Chamber and committees

That is what I seek to avoid. I have been very clear, up front and candid that emergency release is a short-term measure. It gives some breathing space and allows some capacity in the system to support the transition of children, given the passage of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, for example. It gives the capacity to focus on recruitment for the SPS’s plans to utilise additional capacity at Low Moss as well as in Cruden hall in Grampian. The committee will also be well aware of the plans at Polmont for more adult male prisoners to go in once the children have been removed. All that requires operational capacity.

However, I contend that we parliamentarians need to be focused on the other measures that we need to take, such as what else we will do to reduce our remand population, which sits today at 2,200, and what we will do to ensure a sustainable reduction in our prison population that protects public safety. Prisons are there to protect and, indeed, to punish, but they are also there to rehabilitate and reintegrate.

That is why, during the summer, I will have a short consultative exercise on the release arrangements for long-term prisoners. We know that, across all groups, people are serving longer sentences, so it is legitimate and justified that we look again at those reintegration processes and supports.

Court catch-up, or the amount of court activity and the number of warrants in the system, is part of the longer-term driver of the prison population.

On reoffending, you will have heard me say that, although short-term sentences are necessary in some circumstances, they are less effective at reducing recidivism than robust community payback orders. When people offend, they should pay back to the community and make amends for the distress they caused.

On the specific point that Ms McNeill raised about the return rate of people who were released under emergency arrangements during Covid, the statistics suggest that that was on a par with what happens in general with those who are released from short-term prison sentences, which are less effective at reducing reoffending than community justice disposals.

I had not had any demands to make statements in the Parliament on the prison population. The point that I was making—I am perhaps getting into the weeds here—was that, on three occasions, I proactively went to the chamber to make a statement on the challenges that we face and on the medium-term and longer-term actions for which people have rightly been calling with regard to the question of what solutions we need to implement.

The reality is that, over a two-month period—I would not have predicted this—the prison population went up by 400. In one day, it went up by 88. That sharp increase was not predictable. There is no doubt, of course, that the issue has been exacerbated by the existing high prison population.

I reassure members that your cabinet secretary for justice is indeed a reformer, in terms of reforming our justice system both so that it becomes more trauma informed and so that it is always focused on public safety. I contend that a high prison population is not in the interest of public safety, because we are not preparing people for release or to be reintegrated into society. We should bear in mind that the vast majority of prisoners will, one day, return to our communities, so what happens in our prisons really matters, and it has a direct bearing on public safety.

I will not restate the lengthy list of statutory exclusions. Members are also aware of the additional exclusions that I have provided, in particular for those with non-harassment orders, and where people have served a previous custodial sentence for domestic violence-related offences—as long as that sentence is not spent, they can be excluded.

The governor’s veto was used at a level of 25 per cent across the piece under the Covid emergency release arrangements; Mr Findlay extracted that information from the witnesses today. The guidance is now more expansive—that was a key ask.

In addition, to go back to the point that Ms Dowey made, the guidance for governors includes prisoners who are a risk to an individual or an identifiable group of individuals, but it also covers situations in which an individual could be a risk to themselves, either because of their very poor mental health or because they are so vulnerable. That can be taken into consideration.

I hope that members have taken some solace from the information and evidence that the committee received last week from Lynsey Smith of Social Work Scotland and, today, from Teresa Medhurst. A significant amount of detail has been given around the preparations that have been made.

I accept that the change is being made quickly, as time is of the essence, and that presents its challenges. What happens next will depend on all of us. I am prepared to be courageous and follow the evidence, but I will need to persuade others to follow me on that.

I will make one concluding remark, because I am being eyeballed by the convener. As I said at the start of the meeting, we can critique the past—as I do—and we can debate the future. I assure you that we are going to be debating the future next steps, and we all have a role to play in that. However, the issue in front of us is about what we do right now.

When the Prison Governors Association (Scotland) wrote to me at the end of April or the start of May, it said:

“We are operating with a prevailing sense of ‘only just coping’ and remain concerned that emergency action will only be taken when something goes significantly wrong”.

That is what I seek to avoid. I cannot, in all conscience, as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, wait until something goes catastrophically wrong. I have no alternative other than to pursue this action, which is about the here and now.

I press the motion, and I urge members to support it.

Actually, Mr Findlay, that is a very fair point, and it was one of the reasons for the independent review of the victim notification scheme last year. We would like to see more victims register for those schemes, but it has to be their choice.

Ms Medhurst might come in, if I miss out some detail. The situation is that people who are currently registered with the victim notification scheme will receive the information that they are entitled to receive under that scheme in line with legislation. We cannot release information that is not currently legislated for.

The situation is as you describe. We have been very clear that the statutory instrument that we introduce will, indeed, be time limited. If it is passed by Parliament, it will apply from tomorrow, 13 June, until mid-July.

To manage the process to best effect, eligible prisoners will be released in four tranches. Again, we have been very explicit about that. The fourth tranche of releases will be made before 16 July. If there are people who miss that tranche, there is the potential for them to be released up to 16 July. However, we wanted to ensure that there was an appropriate lead-in time before the first tranche was released. I will check with Ms Stoddart whether there is any further information to add.

The VNS applies to sentences of 18 months or longer and the victim information scheme applies to sentences of less than 18 months.

Could you repeat the question? You asked a few in quick succession.

We are reliant on people coming forward if they are not registered with the victim notification scheme. I hope that, through our work as parliamentarians and with our partners such as SPS, we can raise as much awareness as possible. We will do everything that we can to support the victim support organisations, but I cannot give people information without knowing that they want it.

Yes.

Good morning. I start by placing on record once again my thanks to the Scottish Prison Service officers and staff for the vital work that they do to support people who are in their care. I know that they do that with compassion and professionalism.

I also know that the committee is well versed in the critical situation that our prisons face. I have endeavoured to keep Parliament updated and informed on the issue. I have now made three statements to Parliament, alongside my most recent statement on 16 May; I have written to the committee and published an associated position paper and information note; and I wrote again to the committee when I laid the draft regulations.

England and Wales also face, and are taking action on, the same situation. The Scottish Prison Service has kept its population management strategy under review to ensure the best use of its estate. We have optimised the use of home detention curfew and have increased investment in community justice services. Despite those efforts, however, the prison population has increased by 13 per cent since the start of 2023, with a substantial increase since March 2024. As of this morning, 8,294 people are in custody and in the care of the Scottish Prison Service.

It is that sharp and unanticipated rise that is placing enormous pressure on the safe operations of prisons, and urgent action is needed to address that. Emergency release is the only option that is available to me to do that, which is why I have laid the regulations. I did not take that decision lightly. I am clear that the legal test to use emergency release is met, and that it is necessary and proportionate in order to respond to the risk to the security and good order of prisons and the health, safety and welfare of prisoners and staff. Those are the principles that I must protect.

Public protection is a priority in the process, and there are safeguards in place to support the use of emergency release legislation. Those are set out in legislation, and I will quickly summarise them. Only prisoners who are serving less than four years and who are due to be released within 180 days following the date on which the regulations come into force will be eligible for release. Statutory exclusions apply, including prisoners who are subject to the sex offenders register and those who are serving sentences following conviction for domestic abuse offences.

I have added further protections so that individuals who have previously served a sentence following conviction for a domestic abuse offence, provided that that conviction is not spent, will not be released under the powers. Individuals who are subject to non-harassment orders will also not be released.

A governor veto applies, which allows governors to prevent the release of an otherwise eligible prisoner if they consider that that person would pose an immediate risk to a specific individual or group if they were released. Governors will have access to a range of multi-agency information, including from police and social work, to support the application of the veto.

I stress that I recognise victims’ concerns about the use of these powers, and I assure the committee that protecting the public remains my absolute priority. We are working with victim support organisations to increase victims’ awareness of how they can access information. The regulations name four victim support organisations, so that the victims can receive information about the release of a prisoner if a victim has said that they want that in their case. That is intended to support a more trauma-informed approach.

Emergency release is not the solution to the prison population crisis; it will, however, provide the Prison Service with some time and capacity in the short term. That is critical in order to ensure that prisons can still function safely and focus on those who pose the greatest risk of harm.

I am always happy to answer any questions, convener.