Seòmar agus comataidhean

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—

When I met Kate Wallace again last week, she spoke directly to me about the importance of the information-sharing agreement. I have stressed to my officials that both the information and the agreement are of pivotal importance. Our approach to it has been shaped by the law, including the general data protection regulation, and by existing information-sharing arrangements. It is a fairly complex piece of work.

Prior to coming to the committee today, I was clear that it was really important that a package of detailed information was available, both on the guidance for the governor’s veto and the accompanying operational standards and on the draft information-sharing agreement. I appreciate that the committee is very busy, and that we are working at pace with regard to emergency release. I appreciate, too, that that causes anxiety for victim support organisations, but the nature of the terrain that we are currently operating in means that we have to take emergency action.

It might be useful for me to talk about the decision-making process on emergency release. Members will be aware, because some of the correspondence was shared with the committee, that in the first week of May I received correspondence from His Majesty’s chief inspector of Prisons for Scotland, the Prison Governors’ Association, the SPS advisory board and Ms Medhurst herself. I could not ignore that correspondence. I had further discussions with Ms Medhurst and Cabinet colleagues, and the decision to pursue this course of action with Parliament’s consent was approved at Cabinet in the few days before I made my statement to Parliament.

I have always been clear that there is no magic bullet; there is no single solution that will provide a more sustainable prison population. Scotland, like the rest of the UK, is completely out of kilter with comparable jurisdictions. I have had views on the issue all my adult working life. It should be addressed, because it is not in the interests of public safety to have a very high prison population, particularly when things get to a critical point at which critical risks are posed by that very high population.

I indicated in my earlier answer to Mr Findlay that I discuss a range of issues with all justice partners. Shifting the balance from use of custody to use of robust community disposals is evidence led, and it is the right thing to do in many instances. However, we need to be focused on remand. There is work going on around a new partnership with the voluntary sector, which is about doing more, particularly for short-term prisoners, through voluntary aftercare.

I have already spoken about my strong desire to pursue different arrangements for long-term prisoners. We will make a Scottish statutory instrument on home detention curfew to enable people to spend longer on home detention curfew, in which people are licensed and tagged under a curfew. We have also spoken about better use of technology—using GPS, for example. We continue to expand supervised bail and electronically monitored bail, both of which are at record high levels. They might be at record-high levels, but we still need to do more.

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.

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

I talk to every partner in the justice system about the problems that are associated with the high prison population. That includes the Lord President. He is a defender and protector of the independence of the judiciary—as I am and as we all are, by law. I talk to each and every partner in our justice system about the problems that are associated with a high prison population, because it will ultimately require a whole-system solution. It is beholden on me to raise awareness, increase the visibility of community disposals, discuss with people how they think the implementation of, or response to, the presumption against short-term sentences is going, and articulate the effectiveness of robust community disposals. That does not take away from the independent decision making of partners. In short, I discuss the matter with everybody, Mr Findlay.

The proportion was 25 per cent.

Well, we have—

There are a number of factors in that. I will specifically address the issue of long-term prisoners. Although the statutory instrument runs for a short period of time—that window is short—the effect on the prison population will be longer and should get us past the summer and into autumn.

That is why, as I outlined in my statement on 16 May, we will do a short exercise over the summer to consult on release arrangements for long-term prisoners. We will openly discuss the question of what proportion of a long-term sentence should be served under community supervision. For people who are not released on parole, that is currently six months. If sentences are going up and someone has served six, eight, 10, 12, or 14 years, is six months of compulsory supervision at the end of their sentence long enough to reintegrate them?

We need to have that conversation and look at the evidence. I am not prejudging the specifics, although I am strongly of the view that now, almost 10 years since the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Act 2015 was passed, is the time to look at that, because it is one of the underlying factors behind our high prison population.

I also said in my statement that, depending on the response to that consultation, and with the approval of colleagues, I would seek to bring forward expedited legislation. We must do more. Emergency release is absolutely necessary right now, but we cannot take our foot off the gas. We must bring forward additional proposals, over and above what I have already reported to Parliament, and that is one of them.