Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have written to the committee about all of that. We can always reshare that information, of course.

It is important that I do not allow words to be blistered. I repeat what I said earlier, which is that the Government and I have always been absolutely candid about the impact of any particular measure. I have never sold any individual measure as the silver bullet or the cure.

The only further point that I would make is that we have a situation in our prisons right now. People can critique the past and debate the future—I assure members that nobody will do that more than I—but the question is, “What are we prepared to do here and now?” Sometimes, hard decisions have to be made. I press the motion.

Thank you, and good morning. I begin by placing on record my gratitude and appreciation to Scottish Prison Service staff, justice social work services and other partners for their on-going dedication, hard work and commitment in all that they do.

As the committee will be aware, a rising and more complex prison population is not a challenge that is unique to Scotland. The Government has taken a range of actions to tackle the situation and to create a sustainable prison population. We have optimised the existing prison estate to create 400 additional spaces compared with 2024 and we have provided the Scottish Prison Service with capital funding of £355 million this year and £458.5 million next year to continue the construction of two new prisons, which will add 464 places. The resource budget for the SPS next year will also be increased to £509.3 million—almost half a billion pounds. In addition, we have significantly increased investment in community justice, bringing the total funding for the next financial year to £169 million. That will enable the expansion of alternatives to custody, including diversion, alternatives to remand, and community sentences, which we know are more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences.

Despite our best efforts, the prison population remains stubbornly high, which poses significant risks to those who are living and working in our prisons. The prison population stands at 8,361, with 13 establishments operating above design capacity and eight at red risk status. Should the regulations be approved, they would reduce the proportion of the custodial sentence that certain short-term prisoners would be required to serve before they are automatically released from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. The change is necessary to ensure that our prisons remain safe and effective. It could result in a sustained reduction of between 239 and 312 individuals, which would better support the delivery of crucial services in our prisons, pre-release planning and the safety and wellbeing of all those who live and work in our prisons. The change would apply only to those who are serving short-term sentences, and those with sentences for sexual or domestic abuse offences will be excluded. That recognises the barriers to reporting in relation to those types of offences and the need to maintain the progress that has been made in increased reporting.

My officials and I continue to engage with partners to maximise planning and support for those who are leaving custody. Additionally, the proposed changes would not take effect until after the current emergency early release scheme ends in April. Those who are eligible for immediate release would be released in tranches to minimise the impact on community services.

I have always been clear that there is no single or simple solution to the challenge that is faced by Scotland, other parts of the United Kingdom and beyond. Although the Government has already taken and continues to deliver a range of actions to increase the availability of alternatives to custody, a long-term change in our approach is needed. We now have the evidence-based recommendations of the sentencing and penal policy commission. Our collective duty is to consider what measures would deliver an effective justice system where prisons are safe environments that are focused on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending to ensure that we have fewer victims and safer communities.

10:15

Members will recall the statement that I gave to Parliament a few weeks ago. That was the Scottish Government’s initial response to what is a comprehensive and evidence-led report. The very nub of it is to point out that a very high prison population does not equate to a safer Scotland. There is a clear invitation to us all to do things differently.

The report is wide ranging and comprehensive, and we are looking at each of the recommendations. Decisions will, of course, be for the next session of Parliament, but I hope that, in the time that we all have between now and then, we can collectively give serious consideration to the report, as there will be decisions that need to be made or not. Given the scale of the report, we will need to look at what is deliverable and at prioritisation.

The evidence over the past two decades has been clear on the ineffectiveness of short-term sentences. I think that Ms Mackay asked a question in the chamber about the number of people serving a sentence of less than a year. If we take a snapshot on any given day, we find that the figure is about 500 people. The majority of short-term prisoners are serving sentences of two years or less. A body of evidence shows that there are better solutions, when it is safe and appropriate to use them, that make our communities safer.

There is a lot of work to do to consider the recommendations collectively and individually. I know that we are all in campaigning mode, but my plea is that we should try to find ground on which we can reach consensus. If we do not want to keep needing to make decisions that give temporary relief—which is what early emergency release measures do—we need to agree to the regulations that we are considering today, which will provide sustained relief. However, the regulations are only one small part of the jigsaw. We need to carry out more fundamental longer-term reform in order to have safer prisons and a sustainable prison population.

I remind Mr Kerr that I have always been utterly candid about the impact of each and every measure that we have undertaken. We have undertaken two early emergency release schemes, and I have always explicitly stated that, although there are advantages to such schemes, they provide only temporary relief—sometimes for up to six months; sometimes for less than that—because they are emergency measures. I have never pretended that early emergency release schemes provide anything other than temporary relief that is necessary at a particular point in time.

Reducing or changing the point of automatic release for some short-term prisoners provides a sustained reduction compared with what the prison population would otherwise be. Obviously, I am not in control of the flows into our prison system. However, as I said in response to the convener’s question, STP40 has had an impact on the short-term prison population, and the measure that we are talking about today will reduce the prison population in a sustained way compared with what the population would otherwise be. I gave the figures earlier, so I will not repeat them.

Let me be clear that there is no one solution. I assure Mr Kerr that the Government has never pretended otherwise. Bigger and more fundamental reforms are required.

I do not think that we have that information. There is a plethora of statistics on reoffending, which relate broadly to short-term and long-term prisoners. The risk management authority does work on particular categories of offenders. Because there is a lag in the statistics on reoffending, I do not have the instantaneous information that Mr Kerr and others might seek. Claire Martin works on that policy, so I invite her to add to that.

There is no governor’s veto in this scheme, in the same way as there was no governor’s veto in the STP40 programme. The reason for that is that a governor’s veto can be justified, policy-wise or legally, with emergency early release because we are undertaking a process at pace. However, when you change the point of release for a cohort of prisoners going forward, there is no scope for a governor’s veto. There are advantages and disadvantages of particular schemes. I recognise that people value the governor’s veto in the context of emergency early release, but, as I said, emergency early release does not reduce the prison population in a sustained way.

As we did with the STP40 programme, we have excluded prisoners who are serving sentences for domestic abuse and sexual offences. There is strong justification for that, because, historically, there have been barriers to reporting such crimes. We want to maintain the confidence of the public, and women in particular, to come forward and report such crimes, so there is a robust case for that exclusion.

10:30

We are not attempting to create a hierarchy of offences. As I said, as was the case under previous schemes, most short-term prisoners who will be released under the proposed scheme will be serving sentences of less than two years. It is worth remembering that the prisoners who are released earlier are people who are due to return to our communities in the not-too-distant future and who are not subject to statutory supervision. At the time of sentencing, the court makes a decision about whether someone should be subject to a supervised release order, an extended sentence or whatever. In sentencing a prisoner, the court evaluates what is proportionate, what element is punishment and what is required to manage the future risk.

As is the case in other parts of the UK and Europe, we are contending with a rising prison population. The presumption against sentences of less than a year is a presumption, not a ban. That has resulted in an overall reduction, but the number is still high. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I am just trying to find the annex that I sent you.

If I can take those three elements, I will try to be brief—

That is much lower than it has been in previous months.

I am sorry that there is not a shorter, more direct answer to Ms McNeill’s question, but the issue is complex. Although someone must serve a minimum of 15 per cent of their sentence before they are eligible for a home detention curfew, there are other eligibility criteria and a requirement that the period of HDC cannot be more than 210 days. That means that the reality is that most people on HDC are not getting out after serving 15 per cent of their sentence.

There is a bit of a complex interaction—I am sorry about that, but we will follow that up in writing.