Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am conscious, Ms Dowey, that I am about to ask to intervene on you to answer Mr Findlay’s question, which is a bit odd.

I understand the issues and the care that members have taken in this area. For me, the bottom line is that there are various views about the scope of fatal accident inquiries. As a constituency MSP, I have looked closely at the matter, not in relation to police officers, but in respect of the complexities of deaths abroad. I have looked at the coroners’ system in England and the differences there are not quite as stark in practice. Although the systems look a bit different on the surface, I think that neither system always delivers the outcomes that grieving families would wish for.

There are two issues. First—I do not want to sound clumsy or disrespectful—there is no short route to changing the process of fatal accident inquiries through the back door or through another bill. That would be a less than complete or satisfactory way to address matters, because the area would require much more in-depth consultation and scrutiny.

Tragedies happen in many professions—people who work in the health service take their lives. Certainly, I have known a number of social work colleagues who have taken their lives. Suicide stretches far and wide and it will have touched everyone in this room in some shape or form. We could get into unforeseen difficulties through the very understandable desire to address the issue that is related to serving police constables, which might create less than satisfactory outcomes because we are not looking at it in the context of a wider review of fatal accident inquiries. I am cognisant that many other professions stand in the line of duty and that the mental health of those professionals also suffers. My view remains the same—the issue is much wider.

Irrespective of one’s views on the merits or otherwise of the current legislation, what is suggested is a much bigger piece of work than can be done by trying to rectify matters by making amendments to a specific bill. I say that with respect. I am very conscious that this matter cuts to the core—it cuts deep—for many families.

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.

We are reliant on people coming forward if they are not registered with the victim notification scheme. I hope that, through our work as parliamentarians and with our partners such as SPS, we can raise as much awareness as possible. We will do everything that we can to support the victim support organisations, but I cannot give people information without knowing that they want it.

Yes.

Good morning. I start by placing on record once again my thanks to the Scottish Prison Service officers and staff for the vital work that they do to support people who are in their care. I know that they do that with compassion and professionalism.

I also know that the committee is well versed in the critical situation that our prisons face. I have endeavoured to keep Parliament updated and informed on the issue. I have now made three statements to Parliament, alongside my most recent statement on 16 May; I have written to the committee and published an associated position paper and information note; and I wrote again to the committee when I laid the draft regulations.

England and Wales also face, and are taking action on, the same situation. The Scottish Prison Service has kept its population management strategy under review to ensure the best use of its estate. We have optimised the use of home detention curfew and have increased investment in community justice services. Despite those efforts, however, the prison population has increased by 13 per cent since the start of 2023, with a substantial increase since March 2024. As of this morning, 8,294 people are in custody and in the care of the Scottish Prison Service.

It is that sharp and unanticipated rise that is placing enormous pressure on the safe operations of prisons, and urgent action is needed to address that. Emergency release is the only option that is available to me to do that, which is why I have laid the regulations. I did not take that decision lightly. I am clear that the legal test to use emergency release is met, and that it is necessary and proportionate in order to respond to the risk to the security and good order of prisons and the health, safety and welfare of prisoners and staff. Those are the principles that I must protect.

Public protection is a priority in the process, and there are safeguards in place to support the use of emergency release legislation. Those are set out in legislation, and I will quickly summarise them. Only prisoners who are serving less than four years and who are due to be released within 180 days following the date on which the regulations come into force will be eligible for release. Statutory exclusions apply, including prisoners who are subject to the sex offenders register and those who are serving sentences following conviction for domestic abuse offences.

I have added further protections so that individuals who have previously served a sentence following conviction for a domestic abuse offence, provided that that conviction is not spent, will not be released under the powers. Individuals who are subject to non-harassment orders will also not be released.

A governor veto applies, which allows governors to prevent the release of an otherwise eligible prisoner if they consider that that person would pose an immediate risk to a specific individual or group if they were released. Governors will have access to a range of multi-agency information, including from police and social work, to support the application of the veto.

I stress that I recognise victims’ concerns about the use of these powers, and I assure the committee that protecting the public remains my absolute priority. We are working with victim support organisations to increase victims’ awareness of how they can access information. The regulations name four victim support organisations, so that the victims can receive information about the release of a prisoner if a victim has said that they want that in their case. That is intended to support a more trauma-informed approach.

Emergency release is not the solution to the prison population crisis; it will, however, provide the Prison Service with some time and capacity in the short term. That is critical in order to ensure that prisons can still function safely and focus on those who pose the greatest risk of harm.

I am always happy to answer any questions, convener.

I have become used to it, Mr Findlay.

Part 1 of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 refocused the bail test so that there is a very sharp focus on public safety, including victim safety, and on those who pose a risk to the administration of justice. The whole purpose of part 1 of the act was to refocus use of remand, so we have already legislated in that regard. We are working with justice partners on implementation of part 1, although that has been held up because we need a section 104 duty, and there are some intricacies around extradition. To be fair, I point out that the UK Government has been working well with us in that regard, but the general election campaign has been something of an interrupter.

The absolute priority, over and above legislation, is alternatives to remand. We currently invest £3.2 million in alternatives to remand. The work that I referenced that involves re-looking at the partnership arrangements with the voluntary sector is being done with that in mind. That can involve voluntary aftercare post-sentence or bespoke support for people through mentoring.

I am crystal clear that we need to do more about the visibility and expansion of alternatives to remand in the community.

I will do everything in my power to persuade Parliament of the additional measures, one of which I outlined to Ms McNeill, so that we avoid this becoming the new normal, because I do not want it to be the new normal.

I was very pleased that this former prison social worker secured an additional £14 million of investment in community justice for this financial year, bringing the figure up to £148 million. Colleagues will recall reform through legislation on community payback orders. Do we need to improve the visibility of those? Do we need to continue to utilise Community Justice Scotland to convince hearts and minds of what the evidence tells us about the effectiveness of community payback orders? Do we have to continue to expand community justice? My answers are yes, yes and yes.

On the prison building programme, as, I am sure, I have said before to Mr Findlay—again, I will be utterly candid—we cannot build our way out of this. Our prison building programme is a programme to replace old Victorian prisons. I am pleased with the progress that is being made on HMP Highland. We will have more news later this year, in the summer and in the autumn, about the replacement for Barlinnie.

I agree with the chief inspector that, as a country and as a Parliament, we have a choice. We can choose to build more prisons, if we do not think that 17 prisons are enough. If we think that Scotland is so uniquely bad that we need more prisons because we need to continue to lock up more people than any other country in the western world, that is a choice that we can make. However, people will have to come up with the capital resource. The choice that we will have to make is whether to have more prisons, more hospitals or more schools. We can have that discussion and debate.

We have been making substantial choices—