³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

I understand and take absolutely seriously the legitimate and real concerns that victim support organisations raise. I will not repeat the safety measures or safeguards in the arrangements. Collectively, we will continue to engage with victim support organisations.

However, with regard to being trauma-informed, that is why we implemented the sections in the 2023 act, whereby victims can, if they choose, have the information shared with a victim support organisation, either instead of, or at the same time as, the information being given to the victims.

I am sure that Mr Findlay is aware of the existing victim notification and information schemes.

It is one of many factors. Changes have been made to the release of long-term prisoners, there have been changes to home detention curfew, with the number of prisoners on an HDC dropping, and there has been an average increase in sentences of 14 per cent. HDC is one of the factors.

No. If I have not already followed that up in writing to this committee, I am happy to do that, but I went through the timeline, and what I said should be in the Official Report of the Finance and Public Administration Committee meeting that I attended.

The bill was introduced in June 2023. In autumn, my officials were told informally that policing partners were doing some work to revise the costs, because now that they had seen the text of the bill, they would need to be revised.

The evidence of the policing partners was published on 8 November last year, and my officials were aware of it on 6 November. As I said to the finance committee, I do not just accept what people tell me something is going to cost; I expect my officials to robustly examine it.

In March of this year, we got to the point at which the Government accepted the revised costs. The financial memorandum was the best estimate based on the information that I and my officials had at the time.

Those lists are important, particularly in cross-jurisdiction terms. To be candid, we need to bring Scotland in line with other partners in Great Britain. It is not acceptable for anyone who has been dismissed from Police Scotland to turn up and get a policing job elsewhere on these islands. That was a recommendation from Dame Elish. As things stand, in terms of corporate cross-jurisdiction responsibility, we have put the administration of the lists on to the Scottish Police Authority, although there is a power for the SPA to delegate that to Police Scotland, for example.

It is important that lists in Scotland speak to lists that exist elsewhere on our islands as well as the lists that cover the non-territorial forces, whether that is the British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police or the Civil Nuclear Police Authority. Those lists can be published, but I will ask officials to speak more about the nature of publishing and how that is achieved.

I take the point about closure. It is important for all parties that, irrespective of the outcome, everyone has confidence in the process. At its heart, the bill is about ensuring that our public have confidence in the processes that are set up to deal with the minority of misconduct cases that involve police officers. More broadly, to address the point about a more welcoming and solution-focused approach to complaints resolution, I will not repeat what I said earlier about the importance of the measures that are already in train on the efficiency and effectiveness of processes, or the work that is being done on timescales, which is about engaging earlier in the process and seeking earlier resolution, where appropriate.

I will ask officials to speak to the issue of heads of complaint.

With regard to the PIRC, I will not repeat what I said earlier about its cornerstone role in the policing family in holding policing to account. However, it might be of interest to Mr MacGregor’s constituent to know that it is now a minority of PIRC staff who are former police officers; 52 per cent of PIRC staff come from a non-policing background. That speaks to the diversity of talents and skills, and to the independence of the organisation.

I do not know which of my officials would like to speak to the heads of complaint issue.