Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, that is correct.

The situation is patchy. In some areas of the country, we see regular and consistent use of community disposals and an increase in electronic monitoring. All that is absolutely welcome.

The independent Scottish Sentencing Council undertook some research to help us understand what is happening with regard to the use of very short-term sentences. That will be helpful.

From my perspective—this is perhaps less than scientific—I consider it vital that we continue to bolster confidence in alternatives to custody and in community payback orders, because the evidence shows that community payback orders lead to better outcomes in terms of reoffending. They are focused on individual needs and risks and on upskilling people.

I have found the figures that Mr Hepburn referred to. In 2014-15, 4,103 people received short-term sentences of up to three months; in 2023-24, that figure was 2,658.

We have to concede that, sometimes, prison is an expensive way of making things worse. That would be my fundamental point, and we need to have a hard conversation with ourselves as a country about that. The figure that I gave for 2023-24 is still a relatively high number, and there is a higher figure for sentences of three to six months. Although I will absolutely never overstep the mark in terms of the independence of the judiciary, I contend that we can invest money to get better outcomes, because, as I said, prison is an expensive way of making things worse.

Absolutely.

10:45

Absolutely. Planning for release is crucial. That is why we brought in the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023, on sections 12 and 13 of which I am sure that I have updated the committee. Much of the work that has been done to support the early release of some short-term prisoners is a precursor to the work that is required for sections 12 and 13 of the 2023 act.

We have started from the position that the vast majority of short-term prisoners are not subject to statutory supervision on release unless the court has decided otherwise. Therefore, they have always been entitled to voluntary aftercare. Traditionally, voluntary aftercare fell within the remit of community justice social work. That provision was utilised, and, over the past few years, it has been expanded on through the use of the third sector, which brings considerable advantages. The provision of professional social work throughcare has advantages, but there are also advantages in more bespoke third sector throughcare support. That is why we have the new throughcare contract that Upside is delivering. That has increased the eligibility for throughcare, because it accommodates—for the first time—men who are released from remand.

I will ask Linda Pollock to talk about the planning that starts with SPS engaging with community partners, because that is crucially important.

That is because we cannot give people information if we do not know that they want it.

That question raises a number of issues, as well as showing, I think, some misunderstanding of the matter and a conflation of certain issues.

First, diversion from prosecution is a matter not for ministers, but for prosecutors, so I will leave that there.

Without stepping on the Crown Office’s toes, I simply point out that diversion from prosecution can be used only where there is an identifiable need relating to someone’s offending and where it is in the public interest. Drawing a correlation between diversion from prosecution and an increase in short-term sentences is probably a bit of a stretch. I think that you and I are probably in a different place in that respect, Ms Dowey.

However, I come back to the important and serious point that, if, as a nation, we get better at investigating, prosecuting and convicting the most serious offenders—the most serious domestic abusers and sexual offenders—that will pose questions about the purpose of prison. The purpose of prison, in my view, is to house those who pose the greatest risk to victims. We have always been clear about that. There will always be a need for prisons, but if we want our prisons to function effectively for those who pose the greatest risk, we need to take that long-term view.

I do not know whether Ms Dowey was in the chamber or participated when I gave my statement on the sentencing and penal policy commission, but I could not have made it clearer: if we, as a Parliament, want to move on from making decisions on emergency early release or changing the automatic release point for short-term prisoners, we will need to pursue more fundamental reforms that are based on evidence. If other countries can reform their prison systems without compromising public safety, why cannot Scotland? The longer-term work that I have talked about will, in my view, have to commence, but that will be for the next session of Parliament, and I hope that all of us can engage in it constructively.

11:00

Thank you, convener. I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee this morning.

I hope that what has been made clear not only this morning, but in my previous statement on the regulations, is that our prison population remains a critical risk and that we must take further action. I have outlined the next steps that, in my view, must be taken to ensure that our prisons can continue to operate effectively and safely. We have a duty to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of staff and prisoners.

There are, of course, safeguards and exclusions in the programme. For example, there will be no change to the release dates for those who have been convicted of sexual offences or domestic abuse. The measure will apply only to short-term prisoners.

With each individual measure that we have taken, I have made it clear that there will always be further steps to take on this journey. We are at a juncture. We now have the sentencing and penal policy commission’s report, and, collectively, we will need to come to a view on it. I reiterate my earlier point: I know that we are all in campaigning mode, but we will have to find some common ground or consensus on that, as doing so is in the interests of the people we serve and, indeed, in the overall interests of our justice system.

I realise that this is a hard decision for people, but I point to experience elsewhere—in doing so, I do not for a minute abdicate our responsibilities here in Scotland. In fact, I would very much contend that taking no further action would itself be an abdication. Other countries have reformed their systems to good effect, and we have also seen the very difficult decisions that our colleagues in England and Wales have had to take in releasing more than 62,000 prisoners early.

I will leave my remarks there, convener, as I do not want to incur your wrath any more.

I move,

That the Criminal Justice Committee recommends that the Prisoners (Early Release) (Miscellaneous Amendment and Transitional Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.

:The same logic behind having a common approach across the UK—bearing in mind that, geographically, we are an island and businesses operate across geographical boundaries—applies to the European context as well. It is a stated aim of this Government that we want to maintain alignment with the EU, and we believe that that is in the interests of business.

There are businesses in Scotland and the UK that operate across the UK and in Europe. Because they operate in Europe, those businesses need to comply with the NIS2 directive and the EU’s Cyber Resilience Act. That partly helps to alleviate the concerns that were expressed earlier about additional burdens and costs, because there are many businesses that are already operating to a particular standard.

:No.