Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before moving my amendment 100, I will set out some context around it.

I have been an MSP for just over two years. One of the first people to contact me after I was elected was a brave and determined woman called Sandra Geddes. Sandra told me the story of her brother, Alan Geddes. Alan stayed less than a mile away from my house, in an area called Ruthrieston, in Aberdeen. In December 2019, Alan was murdered by a man called Stuart Quinn. Dad-of-one Alan was stabbed 40 times by Quinn. Good samaritan Alan Geddes was murdered after offering a recently released Quinn a place to stay in his home. Quinn had been released from prison just hours before, without any proper support package and with no accommodation in place. That was because his sentence was backdated after he was held on remand, so he was released from custody with little preparation.

The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland conducted an investigation into the circumstances leading up to the killing, with a particular focus on the care and treatment that the killer received prior to his sudden release from jail in 2019. The bill provides an opportunity for the Scottish Government to act on the recommendations outlined in the report of that investigation. That is why I am proposing my amendments 100 and 101.

Amendment 100 would establish a post-custody outreach service for offenders who have been released from jail, as recommended by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. In setting up the service, Scottish ministers would be required to consult with Community Justice Scotland, each local authority and each health board. That would enable a holistic approach to be taken across the whole system in which both the justice and the health perspectives are considered before establishing the service.

Amendment 100 goes on to commit Scottish ministers to provide a point of contact for every person released from custody who has at some point spent time detained in hospital. That was the case with Alan’s murderer. Clearly, a person who has been detained in hospital at some point requires additional support compared with other offenders, given the mental health problems that that person has encountered. It is therefore vital that someone is in place to proactively reach out to them.

My amendment would require that an offender who falls into that category be contacted by their point of contact in the post-custody outreach service immediately on their release from prison, so that they have someone to go to straight away. I hope that that will ensure that there is always somebody for a recently released prisoner to reach out to if they are experiencing trouble. The amendment provides for the service to last for a year after the prisoner has been released.

Amendment 100 would also allow Scottish ministers the opportunity, through regulations, to set out what else the post-custody outreach service should provide. I hope that, through consultation with other stakeholders, a comprehensive service can be developed that prevents a situation such as Alan Geddes’s murder from ever happening again.

Amendment 101 is consequential to amendment 100, as it would introduce the post-custody outreach service.

Sandra says that she wakes up every morning thinking about what her brother went through, and I would never want any other family to experience that. We can try to make sure that it never does. I am happy to work with the Scottish Government if it thinks that the amendment needs further work. I hope that it will be supportive of the principle.

I move amendment 100.

If the issue in question does not form part of this bill and if these amendments are not to be accepted, what will be the Government’s approach? Will there be additional legislation, or will there just be guidance? What is your thinking on that, cabinet secretary?

I understand that, when an official inquiry takes place, an external body publishes the lessons, but where are the lessons about the census, for example? Where can I go to see the lessons that we have learned and the actions that we have put in place to try to ensure that the same thing does not happen again?

I want to go over a few things again. The first concerns a point that the convener raised about lessons learned. As a committee, how can we get assurance that the lessons learned process is in place? Is it visible so that people can see what those lessons were, and so that we can go back and check whether that has been done, rather than just having a tick-box exercise?

Is a document produced after a project or piece of work has taken place to say, “These are the lessons we learned”? I understand that you are saying that changes were made, but is there a list that captures the things that went wrong and the lessons to be learned?

The reason why I ask is that a witness at a previous meeting explained that the more transparency you have, the greater the risk of “government by WhatsApp”. Is that recognised by the Scottish Government? Can we get an assurance that that is not happening and that we do not have ministers and civil servants communicating by WhatsApp to avoid freedom of information requests or anything else?

I guess that that goes back to the reporting issue. It looks as though there is £2 billion but, when you dig a bit deeper, you see that it is not as bad as it seems.

Were the past failures relating to vessels 801 and 802 because of a failure in the process? Was no process in place, or were people not following the process that they were meant to follow?

My question is whether the First Minister was asking for advice about all three harassment reviews or just one in particular.

Whom did he ask?