Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do. Colleagues will be familiar with the layering of some of the reforms that have already taken place, such as the fact that the summary case management system sits with the digital evidence sharing capability, the use of body-worn video cameras and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service’s investment in the update of the Office of the Public Guardian’s systems. It is not cheap—far from it—but we are all making that journey.

I understand the point, but there is not a savings account with money sitting in it. Of course, the figures for the savings that have been made over a number of years are accurate, and that speaks to the fact that one of the outcomes of the reforms is the financial sustainability of services as well as improved outcomes. It is important that we remember the improved outcomes and deliverables from Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, both of which are exemplars with regard to reform.

It is the recovery money—the recover, renew and transform programme funds. I understand the arguments, and we are giving due consideration to the request for that budget to be baselined.

In broad terms, tackling the climate emergency is a priority for the Government as a whole, as has been set out and articulated by the First Minister. Justice is part of that priority in the same way as other portfolios. We will all be expected to make a contribution.

Following on from our discussion about HMP Glasgow, I should say that the new HMP Highland will have zero direct emissions, and no fossil fuels will be burned in the running of the new HMP Glasgow, because it will all be electric. Net zero ambitions are particularly important when it comes to building public facilities. That was certainly a feature when the new HMP Stirling was built. The Scottish Futures Trust also has net zero in its public buildings standards. Such endeavours are sometimes mocked and, at times, they may well add to the cost of building public buildings. However, there is an important expectation for the justice portfolio and elsewhere to consider sustainability in public services.

Our agencies are also expected to do that. Last year, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service published its “Sustainability Strategy 2024-2027”. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been working on plans to build a new community resilience hub in Skye, which will be carbon neutral. Police Scotland is held to account by the SPA, which has key environmental targets, notably in relation to reducing carbon emissions. The SPA also produces an annual report on sustainability.

There is a lot of information available, but I will be happy to follow up with further detail if the convener wishes me to do so.

The SSI will not change the process for obtaining a GRC. The chair of the panel, like Scottish Trans, is supportive of the SSI. If, based on the wider risk assessment, the police had concerns about someone who had applied for a GRC, they could write to the gender recognition panel, which is a UK tribunal. There are certain considerations that the panel has to assess in terms of legal requirements and issues that are germane to the individual.

In due course, I will take a moment to address the point that the DPLR Committee raised.

We propose to use existing legislative powers to amend legislation in order to align arrangements for the removal of foreign national offenders from prison with other release legislation in Scotland.

The Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Modifications) Regulations 2026 is the first of two instruments relating to early removal of foreign national offenders. I announced our intention to introduce them during a statement on the prison population on 2 October.

On the DPLR Committee’s reflections, I agree that using consequential powers in an act to create a subordinate legislation-making power is “unusual”, and that, ordinarily, it would not be desirable. However, on this occasion, we have done so because it is one of the various measures that we are taking forward to help alleviate the prison population issue.

The purpose of the instrument that the committee is considering today is to facilitate the earlier removal from prison of prisoners who are liable for removal from the United Kingdom on immigration grounds or who have the settled intention of residing permanently outside of the United Kingdom once removed from prison.

The instrument will align the provisions that are being amended with other aspects of release legislation in Scotland, and it will help to enable the earlier removal of those prisoners, which, in turn, might help to mitigate the high prison population.

If approved by Parliament, the instrument will change the release point from which early removal arrangements work, in order to align it with the automatic early release point for short-term prisoners, as changed by the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025, which amended section 1 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. The period in which early removal is possible will be calculated from the applicable automatic release point for short-term prisoners, which was amended earlier this year, rather than the previous automatic early release point, which was when 50 per cent of a sentence had been served.

If approved, the instrument will also add to the existing order-making power that is contained in the provisions to allow Scottish ministers to change, by order, the minimum period of sentence that must be served before a prisoner can be removed from prison for removal from the UK.

It is planned that, under that order-making power, a separate instrument will be laid in January. That instrument will propose an amendment to the number of days prior to the prisoner’s automatic release point within which the prisoner can be removed. If the instrument is approved, it will also change the minimum period of sentence that has to be served before a prisoner can be removed from prison for removal from the United Kingdom.

The second order will align the release provisions with recent changes that were approved by this Parliament to home detention curfew, which is not available to prisoners who are liable for removal from the UK. The minimum amount of a sentence that will have to be served will be 15 per cent, rather than one quarter, and the number of days would change from 180 to 210. These changes would provide a greater and earlier timeframe for removal from prison for the purpose of removal from the country.

I hope that the committee is content to approve the instrument, which helps to provide greater cohesion with regard to sentence management arrangements as they apply to short-term prisoners. It might also help to mitigate the high prison population, albeit in a limited way.

That will depend on their offence. There are exclusions—

It is the automatic early release point that is relevant to the individual prisoner, which relates to their offence or existing statutory exclusions. If the automatic release point is 50 per cent or 40 per cent, we are not changing that—that legislation has been passed.

I will perhaps ask officials to put this into plain English, but if, for example, someone is due to be released at 40 per cent of their short-term sentence, we will be able to release them earlier, back to their own country. Is that right?

Is that in plain English enough?

There has to be an assessment process, in the same way that assessment processes underlie the vast majority of decisions in the justice system. I do not know whether David Doris can add to that on an operational level.