Chamber and committees

Good morning. I thank the cabinet secretary and Teresa Medhurst for sharing their insights into why we are facing this crisis in the Scottish Prison Service. They have always been frank and open with the Opposition parties, and I appreciate that.

I would like to understand the detail of what all of this means in relation to short-term prisoners. It is quite hard to follow, but am I correct in saying that the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 changes the early release point to 40 per cent of a sentence having been served? Where does that provision come in?

Thank you—that was helpful.

I noted that the updated rules will apply in relation to the Upper Tribunal, which the chair will have some flexibility in appointing members to. I presume that it would be expected that people who were appointed to the Upper Tribunal would be familiar with, and have had training in, the police rules specifically.

That is great; thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I will start with the global exploitation of, and sexual violence committed against, women and girls—mainly by men; I would like to think that we probably all agree on that.

I am not probing whether you are for or against decriminalisation; that has been well covered. I am interested in hearing, in particular from Dr Sandy and Dr Vuolajärvi, what happens if we go down the path of removing stigma.

I know that there are various levels of stigma attached to the industry, which you have articulated very well; I agree with that. However, the normalisation of the sale of sex is what concerns me most and what I want to ask about. Niina Vuolajärvi, are you not concerned about going down that path? Can we really stop men sexually exploiting women by normalising the sale of sex?

Do you think that your argument harms women who are not involved in the sex trade who are exploited by men? Does not wanting to protect the sale of sex in any country, which is what I think that you are arguing for—for all the right reasons; I understand that—cause harm to other women, because of the very nature of men’s attitudes to women? Alternatively, do you think that it does not harm them? If so, that is fine, but I would like to know.

I start by saying that I do not find this at all easy. I can see that there is an emergency. I heard Phil Fairlie from the Prison Officers Association on the radio this morning and I know that the situation is horrendous. For that reason, the regulations must be carefully considered, but I am going to oppose the SSI and will set out the balance of my reasoning.

The issue is not straightforward, and there will be consequences whichever way we vote. We want to release the pressure on our prisons, but this is the third time that we have been in this situation, and my main concern is that I do not want to endorse an approach of managing prisoners in that way.

The situation is already complex, and I appreciated the exchange with the cabinet secretary as I tried to understand the current sentencing policy in Scottish prisons. I dearly wish that the committee had been given time to do its job, because I agree with the point about the long term. The convener knows that I feel that this committee should be able to examine some bigger issues during the final six months of this parliamentary session because that is our job. The Sentencing Council has its job, and I will say something about that, but we have a job and do not have the time to do it, for reasons that I will not go into.

I am not convinced that the Sentencing Council is doing the job that it was set up for. That is my initial take on that, because I think that there should be clearer answers to the changing trends. You cannot take a period of 18 or 20 years and say that we could not have predicted this situation. Things do not stay the same, that is for sure: the prison population might become older, and the courts are independent and we do not know what they will do. I appreciate all that, but I think that the Sentencing Council should be more up front and should have more of an exchange with us, as elected members, about how it will deal with this in the longer term. I agree with the cabinet secretary on that.

I have to be constantly reminded that we changed the approach to long-term prisoners, who are not eligible for release on parole until six months before the end of their sentence. That shows how complex sentencing has become, for many reasons. The committee should have a legacy discussion about that.

The convener asked about lessons learned. I am sure that lessons have been learned and are learned every time that we have to go through this process. Communication with victims is not easy.

I know that we are running out of time for discussion, but I will mention that Families Outside appealed to the committee to recognise the importance of families. I know that the cabinet secretary is fully aware that families make a huge difference to reoffending rates, and that organisation has pleaded for better communication.

The decision is a very difficult one—I am not going to pretend otherwise—but I thought that I should contribute to the debate and explain my decision.

It might be more appropriate to put this question to Alasdair Thomson, because it is about waiting times and the current structure.

I understand what we are being asked to do. If the function is transferred over, will that change the waiting times for police tribunals?

That is not what I am talking about. Maybe we do not agree on this. The global exploitation of women and girls is, primarily, carried out by men; organised gangs are mainly male; and the buyers are mainly male. There is lots of evidence that men are exploiting women in these situations, even though the women are entering into an agreement for the sale of sex. That is what I have heard. Surely you must agree.

It is quite important for us to get our heads around where we are, because the situation is complex. I understand that. I found that information helpful, thank you.

Cabinet secretary, I asked you about this in the chamber yesterday. I know that there is more than one reason for the rise in the prison population. The committee also had a discussion about that with Teresa Medhurst. However, if I understood what you said yesterday—and you are not the first person to say this—it appears that there has been a rise in the number of longer sentences that the courts are handing out, for whatever reason. Is that the case?

Do you agree that it is quite important for somebody, whether it be a committee or a Government department, to understand why that might be? You said that the rise could not have been predicted, but if there are to be changes in trends in sentencing and in how long we hold prisoners for, maybe it is an important thing to understand.

You might not be able to answer this, but does that indicate that more serious crimes are being committed, or is it not possible to tell? Or is it that the courts are taking a harder view on sentencing—which they are entitled to do, as the judiciary is independent?