Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I start by putting on record that, over the past year or so in which I have been Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, I have very much appreciated the cross-party endeavours to support prison staff. I know that, around this table, there are advocates for both those who live and those who work in our custodial estate.

The statutory instrument that is before us today is rooted in section 11 of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023. My recollection is a wee bit different from what Ms Clark described; I thought that we had debated it rather extensively. At the time, we were all trying to hypothesise about what would be a likely threat to the good order and the safe running and operations of a prison, and to the health and safety of staff and prisoners.

The reality is that, since we debated and passed the 2023 act, the prison population has increased by more than 700. I have proactively, at every step of the way, sought to engage with members, and I appreciate Ms McNeill’s acknowledgement of that. I have made three statements to the Parliament, proactively—nobody asked me to do so. I have proactively been coming to the Parliament to inform members of the challenges and the medium-term and longer-term actions.

You did.

Every home nation in the UK is struggling with the issue right now, and I have engaged with colleagues across the UK on it; I have had discussions with people in Northern Ireland, in particular. England and Wales have had emergency release provisions for decades, and have had a rolling prisoner release programme since October 2023. Measures have been taken there to utilise police cells, which is not something that we have pursued, and the measures have slowed down the court process. We remain focused on court catch-up.

It is important to consider what is currently available in other jurisdictions for emergency situations, but we can cast our eye further afield to other comparable jurisdictions that have historically always had much lower prison populations than Scotland has. There is not something intrinsic to Scotland—or indeed anywhere else in the UK—

Teresa Medhurst, would you like to attempt to answer that?