Official Report 441KB pdf
17:33
It is time to move on to the next item of business, which is urgent questions. I will allow a moment or two for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to re-enter the chamber, and I will use this time to reiterate to all members that all business is follow-on business. Therefore, assumptions should not be made that the time on the paper will be the time.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. I have had to delay business momentarily, and I would be grateful if you would take your seat as swiftly as possible.
Automatic Early Release of Prisoners
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will publish the consultation on its proposal to reduce the automatic early release point for certain short-term prisoners from 40 per cent to 30 per cent of their sentence, including details of how and when responses can be submitted.
My apologies to you, Presiding Officer, and to the Parliament.
In short, the answer to Mr Kerr’s question is yes. Yesterday, after I informed Parliament of my intention to consult on changes to the automatic early release point for certain short-term prisoners, from 40 per cent to 30 per cent of their sentence, as required by legislation, the Scottish Government wrote to a range of relevant stakeholders, inviting their views on those proposals. Today, I shared that letter and the list of recipients with members of the Criminal Justice Committee for publication. Alongside that, my officials have engaged with key delivery partners, and I personally met victims organisations on the proposed changes.
The consultation is happening because an instrument will be laid next week that automatically releases prisoners after they have served less than a third of their sentence. That means that someone who has been sentenced to just under four years for a violent offence, such as a knife attack, would be released at 14 months. In other words, for every 10 days of sentence, only three will be served in prison. Does the cabinet secretary really think that a consultation of three working days is appropriate for a change of that magnitude? In any event, does she think that it is acceptable to ask the Parliament to sanction the release of criminals in prison based on what is, as her letter to the committee acknowledges, a box-ticking exercise?
There is no such thing as a box-ticking exercise. I have to acknowledge that the consultation, by necessity, is short. That is because further action is required. I am very mindful of parliamentary scrutiny. The Parliament will rise in the not-too-distant future, and I wish for the SSI to have its 40 days to be processed. Given the magnitude of the issue, I value parliamentary scrutiny on it very much. We will, of course, take account of all views. The consultation builds on previous work, particularly on the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025. As members would expect, there is on-going engagement between stakeholders, my officials and me.
The true folly of the ill-informed, knee-jerk, unplanned early release of prisoners is writ large in Government figures, which show that nearly half of ex-prisoners end up back inside for further crimes within a year. The cabinet secretary says that she will take account of all the views, so, if victims and victims organisations responding to the consultation overwhelmingly oppose the plans to let prisoners out after only a third of their sentence, will she pause the rush to legislate and rethink, or will she just carry on regardless?
As Mr Kerr well knows, sometimes you cannot duck action. [Interruption.] For the sake of our communities and, indeed, the Scottish Prison Service, sticking our heads in the sand is not an option. I have outlined in full detail to members the situation that our Scottish Prison Service is facing. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
What Mr Kerr says about reconviction rates points to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of short-term custodial sentences. [Interruption.] We know from the evidence that community sentences, such as community payback orders, are much more effective in reducing reoffending. I am focused on building an evidence-based consensus on what will work at the end of the day to keep our communities safe. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another. There is much interest, and I would like to enable as many members as possible to put a question.
Will the cabinet secretary speak further on how the Scottish Government is ensuring that important safeguards are in place to protect the public and victims, while also taking the necessary actions to aid in relieving the pressures on the Scottish Prison Service?
Protecting victims and public safety remains an absolute priority. That is why the proposed changes have exclusions built in. It is so that those serving sentences for domestic abuse and sexual offences of any length are automatically excluded. I fully recognise that victims, families and victim support organisations will have concerns. That is why I have met victim support organisations personally and remain committed to continuing to engage with them on this important issue.
Should the proposal be agreed to by Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service will work directly with victim support organisations to raise awareness of it and to encourage those who are eligible to sign up to the victim notification scheme to do so. Those who are part of the scheme will automatically be notified of any change in release date for the prisoner in their case.
It appears as though, in a few days’ time, Scotland will move to a position in which short-term prisoners will serve 30 per cent of their sentence on a permanent basis—that is, for all time. Let us be clear about that. I want to try to understand what that means and why the Government thinks that the measure is necessary to meet the issues that the cabinet secretary referred to.
Yesterday, the cabinet secretary said that the change in the release point for short-term prisoners from 50 to 40 per cent of their sentence that Parliament agreed to just over a year ago was
“projected to result in a sustained reduction of approximately 5 per cent across the sentenced population of short-term prisoners in comparison with the situation if no change had been made.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2026; c 27.]
Can the cabinet secretary tell us, before the consultation, what effect that reduction from 50 to 40 per cent has had? I presume that some projections have been made in relation to the proposal that the release point be reduced to 30 per cent. If the Government cannot tell us that today, what is the point of doing what it proposes?
I remind Ms McNeill of the clear political commitment that I gave to the Parliament as a whole in answering Audrey Nicoll’s question yesterday, when I said that, although a statutory review cannot be provided for in secondary legislation, if the Parliament agrees to the automatic early release point being reduced to 30 per cent, we would review that change in the same way as if such a review was provided for in primary legislation. I put on record the reasons why I think that that is important.
With regard to the outcome of this proposal, it is predicted that it will reduce the prison population by between 239 and 312 individuals. The benefit of this measure is that it will help to achieve a sustained reduction, in the same way that the previous STP40 programme reduced the population from what it would otherwise have been. When we change the automatic early release point, that has a sustained impact, whereas we all know that emergency early release, although necessary, has a temporary impact.
Scotland is in a similar position to Europe, where half the countries’ prisons exceed 100 per cent prison occupancy. Many are considering alternatives.
In 2021, Kosovo agreed to take 300 Danish prisoners at a similar cost to the cost of housing prisoners in Scottish jails. Sweden, Estonia and Belgium are exploring similar schemes. The Scottish Prison Service has 653 foreign nationals in custody. Many, including 94 Albanians, would be closer to family if they were housed in Kosovo. Given that the European convention on human rights already features prominently in Kosovan law, will the cabinet secretary commit to exploring a similar scheme to help to reduce Scotland’s foreign national prison population and free up space in our jails?
I invite the cabinet secretary to respond, to the extent to which the subject matter of the question relates to that of the substantive question. I remind members that follow-up questions should be on the same subject as the original question.
I am considering what further action can be taken within our devolved remit. The SPS regularly engages with the UK Government to identify the foreign national offenders who are eligible for removal from prisons in Scotland. As a matter of fact, we support the co-ordination of prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and other international jurisdictions.
However, we do not have the powers to replicate the proposals that have been outlined by the UK Government for the removal of more foreign national offenders, as returns and deportations are matters that are entirely reserved.
I previously shared—either in the chamber or in committee—the number of UK Border Agency staff that the UK Government allocates to work across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That figure is around 50-plus. However, I have to say that the number of officers who support such work in Scotland is particularly low—from memory, I think that it is about four, but I will write to the member with the accurate facts.
The cabinet secretary failed to answer Liam Kerr’s question, so let me repeat it. If the consultation, which lasts three days, comes back against the cabinet secretary’s proposals, will she abandon her plans or press ahead regardless?
I think that that is a particularly disingenuous question. [Interruption.]
What?
I am entitled—am I not, Presiding Officer?—to share my opinion and give my view to the chamber, and, indeed, to Mr Ross.
Come on!
Let us hear one another.
Consultation is crucially important. However, as this Parliament and Mr Ross know, at the end of the day, it will be parliamentarians who will have to vote and decide on the merits or otherwise of the regulations that I bring forward. In that discussion, I look forward to hearing from Liam Kerr, in particular, about what his party’s solutions are to the problem of our prison population—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
—because we all remember what the previous UK Government did when it released 10,000 prisoners without any regard to parliamentary accountability or transparency.
I am slightly confused about the point of the consultation. However, if we are consulting, will the cabinet secretary tell me whether she is consulting local authorities and homelessness charities on where those individuals who are coming out of prison will be housed? We know that there is a housing crisis, particularly in Lothian, and that there is no accommodation for people. Where will those individuals sleep when they are released?
Please answer with regard to the substantive question, cabinet secretary.
Mr Balfour raises an important point. I will make sure that he gets a copy of the correspondence that I sent to the Criminal Justice Committee yesterday and today. Annex A of the letter that I sent today details those whom we are required to consult by legislation and the other delivery partners, some of whom he has mentioned, whom we will also consult. We will look at those views with all seriousness and consideration.
I note the point that Mr Balfour raises about support and delivery partners, particularly around housing.
That concludes the urgent question in the name of Liam Kerr. We now move to the urgent question in the name of Finlay Carson.
Maternity Services (Wigtownshire)
To ask what immediate action the Scottish Government will take in light of the concerns raised by the Patient Safety Commissioner at the meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee on 3 February regarding transparency and risk mitigation in relation to maternity services in Wigtownshire.
I recognise the real strength of feeling on this matter. I also thank the Patient Safety Commissioner for her work to amplify the voices of patients. Her comments to the committee were important, particularly those about the need for women who feel vulnerable when giving birth to know that they will be supported and safe.
I am concerned by the suggestion that patients do not feel that they are getting the communication that they need, and I note that the commissioner said that she will soon meet leaders from NHS Dumfries and Galloway to discuss her concerns. The commissioner is also a member of the Government’s new maternity and neonatal services task force, which has now met.
As Mr Carson will recall, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care wrote to him on 20 November 2025, following his attendance at a meeting held by ministers on 15 October 2025 with the Galloway community hospital action group and representatives of the Dumfries and Galloway integration joint board and NHS Dumfries and Galloway. In that letter, the cabinet secretary outlined the controls that NHS Dumfries and Galloway has in place to prevent adverse effects and manage risk. Those include a clinical risk assessment tool, which is completed at every antenatal visit and supports the identification of individual risk factors for women during the antenatal period. If Mr Carson is content, I will share that letter with the Patient Safety Commissioner.
For almost a decade, mothers, campaigners and politicians from across the parties have raised concerns about patient choice and safety in Wigtownshire. Health minister after health minister—including Jenni Minto and Maree Todd—has said that they have listened. However, the truth is that, although they may well have listened, they have failed to act. Given what the Patient Safety Commissioner has now told us, will the minister explain why the situation has been allowed to drift on for so long? Does she understand why so many people fear that it will become yet another failure under the watch of the Scottish National Party—like the Wishaw maternity services and Queen Elizabeth university hospital tragedies—in which whistleblowers are shunned, nothing is done, no lessons are learned and families are left to pay the price?
As Finlay Carson is aware, decisions on maternity services are made by the health board that represents that footprint. However, in recognition of the Healthcare Improvement Scotland reports on NHS hospital maternity services, we have established the maternity and neonatal task force, which has been set up exactly in order to look at a number of the issues that Mr Carson has highlighted. I am pleased that the Patient Safety Commissioner is part of that group, to ensure that the voices of service users are heard clearly. I am also pleased that, in addition to hearing patients’ voices, we are hearing very clearly about rural and island situations. I hope that that will go some way to responding to Mr Carson’s question.
I thank the minister for her response, but it does not give me any confidence. It is simply not good enough. She is well aware that, in 2024, independent clinical advice recommended the reinstatement of midwife-led births in Wigtownshire, yet the IJB overturned that, despite strong local support and the continued risk of long journeys for women in labour. At around the same time, decisions were taken to replace cottage hospitals in Newton Stewart and Kirkcudbright without first identifying where step-down or palliative care beds would go, ignoring clear public preferences and leaving rural families with even fewer local options. Given that pattern of independent recommendations being identified but rejected, public views being set aside, beds being removed without alternatives and, now, the Patient Safety Commissioner warning of gaps in care and unclear risk mitigation, does the Government accept that NHS Dumfries and Galloway has reached the threshold for stage 4 escalation? If not, why not?
As Finlay Carson will know, processes are in place to consider such matters, especially when it comes to escalation. As he will also know, NHS Dumfries and Galloway is currently escalated to level 3 for finance and level 2 for mental health, to allow the Scottish Government to monitor things such as child and adolescent mental health services. As Mr Carson noted in his letter to the cabinet secretary, the Government has not been afraid of escalating health boards if it is deemed necessary to do so. As I have said, processes are in place and the issue is always kept under consideration.
There is much interest in this issue. Concise questions and responses will afford more members the opportunity to ask a question.
I commend the on-going and tireless work of the Galloway community hospital action group in campaigning to reinstate maternity services at Galloway community hospital and ensure a sustainable future for the hospital that is embedded in the community.
At the committee meeting yesterday, at which I asked the Patient Safety Commissioner questions in relation to the issue, she was clearly unhappy that the detailed information that she requires and had requested from NHS D and G was not provided in the first instance but required instead further meetings and time. What discussions will the minister have with NHS D and G to ensure that it takes seriously its responsibilities for both patient safety and openness with professionals and the public?
I have watched the evidence that the Patient Safety Commissioner gave yesterday to the committee. The cabinet secretary has been pleased to meet the Patient Safety Commissioner, Karen Titchener, and will continue to do so. Following the meeting, my officials contacted NHS Dumfries and Galloway, and I understand that it has now shared the information. The commissioner may also raise matters with the cabinet secretary as they arise.
I was pleased to welcome Ms Titchener as a member of the maternity and neonatal task force, which I chair and which had its first meeting last week. I have stressed how important it is to have the voices of maternity service users represented on the task force.
Concerns have also been raised about the maternity unit at Crosshouse university hospital, with Healthcare Improvement Scotland finding that it fell short of standards in 16 areas. These issues keep happening across Scotland and we need action now. What discussions has the minister had with the chief executive of NHS Scotland about the matter? Has the national review of maternity care that was announced last year started? Is there an escalation procedure to ensure that issues that are found are dealt with immediately? When will the review conclude?
I call the minister to respond in relation to the substantive question.
The maternity and neonatal task force, which, as I said, had its first meeting last week, has been set up to review and consider evidence on the situation in maternity healthcare. I meet the director general of NHS Scotland regularly, and the cabinet secretary and I met NHS Ayrshire and Arran today to discuss the report on Crosshouse hospital that Healthcare Improvement Scotland has just released.
The Patient Safety Commissioner made it clear that those with lived experience are not being listened to and that the health board has failed to reassure and support patients. Patient safety should be our number 1 priority. Where is the safety in turning away women in early labour to drive 70 miles home or in women leaving maternity services with post-traumatic stress disorder? Women are telling us that lives are at risk and that something needs to change.
The Patient Safety Commissioner raised those concerns in a meeting of a committee of this Parliament. In the light of the community’s real concerns and the important evidence that the commissioner provided in the Parliament, what leadership will the minister show to ensure that services are made safe? Women need action, not more reports.
I agree that the evidence that we heard yesterday from the Patient Safety Commissioner was very powerful. Delivering safe and effective care for maternity service users is of utmost importance to the Scottish Government. In previous answers, I have laid out that the cabinet secretary regularly meets the Patient Safety Commissioner, who is a key member of the maternity and neonatal task force, which I chair. I will ensure that these questions, which are now all on the public record, are shared directly with the commissioner, and we will respond to them clearly.
I declare an interest in that I have a daughter who is a midwife.
This afternoon, I was at the launch of the Royal College of Midwives’ manifesto, which is aptly named “Safe Staffing = Safe Care”. The royal college says that the Government is painting a picture that it does not recognise. It talks about burnout and staff shortages, and it even talks about overnight meals still not being available for staff and about staff having no breaks. Despite those issues being highlighted, staff are being asked to do more and more with less and less resource, which is putting patients at risk. Why did it take the intervention of the Patient Safety Commissioner for the Government to recognise the concerns that have been raised?
The Scottish Government had already recognised them, because Healthcare Improvement Scotland was required to carry out the reviews. It is incredibly important that we get the information from the inspections that are going on, and we have carried out a listening exercise with maternity staff. A consistent response to Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s reviews relates to safe staffing levels, and I am focused on that issue through the work of the maternity and neonatal task force.
Does the minister accept that, in the light of the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland’s concerns, residents across Dumfries and Galloway will now, rightly, be concerned? If the health board is unable to show what risk mitigations have been put in place for decisions around maternity services, where else might patient safety be compromised and where else is governance lacking? Do the mounting problems that the health board now faces across a range of areas—from financial sustainability to accident and emergency waiting times to step-down care to child and adolescent mental health services and maternity services—mean that it is now time that the health board is escalated to stage 4 of the national support and intervention framework?
Minister, with reference to the substantive question.
I thank Craig Hoy for his question. I have already responded to his colleague Finlay Carson’s question on escalation. As I said in an earlier response, my understanding is that the health board has provided the Patient Safety Commissioner with the responses and the evidence that she requested, and a meeting will take place between her and the health board imminently.
That concludes the urgent question in the name of Finlay Carson.
Next
Business Motions