Short-term prisoner release point: responses to targeted consultation

Response from COSLA

COSLA is the national voice of Local Government in Scotland, we work on councils' behalf to focus on the challenges and opportunities they face, and to engage positively with governments and others on policy, funding and legislation.

We welcome the opportunity to respond to the consultation, which is of crucial importance. Due to the timing of this consultation, we have not had the opportunity to agree a response through COSLA’s governance structures. The following is therefore an officer response, based on existing positions and limited engagement with a small group of colleagues across the Local Government family.

Question 1: What are your views on changing the release point for certain short-term prisoners to 30%?

It is unclear what evidence underpins this further change to the 30% release point, or what specific additional measures, if any, will be implemented to reduce reoffending among the affected cohort.

It is also necessary to consider this proposal in the context of the Presumption Against Short Sentences (PASS), which reflects the substantial evidence that custodial sentences of less than 12 months are ineffective and can be detrimental. Under the proposed STP30 arrangements, it is unclear how many individuals will in practice serve more than 12 months in custody. An individual would require an original sentence of at least 36 months in order to spend over 12 months in prison, meaning that the majority of those affected by this change are likely to experience very short periods of custody.

The well-established adverse impacts of short custodial sentences are the basis for the introduction of PASS. However, this evidence appears to be given limited weight in the current proposal, which seems primarily driven by the need to address pressures on the prison population. The proposal risks increasing the use of short-term imprisonment without any accompanying measures to mitigate its known harms, and without additional investment in prison-based support, such as enhanced substance use services or other rehabilitative provision

While the individuals to whom this change applies are less likely to fall within the high-risk category, they are more likely to present with high levels of need, requiring coordinated input from key partner services such as housing, drug and alcohol support, and mental health services. These services are already under significant pressure, and increasing the number of individuals released early is likely to place further strain on them. This may, in turn, reduce the likelihood of effective engagement with support services, thereby undermining efforts to prevent reoffending. Moreover, directing efforts towards managing another early release process reduces capacity to deliver more fundamental upstream services to prevent reoffending and deliver community sentences.

Question 2: What are your views on excluding those serving sentences for domestic abuse and sexual offences?

The exclusion of domestic and sexual offences is strongly welcomed. However, where the index offence is not domestic or sexual in nature, but there is a known history of such behaviour, there is concern that a gap may emerge in the identification and management of risks posed to women and children.

It is also considered that other categories of serious offending should be included within the exclusions, particularly offences involving serious violence or serious and organised criminality, including terrorism-related offences and individuals subject to a Supervised Release Order (SRO). These exclusions reflect the need for robust risk assessment and risk management arrangements to address the potential for further serious harm. In addition, the impact on victims of these offence types must be explicitly recognised, given the significant risk of further harm.

Question 3: What are your views on making equivalent changes for children detained in secure accommodation?

We agree that consideration should be given to applying the proposed 30% release point to children placed in secure care, as this would better support timely and planned reintegration while helping to minimise the negative impacts associated with extended periods of restriction.

Any change of this kind would need to be supported by robust transition arrangements to ensure that children’s rights to safety, stability and appropriate support are upheld throughout their return to the community. Given the current pressures on community services, it is essential that the right resources are in place so that reintegration is effective, rights respecting, and does not compromise either the child’s wellbeing or wider public protection.

Question 4: What are your views on the changes applying to short-term prisoners serving sentence for fine defaults and contempt of court?

No specific views – same points apply as for other eligible short-term prisoners.

Question 5: What are your views on the proposed transitional approach to initial releases?

There is concern about system fatigue, particularly within local authorities that undertook high volumes of file checks during the current Emergency Early Release (EER) process. The introduction of a further emergency release process, albeit slightly different in scope, raises questions about the impact on staff morale and organisational capacity across some local authorities.

There is also a need for clarity on how lessons learned from STP40 and the current EER process will be incorporated into this next phase of releases.

In addition, we are concerned that both statutory and third-sector services will struggle to provide adequate support to the increasing number of individuals leaving custody early, given ongoing resourcing challenges. Adequate and sustainable resourcing has been consistently identified as critical to enabling smooth and robust liberation processes for prison leavers, as well as for their families, victims, and witnesses.

Finally, the potential impact on larger local authority areas, where higher numbers of individuals are likely to be released and choose to reside, is noted as significant. Local authorities are therefore keen to understand proposals for pre-release planning and the mechanisms that will be put in place to ensure that local services are able to manage and respond effectively to the increased demand.

Question 6: Do you have any other comments?

We have concerns about the very tight timescales for consultation and consideration of this significant change, as we have not been able to adequately seek views from our Member authorities in the preparation of this response.

Finally, we note that the modelling underpinning the projected sustained reduction in the prison population as a result of this does not appear to account for anticipated rates of reoffending. Evidence from both the STP40 releases and the current Emergency Early Release (EER) tranches indicates that reoffending has occurred in practice. We therefore ask that further consideration be given to the inclusion of reoffending assumptions within the modelling, as their omission may materially affect the accuracy of the projected impact.