Scottish Prison Service (Overcrowding)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments made by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service that prisoners may need to be released early due to overcrowding. (S6T-01780)
I associate myself with the Presiding Officer’s words wishing the King a full and speedy recovery.
Although the prison system will always be needed, the current prison population is too high. That has a negative impact on those who live and work in our prisons and on our wider communities, and it does not support effective rehabilitation or reduce reoffending.
We are taking forward a range of actions, including making best use of the prison estate, sourcing additional prison places and developing options for greater use of electronic monitoring. It is vital that the draft budget includes an additional £14 million investment in community justice services and other activity to support increased use of community sentences and alternatives to remand.
The current prison population has not increased at the levels that it was anticipated it might increase. At 7,889 yesterday, it is slightly lower than it was when I updated Parliament in October.
We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Prison Service and others on those actions, and we are monitoring the situation very closely.
The Prison Service is warning that emergency powers might be needed to release prisoners—possibly hundreds of prisoners—back into Scotland’s communities before they have served their sentences and with no restrictions whatsoever. That would put the public at risk and betray crime victims. Will the cabinet secretary today rule out any such mass release?
I hope that I explained that, given the numbers that we now see in prison custody, I have no plans for emergency release. On the basis of the numbers, there is no need for that.
Russell Findlay may recall prison projections that were published last October. They were, of course, very broad projections, which anticipated a prison population of anywhere between 7,500 and 8,650. The number in October was around 7,950; today, the number is 7,889.
As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, Mr Findlay is well aware that emergency powers exist with the passing of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023, which we debated thoroughly in the committee. Those powers are the same as the powers that exist south of the border, for England and Wales. I note that, during the bill’s passage, Mr Findlay did not move against those powers. Katy Clark did so at stage 2 and then did not press her amendment, and Jamie Greene did so at stage 3 and then did not press his amendment.
The Scottish National Party Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs told the BBC that doing nothing is not an option, but what has the Government been doing? Let us take a look. It has failed to build two new prisons—they are hundreds of thousands of pounds over budget and years late. It has spent millions on prisoners’ mobiles, which were then used to commit serious crimes. It has preached about rehabilitation while freeing highly dangerous men without any treatment whatsoever. It has talked about tackling drugs, but there are more drugs in prisons than there are on our streets. Let us not forget that the last time that the Government released hundreds of prisoners early due to Covid, almost half of them reoffended within a year.
We need to be honest with people. If that is the plan, do prison officers and the public not deserve the truth?
I have not only told the BBC that doing nothing in the face of a high prison population is not an option; I have told the Parliament a number of times and, indeed, the Criminal Justice Committee that doing nothing in response to a high prison population is not an option. I would have hoped that Mr Findlay would also have had the courage to be honest with the people of this country about what will, at the end of the day, make our communities safer. A high prison population is not in the interests of prisoners and staff who work in our prison service, and it is not in the interests of community safety.
At the end of the day, we all want fewer crimes, fewer victims and less harm in our community, and we need to have the courage to follow the evidence. That is why we need to shift the balance from an overuse of custody to increasing the use of evidence-based community justice measures.
Phil Fairlie of the Prison Officers Association Scotland recently described the use of remand as “ridiculously high”, and said that far too many people are entering prison on short-term sentences. Does the cabinet secretary agree with Mr Fairlie’s suggestion of reviewing sentencing policy and increasing community alternatives to custody?
Mr Fairlie certainly knows what he is talking about, comparing the evidence of robust community-based interventions with very short-term sentences. As I said in my earlier answer, we are adding £14 million for criminal justice services, which is crucial. There has been an increase in the use of bail supervision, and we are exploring how to increase the use of electronic monitoring further. I am open to considering what further action is needed to encourage more widespread use of community interventions and whether a review of sentencing policy is warranted.
Protecting victims and the public from harm is my absolute priority. Whether that involves custody or community-based interventions, the goal is the same: less crime, fewer victims and safer communities.
Scotland has the highest remand population in Europe, which is one of the reasons why the prison population is so high. Some prisoners are being held in quite scandalous conditions. We heard this week that the head of the Scottish Prison Service has warned ministers that it is planning to double the number of prisoners who are released on electronic tags, but the compliance rate seems low at 70 per cent—so, around one in four are breaching the conditions. What does the Scottish Government say about that?
In answer to Russell Findlay, the cabinet secretary cited the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023. Can the Government be clear about what difference the 2023 act will make to the remand population? Up until now, that has not been clear to Scottish Labour, and we would like an answer on that.
Ms McNeill is right to point to the very large remand population that we have in this country. Twenty-seven per cent of the overall prison population has not been processed entirely through the courts; they are in prison unconvicted. For women prisoners, the share is even higher: the remand population in women’s custody this week sits at 37 per cent. That is why we will continue to invest in a whole range of community alternatives.
We need to learn some of the lessons from good practice in and around alternatives to remand, some of which has had a good effect with women and young people. We need to apply that further afield. On the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill—now the 2023 act—which we debated extensively in the Criminal Justice Committee and the Parliament, it will begin to be implemented throughout the course of this year, and indeed in the coming months. I am happy to supply Ms McNeill with further information.
Given that the data that has been available for the past two years indicates that the proportion of custodial sentences of less than 12 months has decreased only from 75 per cent to 73 per cent, does the cabinet secretary believe that the Parliament’s decision that there should be a presumption against short sentences of up to 12 months is actually being reflected in sentencing practice within the judicial system? Are there further steps that she can take to ensure that Parliament’s wishes in that respect are reflected in the delivery of custodial sentences in the future?
Mr Swinney is quite correct to note that the longer-term trend is away from short-term sentences of 12 months or less. However, their proportion of sentences overall remains high, and if we consider the prison population, there will be several hundreds of prisoners who are there on a short-term basis on any given day. Of course, it is for the courts to decide the facts and circumstances of each case. It is a presumption against short-term sentences, not a ban.
I am clear that, with the increased investment through the proposed budget, we can and must develop more options, with more breadth and depth, so that the courts have more alternatives and disposals at their fingertips.
The cabinet secretary offered some reassurances in relation to prison numbers, but Teresa Medhurst has predicted that those could rise to 8,500 by spring. She is right: we are at a “tipping point” where
“Prisons become very unsafe. The atmosphere, the tension, the volatility increases. Levels of violence increase, levels of self-harm increase.”
The issue has been building for years. The cabinet secretary has set out the measures that have already been taken but, in the light of Teresa Medhurst’s comments, what does she propose to do differently and/or in addition to take pressure off our overcrowded prisons and reduce the risk to staff, prisoners and, indeed, wider communities across Scotland?
I treat the consequences of a high prison population with the utmost seriousness. Teresa Medhurst was right to point to concerns. The chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, along with prison staff, is absolutely right to challenge this Government, this Parliament and the country as a whole.
In the past, probably from 2011 to 2018, there was a reduction in the prison population, but now the numbers, particularly last year’s, are going in a different direction.
In response to Mr McArthur’s question about what is different this time, although there is no silver bullet or single solution, we have good platforms to build on, whether that is the presumption against short sentences or the work that was done to reduce the prison population of young people. There is more that we can do to make use of technology and, of course, to ensure compliance with supervised bail, which is now at its highest level in 10 years. We also need to modernise and revamp the estate. We need to consider, and we will consider and act on, what more we need to do on what is a complex and ageing prison population.
We are taking a range of actions at pace, and I look forward to coming back to Parliament—probably at the end of this month—to give a more detailed and in-depth account of the action that we are taking and that we will take.
We have just heard from the cabinet secretary that the prison population is ageing, which has increased the need for the prison service to buy in social care. I heard Natalie Beal, the governor of HMP Glenochil, discuss that very issue on the radio at the weekend. Has the cabinet secretary considered suggestions to set up a specific facility for such prisoners to take the pressure off our prisons?
As I said, I am very open to considering suggestions on how best we tackle those matters, in conjunction with the Prison Service.
The number of individuals in our prison system who are over 60 has doubled. It is quite startling when visiting a prison to see that older population, and there are, of course, social care and health needs associated with that.
To some extent, the change in prison population reflects what is happening in society. It also reflects the fact that people are on longer sentences, that more people are on orders for lifelong restriction and that there are increasing numbers of convictions for historical sex offences. That is one example of work that we need to be invested in and to take further action on.
Cervical Cancer Screening
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the reported recall of 150,000 women who were wrongly excluded from cervical cancer screening since 1997. (S6T-01788)
NHS Scotland is undertaking an audit of around 150,000 records of those who have been permanently excluded from screening since the programme began. We have provided health boards with significant resource to support that work and expect most boards to have finished by summer.
Since the wider audit began, I regret to say that one further case of cancer has been identified. I know that that will be concerning to anyone who has been excluded, but I must stress that the circumstances of that case are complex. The overwhelming majority of exclusions have been found to be correct and the risk to the women who may require further investigation remains extremely low.
All those whose records are being reviewed will be contacted as appropriate following the outcome of the review. I know that this has been a lengthy process, but it is essential that the time is taken to complete the review correctly so that those excluded can be confident in its findings.
The problem of women being excluded from the cervical screening programme was first reported to the Parliament in June 2021. The minister at the time, Maree Todd, told the chamber that the cases of 1,500 women who had had partial hysterectomies since 1997 were being reviewed. When asked about women who had had partial hysterectomies before 1997, the minister acknowledged that the adverse event management team was reviewing the issue with individual health boards, and she said that the Government would be looking to conclude that work by July and to inform the women affected by August—that was July and August 2021.
Why have women had to wait three years to be informed? Why was the delay not reported to the Parliament? Why have we found out the extent of the Government’s failure only because of the campaigning journalism of The Sunday Post? Is this an example of yet more secrecy from the Scottish National Party, or is it just that women’s health is simply not a priority for the Government?
The Scottish Government takes the matter as seriously as possible. We are working closely with health boards to ensure that the audit covers the correct number of people. There have been some reasons why the work has slowed down, such as the development of new information technology systems and clinical pathways. However, some health boards have been working incredibly hard and, as a result, my officials have been speaking to them to see how they can share their resources and knowledge with other health boards.
The minister’s response is wholly inadequate. You are not serious about this. You promised the women that they would have letters in August 2021.
Speak through the chair, please.
We are now in 2024, and we know that at least one woman has died as a result.
Let me tell members about Christine from Fife. She received a letter on 3 December 2023 saying that she had had only a partial hysterectomy and that she had been wrongly excluded from the cervical screening programme for 30 years. She immediately contacted her general practice surgery, which had no idea what was happening and could not provide her with a smear test. Thanks to the efforts of a practice nurse, she has now received an urgent referral to a consultant gynaecologist. Her appointment is on 14 February.
Why was Christine not notified before, in August 2021, as was promised by the minister? Why is she having to wait a further two and a half months to be seen? During the three-year delay, how many women have contracted cervical cancer? How many more cases have still to be reviewed? How much longer will it take for the Government to treat women’s health seriously?
I do not have details of the specific case to which Jackie Baillie has referred, but if she writes to me, I would be very happy to respond.
As I understand it, the cases of about 85,000 women have been checked, but that is not the full picture. We are working closely with health boards, which are doing the work, to ensure that we get the right answer. It is important that we do the work thoroughly and with a degree of caution to ensure that we find all the women who are affected.
The cervical screening scandal was the result of not one blunder but many, and it cuts to the core of the issue of how the SNP Government supports women. One woman who recently received a letter believed that she had undergone a total hysterectomy, and she was shocked to learn that that might not have been the case. Women cannot be left in the dark any longer, so what exact support are you giving to health boards?
Speak through the chair, please.
The Scottish Government has invested £5.5 million in the work. As I referenced earlier, my officials work closely with health boards to see where progress has been made and whether that progress can be replicated in other health boards.
Women who might have been affected by incorrect exclusion will, understandably, be concerned. Can the minister provide any further assurances that the vast majority of exclusions have been found to be correct?
I fully understand that concern. The wider audit has been conducted out of an abundance of caution, and the individuals in that group are very likely to have been excluded correctly. At present, only 0.2 per cent of the cases that have been audited should not have been excluded.
If I may, I stress to women that, at all times, if you are experiencing any symptoms, including bleeding that is unusual for you, pain or discomfort during sex, unexplained pain in your lower back or pelvic region, or changes to vaginal discharge, you should contact your GP. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust is available on 0808 802 8000 if you require support.
That concludes topical questions. I will allow a moment while members on the front benches organise for the next item of business.