around the report or even the structure of the report for civil servants, that they may consider what further information there may not necessarily be on the face of the bill here in black and white, but any other data that they think could be collectible that would be useful as we analyse or a future Parliament analyses the efficacy of this bill. Thank you, Mr Greene. I call Katie Clark to speak to amendment 76 and other amendments in the group. Ms Clark. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendments 76, 77 and 80 require the Scottish Government to give more information about women on remand. We know that Scotland has high numbers of women on remand, and that that is not because women in Scotland are more violent than in other countries that do not have as many women in custody. There has been concern over many years about the number of women in Scotland being sent to prison for non-violent offences. We also know that women prisoners are a significantly different demographic than male prisoners. A recent study showed that almost 80 per cent had suffered head injuries as a result of domestic abuse. We also know that many have caring responsibilities. Legislators need as much information as possible about women who are being refused bail to better scrutinise the justice system. Amendments 76, 77 and 80 are modified versions of amendments that I put down at stage 2, and I thank the Scottish Government for working with me on the wording of those amendments to ensure that the data asked for is data that is available. Amendments 78 and 81 are also similar to amendments that I put down at stage 2, and I ask the Scottish Government to report to this Parliament within three years on the health issues, including drug addiction issues of women being held on remand. Again, that is a less onerous requirement than those sought in the amendments that I put down at stage 2, and I hope that the Scottish Government will be able to agree to my amendment on this occasion. Amendment 82 is also a reporting requirement. It focuses on the alternatives of custody available to the courts in Scotland when considering bail application. For Scotland to reduce the number of prisoners we hold on remand, we need to develop more robust alternatives to custody, including a range of supervised bail options. I should say that this amendment is supported by COSLA and the amendment asks the Scottish Government to consult with local authorities and others and to report to this Parliament with three years of the work being done to develop further alternatives remand so that accused persons, wherever possible, can be kept in the community pending trial. That would include information on the resources that are being devoted to ensuring that there are adequate resourcing of services needed to ensure that bail conditions are complied with. We know at the moment that there is considerable criticism of the implementation, for example, of the tracking of electronic monitoring by victims' organisations. The report would focus on the resourcing of non-custodial alternatives to remand. In many other countries such as the Scandinavian countries, there is far greater use of alternatives to custody such as GPRS electronic monitoring and supervised bail, and we believe that there is considerable scope for that to be expanded in Scotland. I move the amendments in my name. I will speak to all amendments in this group starting with the amendment in my name, amendment 62. This is a technical amendment that amends the commencement provision of section 14 of the bill to account for the addition of the reporting requirement provision at section 5A of the bill. Amendments 26 and 34 by Jamie Greene are intended to place a duty on the Scottish ministers to consult with providers of victim support services when preparing the report on bail and remand under section 5A of the bill. I support the intention behind those amendments, however I consider them not necessary as I consider humbly my amendment 31 to make similar provision, as it did in group 3. As already explained, it provides that where the report includes information on the operation of the legislative changes made by part 1 of the bill, the Scottish ministers must consult with providers of victim services, as well as others, including Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts and Tribunial Service and local authorities, when preparing the report. I would ask the chamber to vote against amendments 26 and 34 and support my amendment 31 instead. I speak in support of amendments 76, 77 and 80 lodged by Katie Clark. I would, however, not be able to support amendments 78 and 81 for the reasons that I will explain. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that was welcomed by the committee, which added a new general reporting requirement following on the Scottish ministers in relation to bail and remand. Alongside my amendment, at stage 2, was an amendment from Ms Clark, which sought to add in specific elements relating to reporting on women on remand. We were not able to support that amendment as it contains certain requirements that would not be able to be included, as data simply does not exist, and it could not be readily connected. For example, detailed data on health conditions of women on remand, such as on mental health, is not data that is collected presently nor could it easily be collected. There would also potentially be privacy concerns, given the small overall numbers of women held on remand, as well as other possible challenges, given that some of this information would certainly be NHS information and would certainly require a new data collection. However, I would hope that some reassurance would be given to members, given the general power to add matters for consideration in the future, as required and as new information becomes available. Amendments 78 and 81 bring back those requirements with amendment 78, adding them into the general reporting requirement in section 5A of the bill, and amendment 81, separately, seeking to add them in a new section. Both amendments 78 and 81 seem essentially to do the same thing, and while I am sympathetic to the intent, I cannot agree to a legal duty to report on issues where I cannot be satisfied it will be possible for Scottish ministers to deliver on that requirement. It is for those reasons that I cannot support amendments 78 and 81. We did, however, accept the overall thrust of what Katie Clark was seeking to achieve at stage 2, which was to ensure that good achievable data is included, which helps to improve our understanding of why women are remandied, including details of their background and what happens after remand has ended. We are very pleased to support amendments 76, 77 and 88, on Katie Clark's name, which ensure that the report to be produced by the Scottish ministers does explicitly include certain information relating to women on remand, for example the age profile of the women. In addition, the general power, as I have already mentioned for ministers, to add in additional matters to the report that are not listed is strengthened by emphasising that gender-specific information can be added. I ask members to support amendments 76, 77 and 80 while asking members to oppose 78 and 81. Amendments 28 and 29 by Jamie Greene amend the reporting requirement by adding to the list of matters that the report must include. While amendments 28 and 29 are again well-intentioned, I am unable to support them as currently drafted as they have technical deficiencies, which would mean that the Scottish ministers may not be able to fulfil the reporting requirement. However, that does not mean that the data in those areas cannot be published, as the reporting requirement in the bill only specifies the minimum information that the report must include with the Scottish ministers retaining that general power to include any other information that the Scottish ministers consider appropriately. Specifically on amendment 28, I agree with Jamie Greene that it would be useful to publish data on the use of electronic monitoring of bail conditions. While the Scottish Government does not hold this information, we can work with the provider of electronic monitoring, G4S, in order to report in this area in line with the reporting duty that is already contained within the bill. Due to the manner in which data is collected, I understand that the report would require to be on the number of bail orders that contained a condition of electronic monitoring rather than the number of individuals subject to a condition of electronic monitoring. That is something that I commit to look into and it can be delivered without legislative provision being added to the reporting requirement. The second aspect of amendment 28 relates to the number of individuals released on bail with special conditions. Again, that is not data that is currently held by the Scottish Government and no corresponding amendment has been brought forward to provide for the recording and collection of that data. However, we will undertake to work with the Scottish Courts and Tribunial Service to better understand what data the courts hold in this area and how it could be reported upon for future publication. It is important to strike a balance between publishing more meaningful data on bail and remand while not unduly placing on the resurgence on the Scottish Courts and Tribunial Service and other justice agencies. For amendment 29, as there is no definitional provision within the amendment, it is assumed that the reference to prison population is referring to the number of individuals who enter custody having been sentenced to imprisonment or detention for a bail-related offence. I can advise that the published criminal proceedings data already provides a breakdown of sentencing outcomes for bail-related offences, including custodial sentences. The data is not a count of individuals, as the same person may be convicted of multiple offences, and each is counted separately in the data. The meaning of the second aspect of amendment 29 is not clear, although it appears to be seeking data on the number of individuals remandied into custody having been accused of committing a further offence whilst on bail. Essentially, the number of people accused of offences with a bail aggravation is attached. Again, as the data is principally held by the Scottish Courts and Tribunial Service, we will explore with them whether the Scottish Government has access to could be used to provide information in this area and, if so, make use of the general power of the Scottish ministers to add any additional information beyond which is specifically set out in section 5A. At this stage, without a guarantee of being able to provide the information, we cannot support amendment 29, but I hope that I have showed willingness in this area going forward. The Scottish Government will, of course, explore with justice agencies what data can be published in those areas as part of the general powers in the reporting requirement of part 1 of the bill within that context. For the specific reasons that I have outlined, I ask Jamie Greene not to press amendments 28 and 29, and, if he does, I ask members to vote against him. Jamie Greene's amendment 79 seeks to amend the reporting requirement of section 5A of the bill to introduce two new requirements for that report to include. Those requirements would be an analysis of the effects that the reforms that the bill makes to the legal framework on bail and remand have on the remand population and whether any changes to the remand population that result from that have had an impact on the experiences of victims. I can very much sympathise with the intention behind the amendment in an ideal world. The Parliament would want to know exactly how legislation that passes will directly impact on education outcomes, health outcomes and, indeed, justice outcomes. However, the fact is that the operation of the justice system is a complex mix of ever-changing variables, and it is not always possible to separate out those variables from the effect of specific legislation such as the bill. There are many factors that can affect the size of the remand population, for example the nature of offences committed, the number of offences committed, changes to the detection rates by the police, all of which can have an impact. Because of that, it is simply possible to isolate the impact of that legislation specifically, as distinct from other factors influencing the remand population to enable the Scottish ministers to report on it. By extension, it is also not going to be possible to identify the extent to which victims' experiences may be impacted as a result of the changes to the law in bail and remand, as distinct from other factors that may affect decisions on bail and remand in individual cases. However, I accept the point that there is a need to always gather qualitative information, as well as quantitative information. I therefore ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 79, but, if he does, I would ask the chamber to vote against it. Katie Clatch amendment 82 seeks to put in place a requirement for the Scottish ministers to report to Parliament on the resourcing of the implementation of bail conditions. I am not persuaded on this amendment or that it would be possible to assess specifically what resourcing is required to implement bail conditions. As it is unclear what is meant by implementation of conditions, the impact on resources will be difficult to measure. I assume that that perhaps means enforcement of bail conditions. The amendment also refers to bail conditions generally, rather than any specific type of condition. In every case where bail is granted, conditions are imposed as standard, so preparing a report of this nature would be a significant undertaking. I note that amendment 82 is focused in particular on the impact of implementing bail conditions on local authorities. Local authorities are, of course, involved in such schemes as bail supervision. However, enforcement of bail conditions is primarily a matter for Police Scotland. In that context, it is not clear how the Scottish ministers would assess whether the enforcement of bail conditions is adequately resourced, given that it forms part of the general responsibilities for Police Scotland in day-to-day general policing activity. As such, it is just not a requirement that the Scottish ministers would realistically be able to meet in that context. I would ask members not to support amendment 82. I thank the chamber further for being on a lengthy speaking note. I thank the cabinet secretary for her extremely comprehensive response, which is duly noted and all the matter of public record. I would like to pay tribute to Audrey Nicholl, who was the only person who had her eyes up throughout most of that. It was a bit like being at the bingo hall. Everyone had their eyes down this afternoon. I appreciate that it is not the most exciting group reporting requirements, but they always appear in every bill. We all know that. I did feel that there was an opportunity for members across the board to ask for more from the Government. I have heard that there have been a number of commitments made, again all matter of public record, but I am sure that future MSPs and prospective portfolio holders will hold the Government to account on those. I think that there is a wider issue, which is that around data in general. One of the things that we really struggled with as a committee was using data to inform decision making and scrutiny. The cabinet secretary said earlier that she is a big fan of evidence-led policy. There is an opportunity to ensure that whatever the outcomes of the bill are, that we use evidence, particularly in amendment 79, in which we want to know what the impact the specific bill has on the remand population and on the experience of victims and the justice system, because that is what really lies at the heart of it. If it can be achieved in any other way, that is perfectly fine by me. The general will be pleased to know that I will not be moving any of the amendments in group 7. I please confirm with Mr Greene that he is seeking to withdraw amendment 26. I note that Jamie Greene seeks to withdraw amendment 26. Does any member object? No member objects. Amendment 26 is therefore withdrawn. I call amendment 76, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 26. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 77, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 26. Katie Clark, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. No, the question is not the question. I call amendment 78, in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 26. Katie Clark, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not all agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Point of order, Alasdair Allan. I said no, the system failed. Okay, that vote will be recorded. Point of order, Angus Robertson. No, Presiding Officer. And the system failed. The system wasn't working. Thank you. That vote will be recorded. Point of order, Siobhan Brown. Could we have Siobhan Brown's microphone, please? Thank you. Sorry, the system wasn't working, I would have voted no. Thank you, Ms Brown. Your vote will be recorded. Point of order, Cabinet Secretary. I know that the system would not allow me to vote if it did, I would have voted no. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Your vote will be recorded. Point of order, Sharon Dowey. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Dowey. Your vote will be recorded. Point of order, Jeremy Balfour. Apologies, Presiding Officer. The system wouldn't load. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment number 78 in the name of Katie Clark is yes, 48, no, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 27, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 73. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 28, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 26. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. The question is that amendment 29, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 26. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 79, in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 26. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. Also not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 30, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 73, cabinet secretary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 80 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 26. Katie Clark, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 31 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 73. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 32 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 73. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 33 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 73.omi cospo ti, credu iawn iddyn nhw nawr mwy. 3. Are we all agreed? detecting 4. I call amendment 34 in the name of Jamie Greene already debated with amendment 26 Jamie Greene to move or not move not moved not moved I call amendment 35 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated with the amendment 73 cabinet secretary to move or not moved thank you the question is is that amendment 35 be agreed to amdeithie sydd yn gy semb popul ring organisation leader�esawn hou. Varyal forthetyd iawn i lle ddechrau nhw, cymlaenfa ni ddoedd yn gwyllus. Emwy yan drworf, maa welf chargesawn rhan drafoe, mwyall sg gost, sydd animeg dweud yn estim bod e prettiergy vér oes fod yn gwyllusol agrw cloakjol yn gweithio'r bydd lodge rwy'i sydd yn gyrsau sydd yn gweithio'r bydd canviad yma y gwirionedd yn gwyllusol That moves us on to group 8 on release on certain days of the week. I call amendment 10, in the name of Russell Findlay. I grouped amendments 11 and 12 to meet all amendments in the group. I move amendment 10, which is one of three amendments in this group. 11 and 12 are substantial, while 10 is a consequential to 11. Now the bill as drafted seeks to extend the days on which prisoners cannot be released. This provision is already the case that prisoners cannot be released on Saturdays, Sundays and in public holidays, and the bill as drafted would also prevent release on Fridays. The reasoning is that prisoners released in these days often do not have the support they need whether they are relating to housing, benefits or healthcare. This can and indeed has resulted in serious issues including re-offending and overdoses. Now various criminal justice organisations, not least the Scottish Police Federation, have concerns about this proposal, but what members may not realise is that the bill also seeks to effectively end Thursday releases. I say effectively, because there is an exception to this. Thursday releases will only be allowed if the scheduled release date happens to fall on one of the non-release days already identified. The bill will effectively concentrate almost all releases into just three days of the week, Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Now this is presumably well-intentioned, but it risks putting greater pressure on the prison service and others, including criminal justice social workers. It is worth quoting from the stage 1 report, which was agreed to by all members of the criminal justice committee, that this, I quote, may result in significant practical challenges and additional resources required. This is where amendment 12 comes in. This would empower prison governors. It would allow them to release a prisoner on any day of the week that they see fit, where they consider it to be appropriate. My party believes that governors should be trusted and they should be trusted to use their knowledge and experience to exercise judgment and discretion. A blanket ban on release days is clumsy and ill-judged, given the risks of the unintended consequences, some of which I have already touched on. I now turn to amendment 11. If members choose to reject amendment 12, then amendment 11 gives prison governors the option of ordering a Thursday release. Agreeing to amendment 11 would at least go some way to mitigating the potential damage by increasing the proposed three standard release days to four. Section 6 of the bill seeks to end scheduled liberations on a Friday and the day before a public holiday, adding those days to the existing list of days when release from prison cannot take place. That currently includes weekends and public holidays. This is to enable more people to access the community-based services that they need immediately on release, services such as housing, mental health and addiction support, and contact with justice social work. Those are services that will keep them and others safe. In adding Fridays and the day before public holidays to the existing list of accepted days, it is clear that more releases will take place on a Thursday. That would place increased pressure on both community-based services and the prison service on that one day of the week and would risk undermining the intent of the provision. That is why section 6 of the bill also provides that individuals whose release day ordinarily falls on a Thursday will have their release date moved to the nearest proceeding suitable date. In most instances, yes. I wonder if the cabinet secretary accepts that by reducing the number of days yet further is only going to increase the pressure. The point that I wish to explain to Mr Finlay is that releases would take place not on three days of the week but on four days of the week. The bill recognises that, if you are displacing people who would have been released on a Friday to a Thursday, you need to spread the load from those who would have been released on a Thursday to a Friday. The statistics that I have received from the Scottish Prison Service show that releases on Mondays and Tuesdays tend to have a lower number than Thursdays and Fridays. That is about spreading the load over four days of the week to ensure that people can access the services that will keep them and others safe. In most instances, for those who would be due to be released on a Thursday, as I said, they would be released on the Wednesday the day before. Mr Finlay's amendments 11 and 12 seek to alter that provision by including the ability of the of a prison governor to override that restriction. In the case of the list of accepted days, the governor, if Mr Finlay's amendments accepted, could override the restriction if he considered that release of the prisoner is necessary in the interests of public safety. I assume the intention is to address situations where there might be a public safety concern around bringing the release forward in order to avoid accepted day, but it is not clear in the drafting or the legal effect of the amendment. In the case of a scheduled release on a Thursday, the power would apply where the governor considers it appropriate. Even putting aside the technical difficulties with the amendment in order to make that assessment, governors would have to have access. They would have to assess every release scheduled to take place on an accepted day or on a Thursday. That is a significant ask. It also cuts across the intent of the provision, which, as I have explained, is to support access to the services that people need to keep them safe, of course. That is a point that the committee spent a lot of time looking at. I think that it is important for the benefit of others and the chamber to recognise that the reason that we are having to curtail the days in which people can be released is the lack of provision of public services even on working days, especially on a Friday. It is a failure of other public services that we are having to take this resort. It is not necessarily a benefit to those being released. It is in fact detrimental in some ways. We should have access to proper public services for those being released, particularly those with specific addiction problems, mental health issues and other healthcare problems, to try to reduce re-offending in that vicious circle. Would the cabinet secretary accept that we would not have to be doing this if other public services were meeting the demand that is asked of them? I would, in part, accept that without more flexibility of provision in public services that has indeed informed considerations, but it is not the sole consideration here. I would also like to remind the chamber that this was a key recommendation from the Drug Death Task Force. South of the Border has also moved in this direction, too, to end Friday liberations. As I said earlier to the chamber, if you end in Friday liberations, you need to give a prudent practical consideration to the rest of the week. There is strong stakeholder support for that provision, but, as I said, I would accept that matters could be improved if there was more flexibility in opening out of our services. However, we also have to acknowledge, with the best will in the world, that not all services that someone requires on release will indeed be open 24-7. For a broad range of reasons, that is a prudent way forward. It is difficult to see how releasing someone on a day when access to services are limited for a variety of reasons, whether that is a Saturday or a Sunday. It is difficult to see how that would be in the interests of public safety. That is one of the reasons why I am questioning Mr Finlay's proposition for the governor to be able to exercise discretion in this area. Further more, adding more complexity and uncertainty to the release process, could make it more difficult to make effective plans for a prisoner's release. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 11 or 12 or the associated technical amendment 10, and I would ask Mr Finlay not to press them. I now call on Russell Finlay to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 10. I do struggle to follow the logic. It seems that by ending Friday releases, for the reasons given, then effectively Thursday releases are off the table too. The cabinet secretary referred to SPS statistics, which she is privy to, about release dates and the numbers of prisoners. I can only say I wish, as a committee, that we had access to this data during our considerations, because this is a recurring theme, like with some of the other earlier amendments, in which, if information has been forthcoming, if the Government and its agencies are frank and willing to share information and data, then we are in a much better place to produce amendments that are competent and able to withstand some Government scrutiny. I will. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and my thanks to Mr Finlay for giving me. Let me just put on the record now some of the information that I was referring to. In any year, we will see almost 15,000 liberations per annum. In the year 22-23, there were over 4,000 liberations on a Friday, but there were 2,613 liberations on a Thursday. If I can be clear with Mr Finlay again that those whose liberation falls on a Thursday, that in most cases they would be released on a Wednesday, and once again assure him that the Scottish Prison Service is utilising its opportunity to release prisoners on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and a Thursday, and not three days a week. It's great that the cabinet secretary has that data, and it goes back to the point that I was trying to make, which is that we didn't have that data. I think that going back to the point about the days of the week, if you follow that to its logical conclusion, you'll end up with one day of the week. Mondays will be the only release day, and everyone will end up getting released on the same day. That does not make sense. In fact, the cabinet secretary still has not addressed the point that was made by her colleagues and colleagues from across the chamber on the criminal justice committee in the stage 1 report. As Jamie Greene has said, the provision in the bill to reduce the days of the week has arrived at through failure of the Government to properly fund the services that need to support prisoners. The cabinet secretary also talked about services not being available 24-7, but I really don't think that it's too much to ask for the services to work 9-05. For all those reasons, I think that we intend to push these, and I would ask members to give proper consideration to supporting these amendments. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Finlay. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 10 in the name of Russell Finlay is, yes, 27, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 11 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 10, Russell Finlay, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The system didn't work. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Gibson. Your vote will be recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 11 in the name of Russell Finlay is, yes, 27, no, 84. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 12 in the name of Russell Finlay, already debated with amendment 10, Russell Finlay, to move or not move. We now turn to group 9, release of short-term prisoners, and I call amendment 83 in the name of Russell Finlay, in a group on its own. I call Russell Finlay to move and speak to amendment 83. I have a single amendment in this group, which is number 83, in which I move. As before, this is about building public trust and confidence by striving to improve sentencing and transparency. In 2015, Nicola Sturgeon stated, and I quote, Our objective remains to end the policy of automatic early release completely as soon as we are able to. So eight years later, automatic early release remains in place for criminal sentence to four years or less. Every single prisoner set free early, regardless of how badly they have behaved in prison or what risk they might pose to the public. Amendment 83 can finally put this right. It would mean that the release of an offender sentenced to four years or less must be approved by either the parole board or the relevant prison governor. There are frequent examples of those automatically released early, going on to commit heinous crimes. Martin Stewart is a serial criminal who was jailed for two years for robbing an elderly woman. He was released after serving just eight months, yet two days later he was back on the streets and back targeting the elderly, in this case disguising himself as a postman to do so. He then killed a 79-year-old woman in her own home in Edinburgh. Now, if a prison governor or the parole board were able to conduct an assessment on whether prisoners are fit to be released, perhaps we might prevent some of these crimes. These professionals are surely best placed to make these critical assessments. The principle behind this amendment is that prisoners should have to demonstrate improved behaviour and that they are safe to be released. At stage 2, my version of this amendment only gave the parole board the power to do this, however, due to the risk of overloading the board, I have widened my amendment so that prison governors have that power too. This, I think, would help to share the burden. Crucially, this amendment allows sentences imposed by sheriffs and judges to be served in full unless an offender can prove that they have improved their behaviour and are fit for release. This, I believe, is common sense and I hope that all members agree with me and, indeed, with Nicola Sturgeon. Thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Automatic early release has been part of our justice system for 30 years. Ending it would be a significant change to that system, but ending it in this way would be quite concerning in terms of process. It was not subject to specific consultation nor was it a focus of the bill's consultation or scrutiny. It was not discussed at all in committee, apart from when a similar amendment was submitted by Russell Findlay at stage 2. I do not consider this to be an appropriate way to legislate and would urge colleagues to vote against this amendment if pressed. I appreciate that people have very strong views about automatic early release. Amendment 8.3 would end automatic early release for short-term prisoners. It would require release of all short-term prisoners to be recommended by the parole board or by the prison governor. However, Mr Findlay's amendment does not specify which cases the parole board would be the decision makers and in which cases would fall to the prison governor. The amendment is largely the same as the amendment that Mr Findlay lodged at stage 2. Of course, the issue was briefly debated at committee then, although not in nearly as much detail as a change of this magnitude would require. That was a matter recognised by most members of the committee. Members of the committee expressed concerns about the change of nature at stage 2. As a result, at that point, Mr Findlay did not press it to the vote. Ending automatic early release for short-term prisoners would be a significant change to the justice system with associated substantial costs. It is important that I make chamber aware of that. The level of change requires careful and detailed consultation and consideration. I would contend that it should not be made on the basis of a short debate in a committee at stage 2, nor today at stage 3 of a bill when it has not been subject to any scrutiny or consultation. I would also again highlight that Scotland is not alone in having a system of automatic early release. It also operates in England and Wales and other jurisdictions in one form or another. As I said at stage 2, I am not dismissing the point raised by Mr Findlay. This amendment raises wider and important questions of who and what prison is for and about sentencing more generally. However, as I said during that debate, if a change were to be made, then those points should be discussed in more detail and with more context. Ending automatic early release would have significant consequences for the operation of the justice and prison system. I do not think that we should be deciding on such a fundamental shift in justice policy and practice without proper and full consideration of the consequences. That would include consultation with expert stakeholders, as well as victims. I am interested in why Mr Findlay thinks that it is appropriate to make such a radical change without that detailed consultation. The amendment could lead to higher prison population by substantially increasing the proportion of their sentence that short-term prisoners served. As an illustration, if short-term prisoners served an average of five six of their sentence rather than one half, then the population could be expected to rise by almost fourteen hundred. That, of course, has financial implications. The estimated cost of a prison place is at 42,000 per annum, so this unfunded amendment could lead to additional costs of around £59 million, along with potentially significant capital costs associated with expanding the prison estate to address the increase in population. The amendment also creates risks, as with Mr Findlay's amendment at stage 2. While amendment 83 would result in short-term prisoners being released on licence, it makes no provision for how that is to work in practice. It makes no provision for what would happen where a released short-term prisoner to breach a condition of their licence. What would happen in that instance? That needs to be thought through if it is a serious proposition by the member. Under Mr Findlay's amendment, there is no mechanism for Scottish ministers to take any action to address that. As there is for all other prisoners released on licence, whose licences can be revoked and who can be recalled to prison, such action requires a clear, legislative basis that is not provided here. It is for those reasons that I ask Mr Findlay not to move amendment 83. I start with reference to Maggie Chapman's contribution. As we have already said, there is a bill about bail and release. It is not about sentencing yet. There is a whole section that relates to sentencing around electronic monitoring. Therefore, if the Government is able to piggyback the legislation to talk about sentencing, it is perfectly reasonable for Opposition members to do the same. The cabinet secretary describes my proposition as radical. I do not think that she means that in a good way. I would like to think that it is bold and ambitious. There is no reason as far as I can see why it cannot be enacted. The real reason, perhaps, is that it is all part of the drive to reduce the prison population, which Jamie Greene has stated at the outset, has not been properly explained as the real intent behind this entire bill. I intend to move amendment 83, knowing that they will fail. I urge the Scottish Government on the basis of the conversations that we have had today and at stage 2 to look again at its eight-year-old commitment to put that right. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. My app is signed out. I suppose that it is not. Thank you, Mr Lockhead. I will make sure that that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 83 in the name of Russell Finlay is, yes, 28, no 80. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 10, released on licence of short and long-term prisoners. I call amendment 37 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with amendments that I have shown in the groupings. I have called the cabinet secretary to move amendment 37 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Section 7 of the bill introduces a new temporary release licence for long-term prisoners. The bill does not name the licence but the term reintegration licence is used in the supporting documentation, so I will use that term here. There was a detailed discussion in section 7 during stage 2, and I do not propose to rehearse all of those arguments here. However, I would highlight at the outset that the intention of this licence is to support the reintegration of certain long-term prisoners, for example, helping them to link to community services and build a relationship with their supervising officer. In addition, release on the licence provides the opportunity for structured testing in the community, which will provide further evidence to the parole board to inform their decision making. That approach is supported by the chair of the parole board of Scotland. I appreciate that there are questions about the introduction of a new temporary release licence. That is to be expected and welcomed. I welcomed the detailed and helpful debate about this section at stage 2. For those in chamber who did not hear the detailed discussion when this section was agreed to at stage 2, I would make two further points. Firstly, release on this licence will not be automatic. In the scenario in which Scottish ministers can release a prisoner on this licence before their parole qualifying date, that decision will be taken by SPS on the basis of risk assessment and consultation with the parole board. In the circumstances in which the parole board may direct release on the licence, it will already have considered the case and determined the individual suitable for release on parole. Prisoners released on this licence will be subject to conditions, which will include curfew, which can be electronically monitored and, importantly, supervised by justice social work. Secondly, the provision will not operate in isolation. The bill requires the Scottish ministers to prepare a statutory operating protocol to underpin the use of this licence. The operating protocol must detail the risk assessment process, which will inform release on this licence and the factors taken into account when undertaking these risk assessments. It will also cover matters such as how prisoners will be monitored when released on reintegration licence. I will now turn to the amendments. Stage 2, Jamie Greene lodged an amendment that sought to add the protection of the victim or victims of the prisoner or of a class of person to whom the prisoner may pose a risk to the existing list of considerations that the Scottish ministers and the parole board must have regard before releasing a prisoner on this licence. I agreed with the principle of Mr Greene's stage 2 amendment if not the specific drafting and committed to bringing forward an amendment which would meet the same aim. Amendments 37 to 41 in my name deliver on that commitment. Those amendments add the protection of victims to the list of legal considerations to which the Scottish ministers and the parole board must have regard when deciding to release on this licence. My amendments also include consideration of the protection of members of the victim's family and extend the protection of the public consideration to identifiable groups. Finally, my amendments also make sure that consideration is replicated for the short-term prisoners in the home detention curfew processes. Turning to amendment 7 lodged by Russell Finlay, it is clear that we have the same outcome in mind. However, Mr Finlay's amendment does not include consideration of the protection of the victim's family and there is no comparable amendment for short-term prisoners subject to the HDC process. I would therefore argue that my amendments go further and for that reason I would ask Mr Finlay not to move amendment 7. Mr Finlay's amendment 13 aims to prevent release on this licence until the individual reaches the halfway point of their sentence, the parole qualifying date or the PQD. The bill currently provides that long-term prisoners can be temporarily released on this licence by the prison service up to 180 days in advance of their parole qualifying date. That is subject to risk assessment and consultation with the parole board, as I have already described. Removing the ability to temporarily release certain prisoners on this licence in advance of their PQD would negate one of the main benefits of this licence, and that is to provide further evidence to the parole board to inform the decision on whether or not to recommend release at parole qualifying date. That approach is supported by the chair of the parole board and I would therefore ask Mr Finlay not to press amendment 13. Mr Finlay's amendment 14 would limit the maximum period an individual could spend on this licence from 180 days to 80 days. One of the underpinning principles of this licence is to support the effective reintegration of long-term prisoners, for example by providing the individual with the opportunity to make positive connections in their community and with support services. Scottish Prison Service can already allow appropriate individuals access to the community for short periods under the existing regime of temporary release, where appropriate Scottish Prison Service can permit periods of home leave up to a maximum of seven nights. In light of that, reducing the new temporary release licence to a maximum of eight days would simply duplicate the existing home leave arrangements. That amendment would undermine the intention of this licence, which is to provide a more sustained period of structured testing in the community to improve the prisoners' chances of a successful and safe reintegration. I therefore ask Mr Finlay not to press amendment 14. Amendment 8, also in the name of Mr Finlay, seeks to add individuals who are subject to the sexual offences notification requirements to the list of statutory exclusions from the release on this licence. That was also debated at stage 2. The list of existing statutory exclusions within the bill does not include offence-focused exclusions, and there are reasons for that. The approach in the bill is based on feedback that we received during the consultation and from stakeholders that decisions about release should be based on risk assessment and not on the basis of offence type alone. I know that Mark McSherry, chief executive of the Risk Management Authority, also made that point to committee. As I have already previously highlighted, this provision has been designed with risk assessment at its core. The risk posed by all individuals being considered for this licence will be carefully assessed and considered as part of that process. That will use offence-specific risk assessments, like those for people convicted of sexual offences where required. That will help to ensure that the decisions to release on this licence are informed by all relevant information. Statutory exclusions on the basis of offence type alone cut across that, and therefore I would ask Mr Finlay not to press amendment 8. Finally, amendment 3, in the name of Russell Finlay, seeks to remove section 7 from the bill entirely. An identical amendment was lodged by Jamie Greene at stage 2, and while not moved to a vote, it was debated thoroughly at committee. It will not surprise you that I do not support amendment 3 for all the reasons that I previously given, and I would ask Mr Finlay not to press it. Thank you, and I call Russell Finlay to speak to amendment 7 and the other amendments in the group. I have five amendments in this group, 7, 13, 14, 8 and 3, and they all relate to section 7 of the bill that allows Scottish ministers to release prisoners on licence even when the parole board is not recommended that they do so. Scottish ministers can exercise this power before the prisoner has even reached halfway through their sentence. They can authorise the release of a prisoner on licence a full six months before they have even reached a halfway point. The length of time that a prisoner can be released on licence is six months. What that means in practice is that a prisoner given a four-year sentence could spend 18 months in prison before being released on licence for a period of 180 days. That could be followed by a permanent release on licence after serving just half their sentence. That makes a mockery of sentencing and risks damaging public confidence in the process. It is worth noting that, in the Scottish Government's initial consultation, there was a proposal that early release should be considered after just one-third of all prison sentences. That is one-third, with that being automatic for those of four years and less. This particular proposal, which they floated, was withdrawn following Scottish Conservative pressure. It is clear that the public were not onside with that. I suspect that this proposal is a way for the Scottish Government to introduce radical early release plans, similar to the ones that were proposed under the radar by stealth. That is why I am proposing that this section should be removed altogether, which is what amendment 3 would do. However, if the Scottish Government does not want to remove it entirely, there are other options with the amendments in this group. Amendment 7 aims to ensure that victims' protections are considered when early release of a long-term prisoner is decided by the Scottish ministers or the parol board. I am very grateful to Victim Support Scotland for working with me on this amendment. On the basis of what the cabinet secretary has said, I do not intend to press amendment 7. However, there are other amendments, which I think are important. The protection of a specific victim or group of people has been admitted from this bill by the Scottish Government. That seems like a strange oversight, although I note that the Scottish Government has other amendments that might seek to address that, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary can explain that in summing up. In addition, the Scottish Government says that the safety of a complainer should be considered in section 2 of the bill. That relates to bail and remand decisions. We are saying that a complainer's safety should also be a consideration during release decision making. Returning to amendment 13, that would remove the provision allowing Scottish ministers or the parol board to release a prisoner on licence under this section 180 days before the halfway point of their sentence. Amendment 14, a prisoner can be released temporarily for a period of up to eight days home leave. What the bill seeks to do is increase this temporary release period from eight days, which seems modest and reasonable, to 180 days, which is six full months. I think that this goes too far. This is another radical and far-reaching proposal that seeks to reduce prisoner numbers by stealth, if enacted unamended. I would go as far as saying that the act of sentencing risks becoming a sham that misleads the public and betrays crime victims. Finally, amendment 8 would exempt prisoners who are on the sex offender register from being eligible for this type of release. This amendment is also supported by Victim Support Scotland. To recap, that being, if the bill passes unamended, long-term prisoners can be released on licence for 180 days at a time. For the earlier stated reasons, this is wrong.  I would rather members backed amendment 7, which removes this 180-day mechanism entirely, but if not, I would urge them to curb its worst excesses with my other amendments in this group. I am glad that amendment 7 has effectively been replicated and adopted by the Scottish Government, but the other amendments are also worth pushing. I wish to comment on just some of the amendments in this group. Firstly, Russell Findlay's desire to remove the whole of section 7 with his amendment 3 removes all of the provisions in the section that are expressly designed to better support the integration of certain long-term prisoners back into their communities, providing prisoners with the opportunity to form positive connections with family, friends and others in their wider community with the help of support services is something that we know is important for reintegration following incarceration, and it helps to reduce reoffending. It also promotes healthier relationships for all involved post-incarceration. This is something that we should all welcome. This provision also provides the parole board with further evidence to inform their decision on whether or not to recommend release of a prisoner. The chair of the parole board has welcomed this. He told the criminal justice committee that this, and I quote, will allow the board to direct temporary release on certain conditions if it recommends release on parole licence. It does not have that power just now. He also acknowledged the importance of better integration into post-prison life if a prisoner can talk to social work, addiction support, their general practitioner or others before the point of release on parole licence. We should retain the section, as structured support that will help prisoners prepare for life after prison is vital. Therefore, I ask members to vote against amendment 3. For similar reasons, and those outlined by the cabinet secretary, we also cannot support amendments 13 or 14. Finally, I welcome Russell Findlay's intention not to press amendment 7. Just briefly in this group to say two things. One is to first of all thank the cabinet secretary for responding to the amendments that I brought forward at stage 2, which are now reflected in amendments 37 to 41, which we will support and would encourage all members to support. I would like to put that on record. I appreciate that at stage 2 often we draft things in a way that we see appropriate, but often it is pointed out by the very large entourage in front of you at stage 2 that sometimes there are technical deficiencies in your drafting. The same is probably true at stage 3 unfortunately as well, but such is the nature of how we legislate in this place. On the most substantive points around the issue of release of long-term prisoners on licence, is it an issue that we grappled with? It does seem to me, and I am trying to reflect on this considerably, is this massive jump between the status quo and what the Government is proposing. 180 days, in effect to the six months on a relatively short sentence, is a disproportionate amount. I wondered why the Government took this approach and not a tapered approach, for example, that was relative to the length of the sentence. Effectively, what Russell Findlay was saying is that someone on a four-year sentence, which is generally the headline that you read in the newspaper, based on the assumption that they would be eligible for automatic early release by two years into their sentence, but this bringing forward by six months does reduce it in all intents purposes to 18 months. I know when the Government consulted on this, one of the questions that was put was the potential to reduce automatic early release from 50 per cent of the sentence to a third, which was a massive jump. It is fair to say that that went down quite poorly among stakeholders, and it was quite quickly dropped from the drafting of the bill, but it sort of snuck in the back door, because 18 months before your sentence is not far off a third, if you look at it that way. I appreciate that it is under licence, but it is something that we have to reflect on, which is why I am uncomfortable with it, to be quite honest with you, and that is why I support Russell Findlay's amendments in this vein. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me be clear that provisions at section 7 have been part of the bill since the bill was introduced and, of course, have been subject to full scrutiny, so I would take exception to the notion that this provision has been sneaked in. I would just like to emphasise a few points, Presiding Officer, that this new reintegration licence is not automatic, and it is for up to 180 days. The important point about it being only available to long-term determinate prisoners, so it is not a licence for life sentence prisoners, but the reality is that, for long-term determinate prisoners, they will be released, and therefore it is appropriate that we have a number of tools in order to prepare prisoners for that release. As I said, this is not an automatic entitlement. In fact, it may only benefit between 75 and 200 prisoners at any one time. Risk assessment is absolutely core. Again, I want to point out how helpful it would have been, as members of the Criminal Justice Committee, if we had the kind of data and statistics that the cabinet secretary has quoted to us in defence of her bill, it would have made our job much more easy. The figures that I have quoted about the number of prisoners anticipated to have potentially access to this reintegration licence is actually taken from the policy memorandum. I am quite sure that all members of the Justice Committee will be well acquainted with the policy memorandum, which accompanied the bill. I am afraid, Presiding Officer, that I have not made any startling revelation to chamber today. It is important that the focus of our deliberations is around risk assessment and consultation with the Perot board, and one of the commitments that I made to the committee at stage 2 was to keep it fully informed in terms of how the stand-in operating procedure would develop. We have to have the courage to acknowledge that successfully preparing prisoners for release and reintegration leads to better rehabilitation and that leads to better community safety. I would dispute that this proposition is particularly radical, but it is learned from some experience elsewhere in Europe in terms of the Netherlands and Norway. I know that some members of the committee cast an eye to that broader European experience, where they have achieved better results with the rehabilitation of offenders. Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 40 in the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 37. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of Russell Finlay. I already debated with amendment 37. Russell Finlay to move or not move. I call amendment 13 in the name of Russell Finlay. I already debated with amendment 37. Russell Finlay to move or not move. Question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. And the vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 13 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 28, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 14 in the name of Russell Finlay. I already debated with amendment 37. Russell Finlay to move or not move. That is not moved. I call amendment 8 in the name of Russell Finlay. I already debated with amendment 37. Russell Finlay to move or not move. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 8 in the name of Russell Finlay is yes, 28, no, 82. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 41 in the name of the cabinet secretary. I already debated with amendment 37. Cabinet secretary to move or not move. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of Russell Finlay. I already debated with amendment 37. Russell Finlay to move or not move. That is not moved. We are going to move on to group 11 powers to block release. I call amendment 84 in the name of Jamie Greene in a group on its own. Jamie Greene to move and speak to amendment 84. I thank members for their forebearance being a long day, but group 11 has one amendment in it and it is a very specific issue. I imagine that it is quite a sensitive issue and I hope that you will bear with me as I explain it. I make no apologies for bringing this issue to the chamber today. This is a bill about bail and release since very much is an issue about release in a very specific circumstance and I hope that members will bear with me on this. It is also an issue that is important to me personally because it did feature my own consultation around a member's bill, my own victims bill. That part of my consultation was more commonly known under the guise of Suzanne's law, which I know is something that has just featured in the chamber over the years. When I consulted on this issue and it was a more broad issue rather than a solution to the situation, I posed the following questions. Which of the following best expresses your view on the proposed aims of implementing Suzanne's law whereby an offender convicted of murder could be denied release on the grounds that they have failed to disclose the location of the victim's body, which really is the essence of what Suzanne's law is. Their response was overwhelming and quite clear. 85 per cent of those who took part in my consultation partially or fully supported the proposal. I know that this is an issue that the Scottish Government historically has been keen to address and I give them credit for that, but for that alone. Humza Yousaf was the justice secretary back in 2019 and he announced that he would be introducing a form of Suzanne's law. Laws are not laws until we see them in Black and White. I understand that. Often, when Government ministers make promises as such, they are received by the public as such. At that time, it was welcomed and well received. Kate Wallace, Victim Support Scotland, said that we welcome this announcement, which includes the introduction of Suzanne's law. I think that that sets the groundwork here that there was an expectation that the Government was moving in a certain direction. In fact, the Scottish Government more recently went, as far as consulting more with the parole board, and I am sure that we will hear a little bit more about this from the cabinet secretary, on what could be done. In February of this year, the Scottish Government issued a press release, which effectively lawded its moves to introduce Suzanne's law. I have got a copy of that release here, but when you scratch below the surface, that release did hit the headlines. It was a well-read BBC news story for quite some time, but it was only after it was released that it was contacted by some of the families that this scenario affects. They were frankly disappointed, because when you do scratch below the surface, it is clear that the solution being offered at the time is far from ideal and certainly did not go far enough in delivering the promise that was promised. In fact, it did not really go anywhere, because if you look back at our criminal justice committee papers on 8 February, I did seek clarification on what the parole board changes would mean in practice. It states that it clearly clarifies that the disclosing of the whereabouts of a victim's body may be considered relevant, but does not change the underlying test for release applied by the board in such cases. It felt to me, and to the families that contacted me, like a massive fudge. For me, an offender who refuses to reveal the location of their victim's body when they know where that exists, at the moment they can still be released under the current rules, and it bears very little effect on the decision making. I think—sorry, this is a quite sensitive subject. I hope that members will bear with me on this. I know that it is late in the day, but when a family loses a loved one to murder, I think that the simplest comfort that we can offer them is disclosing information about where their loved one may rest, so they can put them to rest properly. Suzanne Pilly was murdered by her colleague, and that comfort that I have been able to bury, Suzanne, is one that her family are yet to realise. I do not know if they will ever be able to, and they are not the only one. Her murderer will be eligible for parole in the next couple of years, so this is a live issue. I am grateful that it does not affect many people, but it does affect those that it does affect. Amendment 84, in my name in this group, is one of the opportunities that I have tried to come up with to resolve the issue. I suspect—in fact, the Pro-Board was quite clear that meaningful introduction of anything like Suzanne's law can actually only be achieved through legislative change. That is perhaps that potential change. My amendment states quite simply that in exercising its function under the 1993 act, which does afford the duty to release discretionary life prisoners, we add one simple and additional vital test. That is the following that the board is satisfied that the prisoner concerned has no information about where or how their victims' remains were disposed of, which that person has not disclosed, knowingly not disclosed, not unable to, not forgetful, but knowingly not disclosed. What this is not this amendment, to be clear, before I am accused of it, is not the introduction of whole-life sentences through the back door. This is about the power of release and the Pro-Board's decision-making process. Neither is it a definitive bar on releasing someone contrary to any perceived human rights that they may hold, and I have heard all the arguments imaginable on that and I understand them. However, what this amendment does is ensure that the board is wholly satisfied that the offender is not willingly, in their opinion, withholding that information. I am afraid to say that there are other stories like Suzanne's out there, and it will only affect a small minority of people, but the insufferable pain of seeing the murderer released on parole, on licence, when they know that we know that he or she knows where the victim is, I think is unacceptable. In response to my amendment today, a number of organisations wrote a joint statement on it, and they said the following. We are strongly supportive of Jamie Greene's proposed amendment to the Prisoner and Criminal Proceedings Scotland Act 1993. Both Victim Support Scotland support for families briefed by crime service are acutely aware of the suffering and anguish victims families face when they are denied this information by the perpetrator. As such, this amendment has the potential to have a significant impact on the experience of families briefed by that crime. I am just going to ask the following of members in the chamber. Let's do the right thing here. We have heard far too many warm words over the years, well-intended, well-meaning, but that deliver nothing. Let's deliver something meaningful. If the Government does choose to reject, perhaps even sensibly and for technical reasons or respectfully, I do ask that at the very least they will come up with a proposal of their own in its place. This is a live issue for families, and it is a deeply sensitive issue. I am not going to cast any aspersions that the member in bringing this forward has only done so with the very best of reasons. I also appreciate that amendment 84 speaks to an issue that Jamie Greene and others have raised previously in this chamber, including with myself, although it specifically has not been raised during the passage of the bill. Nonetheless, I know that it is an issue that Mr Greene and many others feel very strongly about. I share his concern for the families of murder victims who are not able to properly say goodbye to their loved ones and lay them at peace. I think that it would be difficult to imagine anything worse. Amendment 84 would require that the parole board do not recommend the release of a life sentence prisoner unless they are satisfied that the prisoner has no information that they have not previously disclosed about how or where their victims' remains were disposed of. I would say to the member that the parole board already takes matters such as this into account when considering release, that they have also done so and for very, very good reasons, because not disclosing where the remains of the deceased victim are is, of course, highly germane to someone's progress or not in rehabilitation and their insight or not into their past behaviour, so it is highly, highly relevant. However, to put that beyond doubt, a specific provision was added to the parole board rules to make it clear that failure to reveal a victim's remains is a matter that the parole board may take into account when deciding a person's release from prison, and that did come into force on April 2023. I have listened to what the member has shared in respect to that. However, there is a legislative basis to parole board rules, and I know that, for many people, they will continue to campaign for that to go further. Before I go into all the reasons that Mr Rhee would expect me to go into around ECHR and, yes, some of the drafting issues with the amendment, if I can just make another broader point to acknowledge that I think we are all acutely aware that this is about grieving families and humans, and I am conscious that I am about to go into some of the more technical reasons. Where there are genuine difficulties, not just for Scotland but also in the changes that it made in England, was a close look, not to compare and contrast in a pejorative or in a negative way. It is the nearest jurisdiction to this country. Again, I think that they have wrestled with many of the issues that we will currently wrestle with. While some of the language in England is a little bit different, it is a different jurisdiction, what it does not alter is the underlying risk-based test for the release of a prisoner, and what it does not mean is that a prisoner who does not disclose the information will not be released. As with many factors in the justice system or indeed in and around the release of prisoners, as soon as you move to something that is far more definitive and far more absolute and far more prescriptive, you then will see all of these ECHR issues, etc. kick in. Whereas, if matters are crafted in a way that gives discretion to the Pro-Board, while that may seem unsatisfactory, it may actually be at a stronger position to have. If the chamber will forgive me, I am going to go through all of these less than inhumane reasons, but I think that it is important that I do so, not least that people will of course want to consider matters further for now and in the future, so it is important that I put some matters on the record. The amendment would cover all life sentence prisoners, including those who have not been convicted of murder. Therefore, as drafted, it would be too wide a reach, and that may also lead to uncertainty as to how it operates in practice. It is also not clear how the board would be satisfied that the prisoner had no information about the whereabouts of the remains of their victim, and I am not clear what the test would be for that. As I have alluded to, there may also be significant ECHR concerns. Article 3 requires a life sentence to include safeguards against indefinite definition without the possibility of release. The possibility of release does not mean that everyone is or should be released. Mr Greene's proposal would require a prisoner to be held indefinitely until they provide certain information. Notwithstanding that, they may not know or remember the information in question, and that may be a direct contraversion of article 3. However, I hear what Mr Greene said about what he articulated that his amendment was not doing. I also suggest that prisoners would be detained for longer than the punishment part imposed by the court, with no possibility of parole due to a lack of co-operation. That takes us back to some of the sentence issues. That may raise issues of arbitrary detention contrary to article 5, and may interfere with the right to silence, which is protected by article 6. In my view, decisions on release are best taken by expert members of the parole board, having taken account of all relevant information. Information such as that is indeed relevant for the reasons that I have outlined. I note that the failure to disclose the location of a body can already be prosecuted as a criminal offence of attempting to defeat the ends of justice. The court can and will also take into account the refusal to disclose the location of a body when sentencing. It is for all those reasons that I have outlined above that I do not support this particular amendment. I would ask Mr Greene not to press it. I want to end by saying that I do acknowledge the human considerations and the suffering that Mr Greene has outlined. I will always remain alert to the opportunities to provide further comfort and redress to families who live with unimaginable pain. I do not know what those opportunities would be, not going to lead anybody up to the garden path or make false promises, but I am sure that I and others will want to remain alert to the possibilities. I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments. I appreciate what I am going to do in summing up his debate and the technicalities of why the amendment is flawed. I appreciate that I can see them for myself. However, I guess that there are limitations to what you can do at stage 3, with something like that. An issue is as wide-ranging as that. I think that the cabinet secretary made a very interesting point and that sometimes there are many roads that lead to the same destination. I am quite content with that. I think that the families would be content that sometimes the most direct route, which is the bluntest instrument available to us, may be the one that creates the most roadblocks along the way for all the reasons that the cabinet secretary mentioned. I do not want that to be the case. I am comfortable that if the road is slightly longer but still gets there, that is fine. I am sure that that would be fine for those families as well. I take some comfort in that. However, I guess that I want to make a final point on that. I appreciate that the proof will be very much in the pudding. When these offenders do come up for that parole decision, time will tell whether what has changed in terms of guidelines or any perceived strengthening or lack of the parole board's decision making. We will know when the time comes whether that has been effective or not. However, is there any merit in not waiting until that point, when those individuals are up for parole? I say that for a very specific reason. Is there any merit, for example, if that offender is sitting in their cell and they know now that failure to disclose that information may be a major factor that states that they will not be released on parole and therefore would be more likely or more willing to release that information now? We do not want to wait and see what the families want. It is not really about changing the law for changing the law's sake. What the families want is to get the information that discloses the whereabouts of their loved ones. In any way, we can do that. If it is via the Carrot and Stick model, as I seem to be going down, or if it is via any other model, I am not sure that it is that fussed. If my amendment does not achieve it, if the Government does not sound like bringing forward any other primary legislation to achieve it, what else can we do? What other comforts can we collectively provide those families, which is why I brought it to the chamber today? I thank members for listening to this important subject. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will be willing to work with me and any other member on this as we move forward, and meet any of the families who wish to do so, to offer them some comfort that this is an issue that the Government takes seriously and that we will do what we can. We will all collectively do what we can to offer them that closure that I think they need and that they really deserve, Presiding Officer. For that reason, I will not move amendment 84. Thank you, Mr Green. Thank you. Jamie Greene seeks to withdraw amendment 84. Does any member object? There is no objection. Thank you. We move on to group 12. Power to release early. I call amendment 42 in the name of Jamie Greene grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Jamie Greene to move amendment 42 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Mr Greene. Well, that was the consensual bit out the way, so now we move on to group 12. Power to release early and back to the politics of all, Presiding Officer. This group relates to a ministerial power, which is in section 8 of the bill, which effectively gives Scottish ministers the power to release prisoners early. By that, I do not mean early release in the way that we talked about in other groups, or discretionary release on licence actual open the doors release. The Scottish Government in this section has afforded itself a permanent power to release prisoners in a situation in which seems to be necessary at short notice, and in this case, possibly with no parliamentary authority or scrutiny and with conditions and exemptions attached to it to sum it up. Anyone who watched the stage 2 debate on this will attest to the amusing, slightly bizarre exchange that we had with the cabinet secretary. I think I first of all want to question what is this power really needed for. Once we've ascertained that, then I think it's easier for parliament to decide whether they afford ministers the power in the first place. Section 8, as drafted, actually creates some massive loopholes, which I'm going to explain. When I asked the cabinet secretary why this power was needed, the claim was made that this provision was necessary, and I quote, for example, in the event of a major fire in a prison, which is entirely reasonable. If anyone who read the news this morning will have heard the very unfortunate and actually horrific case of a fire in Central America, a woman's prison where a large number of inmates, I think it was 40 perhaps more that we know of, died as a result of a fire in a prison. I do understand that a very real scenario hasn't happened, thankfully, in this country, but we do know that, certainly in other jurisdictions, issues like writing, for example, have created fires and are very live issues when temperaments rise. That's all very reasonable enough, and I think it would be unreasonable for members to not afford ministers that power. However, the problem is that this section of the bill was on to stay quite a vast array of exemptions to that power, because on one hand ministers are fording themselves the power to emergency release some prisoners, but in doing so have also banned themselves from releasing others. There are certain categories of prisoners who cannot be released in such a scenario, for example, life prisoners, untried prisoners, those who have more than 180 days left serve their sentence, and terrorist prisoners, for example, to name a few, which does beg the question if the reason for these powers is that they are completely necessary and needed by ministers in an unforeseen and probably quite dramatic emergency, such as a flood of fire, riots, perhaps even a disease that shall come on to, then why on earth would you have exemptions? It does not make any sense. In any case, if there is such an emergency scenario in a prison, it begs me to ask a further question, which is why there is not already well-established protocols that deal with such a problem. The solution is not simply to throw open the doors. In our wide-ranging discussion stage 2, the example of the Covid scenario came up, because that is the one that we faced in Parliament most recently when these powers were entirely relevant. Members know that we afforded ministers the extraordinary powers of emergency release in emergency legislation. We were very quick to pass that legislation, and those of us who were here will recall that. I think that at the time we all knew fine well that those powers would be extended and extended further, and so they were, and lo and behold, those powers still exist. They do have a shelf life, I understand that, which perhaps is one of the drivers behind the permanency of these powers. However, I would argue quite simply that if the Government wants a power of this nature, it can bring it forward in emergency legislation should we ever face an extraordinary emergency situation like Covid again. Again, it is entirely unclear to what this permanent power is needed for, because there are contradictions in it. I would ask the cabinet secretary the following questions, which I think have been left unaddressed. First of all, why is there no current contingency protocol to deal with life-threatening emergencies in prisons? Is there a legislative vacuum that exists, which necessitates this power? If that power already exists, why are we adding to it with this bill? That has been unclear to date. If there is a power needed to urgently save lives in an unprecedented emergency, why are there exemptions? Is there any risk—I say this genuinely, not politically—is there any risk whatsoever that this power could be used in any other circumstance than a life-threatening emergency? Is there anything in the legislation that states that ministers could use this power to release a prisoner that it deems fit, perhaps contrary to the views of the Parliament, given that there will be no scrutiny in that scenario, and probably contrary to either professional or public opinion—in that case, I mean the pro-board, governors or others? I do not think that we need to look far into the history of some prisons, one very near my hometown, where one high-profile prisoner was released by a Government and the controversy that that can and does attract. If the Government can make a clear case of the power, then the Parliament should afford it that power. As always, I have a number of amendments that seem to take different approaches. Amendment 4 simply removes section 8 altogether. I understand that is probably quite a blunt instrument and I suspect that the cabinet secretary will ask members not to support it. Amendment 44, however, takes a slightly different tack, and I think that we should consider that. It removes the powers of the Scottish ministers to be able to release prisoners due to an event or situation that has resulted in any prison or part of a prison to which the regulations would relate to being unusable. The reason for that is that it simply does not make sense for the regulations to be used in this way, because the regulations are also being used to prevent quite a large category of prisoners from being released. I would argue that, if a prison or any part of a prison becomes unusable, that should apply to all prisoners to which that emergency directly affects. Surely, there is capacity within the state otherwise to move those people, not simply to release them under emergency powers. I think that that is quite an illogical provision. Amendment 42 makes it clear that a person should have served at least half their sentence before any such release can take place, if that is repetition of other amendments or what the Government perceives to be already in the building, and I would happily withdraw that one. Amendment 45 is one that I hope I will get at support if not from the Government from other opposition parties. If the Government will at least consult with Parliament via a vote on any such decision, it removes the Scottish Government's ability to release prisoners without a parliamentary vote. I do not think that there are any circumstances that I can foresee where a group of prisoners are released en masse in response to an emergency without some form of parliamentary intervention. That can take many shapes and forms, as we proved quite frequently and often during the Covid pandemic. I certainly was part of many a vote dialed in on Zoom in those matters. We can do it the next morning, if required. I think that the Government can choose to find other options. The Government often cites that those powers will exist in England and Wales in relation to emergency release, so I did some looking at that as well. Of course, other jurisdictions do for themselves limited powers to release prisoners early in emergency situations. They have had those powers actually for four decades, but they have not used those powers. That is a stark contrast with what happened here in Scotland. The last time that power was used, 348 prisoners were emergency early released from Scottish prisons. 40 per cent of them were offended within six months. That quite simply creates more victims and more backlogging of our courts. I would just ask that we learn from mistakes on that. I want the Government to learn from their mistakes on that, whatever the reasons. Amendments 65 and 66 carry on from that theme. I would argue that there must already be very robust Scottish prison service procedures and protocols for dealing with that type of scenario. One of those scenarios, for example, is the incidence or spread of infection, contamination or the source of contamination that presents significant harm to human health in Scotland. The other one is that of an event or situation that should result in any prison being unusable. Despite repeated requests, the Scottish Government has been unable to demonstrate why the current Scottish SPS procedures are insufficient for dealing with those scenarios. Worse still, and if it is for the reason of public health, then why on earth did we release prisoners from prison that is a contained environment by its very nature into the community without testing them for Covid? That happened. The public health argument is one that did not stack up last time it was used either, which is why amendment 66 provides a safeguard. Whilst it adds to the reporting requirements of section 14, it is very relevant to the powers that ministers want in section 8. If the Government will not ditch the powers, which I suspect will not, and it will not agree to tidying up the powers and it will not even agree to let us having a vote on it, then at the very least they must explain why the current provisions that they claim are so unsatisfactory are indeed so unsatisfactory and which will give credence to these new powers. In closing, there is a massive difference between early release and emergency release, and I think that the Government needs to be clear about the use of either of those. What will this power look like in the real world? In my view, and I have looked at this section many times, it is still a bit of a mess even at stage 3, and no one has sought to tidy up its many contradictions, which is why I have attempted to do so today. Given that this is the last amendment that I will speak to in this group and also probably in the rest of the groups and for the rest of this evening, I just want to thank your colleagues for listening to our arguments and voting accordingly. In doing so, ahead of tomorrow's stage 3 debate, I would like to refer members to their inboxes. There is an important email in there from a number of organisations who have written a joint statement to all members in the chamber, and I would ask them to go home and reflect on that with regard to their voting intentions tomorrow. Namely, that email will appear in your inbox from Victim, Support Scotland and Assist, Scottish Women's Aid and others. I would appeal to members before, as they reflect on the events of this evening, very carefully about how they vote tomorrow and the final vote at stage 3. I wanted to use this opportunity to raise awareness of that. Anyway, I will listen to what other members and the Cabinet Secretary has to say in response. I probably should have advised the chamber that once we have dispensed with amendments in this group, there will be a further short comfort break. I now call Russell Finlay to speak to amendment 85 and other amendments in the group. Mr Finlay. Thank you for the sake of brevity in late night. I will talk only to my own amendment in this group, which is number 85. Jamie Greene has already spoken to his six amendments, and I wholeheartedly agree with his very thoughtful and considered position, which was typically well explained. Frankly, I find that it is unclear why ministers are seeking this power to release prisoners on an emergency, but I find that it is strange to exempt certain types of prisoners, and, as Jamie Greene has already touched upon, that includes terrorists, sex offenders, domestic abusers, those serving life sentences, those facing extradition and those yet to stand trial. The most obvious solution to this is to back Jamie Greene's amendment number eight, which would scrap section eight entirely. He describes it as a blunt instrument, but it certainly does the job. However, if the Scottish Government rejects this, it should instead support his other amendments, which seek to improve this section. Whether they choose to do that or not, I would argue that they should add another type of offender to the emergency release exemption list, that category being fraudsters. I recognise that this might be a sensitive subject for some members right now, but those who commit crimes of dishonesty should be exempted from emergency release in exactly the same way as the previously stated six categories of prisoners. I therefore move amendment number eight. Section eight is an essential provision that cannot and should not be removed from the bill. I would like to start by addressing amendment four in the name of Jamie Greene. That amendment seeks to remove section eight from the bill in its entirety. The amendment was lodged by Katie Clark and debated at stage two. I am not surprised to see it back again. I am not disappointed either, because I think that powers such as this should be debated in peacetime and not when we are in the face of an emergency. It gives a better all-rounded opportunity for any learning of past endeavours. Although Ms Clark did not move the amendment in her name at stage two, I speak in detail about the need for the provision. As the amendment has been raised again, I will set out again why such provision is necessary. I will do my best to provide as much clarity as is possible, bearing in mind that I do not have a crystal ball and answer questions two. In order to ensure the security and good order of our prisons and the health and safety of prisoners and prison staff, it is imperative that we have a mechanism in place to respond immediately to emergencies within our prisons. The power to release early in this bill is intended to provide a means to release groups of prisoners if the impact that an emergency situation is having or is likely to have puts the security of prisons or the safety or welfare of prisoners or prison staff at risk, put bluntly it is if lives are at risk. The prison service has robust mechanisms in place to deal with changes in circumstances within custody. That is not what the provision is for. That is intended to be used in extremis in the event of an emergency situation that, with the best will in the world, could not be predicted. I will highlight again that this is not a power that I would ever hope to use, but we have included it in this bill because, as the pandemic showed us, we have to be able to respond to the unpredictable. Unlike the UK Government, who have had a comparable and I would argue wider power since the 1980s, Scottish ministers currently have no legal power to instruct early release to protect the security and good order of prisons and the safety and welfare of prisoners and staff, other than specifically in response to Covid, so I would contend that there currently is a legislative grab. Without the provision in section 8 of this bill, we would be required to introduce emergency legislation if we needed to respond to an emergency situation in our prisons in order to protect lives. For example, in the event of a major fire that is life-threatening in a prison or an outbreak of a life-threatening infection or contamination, even emergency legislation would take time, and it could be time that we just cannot afford if we are to save lives. At stage 2, the Criminal Justice Committee agreed to amend the bill to extend the Governor Vito in relation to this power to include instances where it is felt that a prisoner who would otherwise be released might pose a risk of harm to an identified group of people. That adds a further safeguard to this power. Tied to that and taken account of discussions at stage 2, amendment 43, in my name, introduces guidance on the application of the Governor Vito. That is intended to ensure consistency of practice across the prison estate, offering prison governor support on how the Vito power will operate in practice if it was ever required. To pick up on some of Mr Greene's other issues, obviously any decision that was made under these emergency powers would still, albeit retrospectively, if it was made under the made affirmative procedure. It would still require scrutiny akin to SSIs and it would be for Parliament to decide whether emergency powers or decisions were continued beyond 28 days. If I can emphasise the point that Mr Greene raised about creating space in the estate, for example, self-wise, sleet and ineffection, the SPS has capacity to manage those issues. That is not what this amendment or section in the bill is about. The point about statutory exclusions, which I recall we did have quite an exchange about, but the sensible point is that statutory exclusions apply because of the urgency with which the power would necessarily be used. It would not be possible to undertake individualised risk assessments in such an emergency that, obviously, the exceptions and the Governor Vito exist. If I can turn to amendment 42 in the name of Jamie Greene, the amendment would add a requirement that only those prisoners who have served one half of their sentence and who have 180 days or less to serve would be eligible in any round of emergency release. The emergency release power contained in the bill already has, as I indicated, a number of statutory exclusions that essentially limit eligibility to those serving short-term sentences and those long-term prisoners whose release at the halfway point of their sentence has been recommended by the parole board. Under section 1 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings Scotland Act 1993, a short-term prisoner is already released at the point that they have served half of their sentence. The parole board can only recommend a long-term prisoner for release on parole licence at the halfway point of their sentence at the earliest. I am unclear who, then, Mr Greene, thinks could be eligible. The amendment seems designed to severely limit the number of prisoners who would be eligible to be released, and perhaps that is the point of Mr Greene's amendment, but that will be for him to clarify. I consider that the additional criteria that was accepted at stage 2 is limiting the eligibility to those with 180 days or less left to serve when taken with the existing statutory exclusions, and the Governor Vito provides sufficient safeguards to the use of that power. As such, I would ask Mr Greene not to move amendment 42. I turn to amendment 85 in the name of Russell Finlay. That would add to the list of exclusions from eligibility for release under the power anyone who is currently serving a period of imprisonment for fraud. A definition for what constitutes fraud is not provided, i.e. whether that would include only crimes under common law, definition of fraud or other crimes of dishonesty such as uttering, embezzlement or if it includes the wide range of statutory frauds. Aside from that, it is not considered that the inclusion in the list of statutory exclusions is necessary in any event. If any person is felt to pose a risk to a victim or identified group of people, then the release can be blocked using the Governor's power of Vito. As such, I do not consider this amendment as necessary and would ask Mr Finlay not to move. I turn to amendment 44 in the name of Jamie Greene. That changes the definition of emergency situation currently contained in the bill to prevent the power being used as an event or situation that has resulted in any prison or part of a prison being unusable. As outlined earlier, this is not a power that we would expect to use lightly. I appreciate the concerns that Mr Greene outlined at stage 2 that Scottish ministers may use this power in situations that fall short of his idea of an emergency. However, I can assure him that that is not the intention and that it is important that I put that on the record. If the Scottish ministers were not able to release prisoners in the event of a prison or part of it becoming unusable and unsafe for prisoners and staff such as in the event of a fire, flood or structural collapse, the Scottish ministers would be forced to relocate those prisoners to elsewhere in the estate. That could bring with it a range of logistical issues such as challenges in the housing of different categories of prisoners and could potentially jeopardise the security and good order of a prison presenting a risk to both prisoners and prison staff. The comparable power available to the UK Government could potentially be exercised in situations where a prison or part of a prison has become unusable. That would be dependent on the circumstances of the situation as a whole, as would the exercise of the power in the bill being considered today. As such, it is important that we retain the slim of the definition of an emergency situation and, for that reason, I must agree not to move amendment 44. I now turn to amendment 45 in the name of Jamie Greene. That amendment would remove the ability of Scottish ministers to use the made affirmative procedure for the emergency release regulations in situations of urgency. That would significantly impair the Government's ability to take immediate, necessary and proportionate action to ensure the safety and security of prisons, for that reason I cannot support it. The Delegated Powers and Legislative Reform Committee quite rightly scrutinised the use of the made affirmative in the bill, and the Scottish Government provided it with further detail to inform that scrutiny. I note that the DPLRC's response to this committee, to this committee on the Delegate Powers memorandum to this bill, they stated that the majority of the committee is content with the explanation provided by the Scottish Government and accepts the power and principle. The majority of the committee is also content that the exercise of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but it may be subject to the made affirmative in specified circumstances and by reason of urgency. Again, I would therefore ask Mr Greene not to press amendment 45. Lastly, I turn to amendments 65 and 66 in the name of Mr Greene. Those amendments would require that this section not be brought into force until ministers have prepared and published a report on the SPS