���˿���

I quoted the 44 per cent reoffending rate.

These scenes are extraordinary. First, this morning, the cabinet secretary has justified this specific measure by saying that its purpose is to achieve a sustained reduction in the prison population, yet, in response to questions, she conceded that previous measures were only about temporary relief, and all those measures have demonstrably failed to reduce the prison population. To say that there will be a sustained reduction on the very day that the news contains wall-to-wall reporting of the Scottish Government figures that say that the population could rise to 8,800 by July is brave, to say the least.

Secondly, in response to Sharon Dowey, the cabinet secretary talked about the purpose of prison being to house criminals. In fact, as the cabinet secretary well knows, the classical functions of prison are generally taken to be punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation. Not one of those is helped by the proposed measure. In fact, on public protection, the cabinet secretary says that victim safety and public safety are the priority, but she has no evidence on the impact of early release on the reoffending rate and the effect on public safety. Indeed, we heard that there will not be a review of reoffending rates until next year. We also heard that there is no governor’s veto, so I presume that those whose release was refused by a governor under the emergency release legislation could now automatically be set free.

Finally, the cabinet secretary did not mention her own figures, which show that, of the prisoners who are eligible for this automatic release, nearly half have been imprisoned for non-sexual crimes of violence and a further third—indeed, more than a third—have been imprisoned for crimes against society or crimes of dishonesty. They will automatically be released. The cabinet secretary says that this measure is to manage the prison population, but it is not. It is a panicked, knee-jerk, unevidenced measure that will be counterproductive in so many ways.

I disagree with the cabinet secretary: this is not a hard decision. It must be opposed, which is why I will oppose it.

I want to follow up on that point. It is clear that a lot of work is being done to address the challenges at operational level, but the committee is keen to provide guidance to members in the next session of Parliament on what they can do to assist. Is there anything that you want to say to our successors about what you need from them in order to help the fire service to address the challenges?

Good afternoon. What are the current average investigation times for the investigations that you undertake? Is the PIRC consistently meeting the statutory timescales?

12:30

The related question is that the Scottish Police Authority budget for 2026-27 includes £86.3 million of capital funding, but you requested £93.9 million. You said in your opening remarks that you have made difficult decisions already, so that begs the question, what capital works have been put off and what will suffer as a result of this significant shortfall? Where will that have the greatest impact, for example, on your planned information technology improvements?

If I may, cabinet secretary, I would like to ask you about that reoffending rate rather than the return to custody rate—to be fair, you are right to concede that they are two different things. Can you tell the committee what the reoffending rate is for those who have been released under the emergency release legislation and also since the change to 40 per cent was made, compared to the mean reoffending rate?

Good morning, Mr Scott. I have a couple of quick questions. On service delivery, the committee has heard from the FBU and the Fire and Rescue Service about the recruitment and retention pressures that the service is facing. Do you sense that those pressures are having an impact on service delivery? If so, what needs to be done?

I understand. Thank you.

:I am very grateful.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You have said that the regulations are about protecting women and girls in law. The policy note suggests that they will implement the first two recommendations in Baroness Kennedy’s report, but they will not, because Baroness Kennedy specifically recommended, for example, the creation of a new statutory misogyny aggravation that would operate outside the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.

You referred to the consultation. Many respondents to the consultation—which, interestingly, resulted in no amendments being made to what is proposed—said that the mechanism was “ill-suited” to dealing with the misogynistically motivated crime that women and girls face.

Do you accept that the proposed mechanism is a poor second to the full misogyny act that women were promised? What else will be lost as a result of that mechanism being used, rather than a full misogyny act being introduced?