That begs a question. You say that there is increased demand, but can you drill down into that a bit? What do you mean by “the increased demand”? Do you expect your performance against KPIs to continue to degrade? If so, what plans do you have to address that?

Good morning. Chief constable, you told the committee—your written submission reiterates this—that you required a minimum uplift of £104.9 million simply to cover pay, inflation, new legislation, unavoidable pressures and national insurance hikes. You have been given £90.3 million, and your submission also says that a further cost of £5 million has been identified. That begs the question, what specific operational reductions will be required as a direct consequence of the £19 million shortfall? Will that mean fewer officers on the streets?

Cabinet secretary, you said that the scheme could reduce the prison population by between 239 and 312 people once it is fully implemented, but numerous previous schemes have failed to deliver a sustained reduction in the prison population. What evidence is there that this change will make a lasting structural impact, rather than it resulting in a short-term dip followed by a rebound in the population?

The reoffending rate is currently about 44 per cent. What impact does your data—which has presumably been collated—suggest that the move will have on the reoffending rate? If the evidence—if any has been taken—shows that the reoffending rate will rise, perhaps due to there being fewer prison interventions or the fact that post-prison throughcare is voluntary, how will the move achieve a sustained reduction in the prison population?

I quoted the 44 per cent reoffending rate.

These scenes are extraordinary. First, this morning, the cabinet secretary has justified this specific measure by saying that its purpose is to achieve a sustained reduction in the prison population, yet, in response to questions, she conceded that previous measures were only about temporary relief, and all those measures have demonstrably failed to reduce the prison population. To say that there will be a sustained reduction on the very day that the news contains wall-to-wall reporting of the Scottish Government figures that say that the population could rise to 8,800 by July is brave, to say the least.

Secondly, in response to Sharon Dowey, the cabinet secretary talked about the purpose of prison being to house criminals. In fact, as the cabinet secretary well knows, the classical functions of prison are generally taken to be punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. Not one of those is helped by the proposed measure. In fact, on public protection, the cabinet secretary says that victim safety and public safety are the priority, but she has no evidence on the impact of early release on the reoffending rate and the effect on public safety. Indeed, we heard that there will not be a review of reoffending rates until next year. We also heard that there is no governor’s veto, so I presume that those whose release was refused by a governor under the emergency release legislation could now automatically be set free.

Finally, the cabinet secretary did not mention her own figures, which show that, of the prisoners who are eligible for this automatic release, nearly half have been imprisoned for non-sexual crimes of violence and a further third—indeed, more than a third—have been imprisoned for crimes against society or crimes of dishonesty. They will automatically be released. The cabinet secretary says that this measure is to manage the prison population, but it is not. It is a panicked, knee-jerk, unevidenced measure that will be counterproductive in so many ways.

I disagree with the cabinet secretary: this is not a hard decision. It must be opposed, which is why I will oppose it.

I want to follow up on that point. It is clear that a lot of work is being done to address the challenges at operational level, but the committee is keen to provide guidance to members in the next session of Parliament on what they can do to assist. Is there anything that you want to say to our successors about what you need from them in order to help the fire service to address the challenges?

Good afternoon. What are the current average investigation times for the investigations that you undertake? Is the PIRC consistently meeting the statutory timescales?

12:30

:You say that it is important that sex is included in the 2021 act and that it offers a proven model, but that is not how the Government felt in 2020, when it persuaded Parliament that we needed a stand-alone misogyny act.

I well recall, during the passage of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill, joining colleagues from across the parties in saying that we did not believe that the Government would introduce the promised misogyny bill, and it seems that we were right. Given that Baroness Kennedy reported in 2022, the consultation was launched in 2023 and the decision in the For Women Scotland case was made this time last year, what work has the Government done on a stand-alone bill since it promised the Parliament in 2021 to introduce such a bill so that, following its abandonment of its promise in May 2025, a new Government could pick up the issue and get something in place very quickly? Can the cabinet secretary reassure colleagues that this is not the end of the process? What is she doing to ensure that a new Government can pick up the issue and get something in place?

:I have two questions, and the first is more process driven. Can you help the committee understand what happens when a foreign criminal is released? Are they sent somewhere to be held and then taken from the UK to wherever they are going? Or are they released on a good bond that they will immediately remove themselves and take steps to do it? On a practical level, whether they do or not is perhaps open to question.