Chamber and committees

I might ask my officials to make sure that I am getting this right, but it could change without the legislation, and discussions are being held about how that might be achieved with the consent of different partners. The legislation that we are talking about will roll over what we have now. The default position is physical courts. Jeff Gibbons will correct me if I am wrong.

The bill will not move things forward as far as virtual trials are concerned; those things will continue on the current basis and according to the default positions that have already been mentioned. However, as I have said, we will want to look at whether there would be other legislative vehicles for doing that, once we have carried out the consultations and the work with partners.

It is not for me to intrude on how defence representatives prepare very vulnerable witnesses, and I would not dismiss their view that they need to be able to talk directly to their clients. Indeed, I would think that those clients would want to have confidence in their legal representatives, and perhaps a personal meeting would be crucial in that respect. In any case, in the bill, we are seeking to extend the timeframe for doing what we currently do with virtual trials, and any further or permanent extension would come through other means after a due process of consultation. There is therefore no change in that respect, if that is what you are asking about.

I was not saying that we had an expectation that those people would reoffend. If you look at the incidence of reoffending, you will see that around 40 per cent of those prisoners went back to custody. However, that was not all for reoffending. As I mentioned, sometimes it was for reasons other than reoffending.

My point was that the average reoffending rate for those on short sentences is between 50 and 60 per cent. Therefore, although there was not an expectation that people would reoffend, the reoffending rate of 40 per cent is not surprising. In itself, that is an argument for more effective community justice disposals that allow us to deal with that reoffending. We know from the evidence that we have that such disposals reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

It might have been useful to have a reminder of the categories of prisoners who were released, how close they were to the end of their sentences and how long the sentences were. I think that the sentences were 18 months or less.

It is the case that people who have been released from prison sometimes reoffend. The incidence is higher when those people have been on short sentences. It is legitimate to say that the Prison Service has the time to deal with an offender if they are in prison over a greater period. When those people were sentenced, it would not have been expected that they would be released early. It happened because of the pandemic.

If your question is, “Why did you release those prisoners?”, the answer is that we did that because of the pandemic. We deemed the consequences of not doing it to be unacceptable, from the point of view of the constraints that it would put on our prisons and prisoners because of Covid, and from the point of view of the public safety of prisoners, prison officers, prison staff and people who visit prisons. That is why we released them.

Because the same situation could arise again in relation to Covid. We think that that is justifiable only up to 2025, if we are talking about Covid.

Why we would want to have the power on a permanent basis is a separate question. The same question could be addressed to the UK Government. I would imagine that its response would be that it is not always possible to anticipate whether it might be required to deal with a public health emergency or for some other reason. Different answers could be given as to the need for that.

The reason why we want to have the power in the current circumstances is that we do not yet know what the route path of Covid or its variants will be.

I think that it is right that we wait for the further processes that Cat Dalrymple mentioned to be gone through before we can be absolutely definitive, but if it is comfort that is being sought, I would just highlight two things. First, the fact that not one of the 285 cases in question has given rise to public protection concerns in the eyes of the experts who have looked at them is a good indicator of where we are at. Again, that is not definitive, and I am not trying to pretend that it is.

Secondly, in the light of some of the publicity that flowed from last week’s statement, I point out—and I cannot remember whether this is in our briefing or another that I have seen—LS/CMI is almost a general triaging tool. For someone who is, say, a sexual offender or who is seen as high risk to the public, because of violence, other tools as well as LS/CMI will be involved. That should provide you with reassurance.

I know that there was no time to take my opening statement, convener, but perhaps I can make a couple of other points that I highlighted in it, because I sought to address some of the questions that members, quite rightly, asked me last week in the chamber. Pauline McNeill and, I think, Jamie Greene asked about the technical nature of the update. I hope that members will see from the briefing that has been provided and from what Cat Dalrymple has said how technical the issue is, although I should say that I specifically asked for the language in the briefing for members to be as plain as possible, because it is sometimes quite difficult to understand the different aspects.

Moreover, in response to Stephen Kerr’s question last week about when all of this first came to light, I said that it was 24 January. However, the first person to see it was apparently an SPS individual on 13 January. I might have said that, too, but I certainly mentioned the 24 January date. That was when Government officials became involved and started running tests in parallel with the system. As I said last week, I was advised of the matter the previous Friday and then came to Parliament.

With regard to how quickly we came to Parliament, I would highlight a case down south that related to 400,000 prisoner or offender records, and there was no statement to the Parliament down there until after the event. I was keen to ensure that we did not do the same thing, and we therefore came to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible. Coming back to Jamie Greene’s question, I point out that one consequence of that decision is that we do not have all the answers, because we are still working through this. We are providing as much assurance as we can—indeed, I think that the assurance that the 285 live cases have not raised any cause for public concern is pretty substantial.

There are probably one or two other questions that were asked last week that I have tried to deal with if not in the briefing then in the opening statement that I would have made. I hope that that gives some reassurance, too.

I think that I mentioned in response to a similar question from Mr Findlay after my statement last week that I hoped to be able to give him a reassuring response. I have not granted any first grant of temporary release, but it is also true that that function has been carried out for a number of years now by the justice portfolio minister—in this case, that is the Minister for Community Safety. A reconciliation of the Scottish Prison Service system and the identified affected cases has been carried out, and eight cases in which first grant of temporary release have been granted were found. All of those have been looked at again, and I can confirm that no immediate or concerning public protection risks were highlighted. However, those eight cases will be further reviewed by the risk review group, which I mentioned in the statement last week, to provide further assurance.

Yes, and I think that I have said so already. That would not happen through the bill, which relates to the pandemic, but we are actively involved in that dialogue with the judiciary. There are two routes for doing it, one of which is a practice note from the judiciary. However, that would take things only so far, and I think that it is fair to say that the judiciary’s preference would be for primary legislation.

I think that those issues are relevant, especially if we are looking to make the approach permanent, which might be possible through other legislative processes that are coming forward.

We are considering the issues. I read the evidence that was given to the committee by the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association and others, and I acknowledge some of the concerns that have been raised. I note that, a number of months ago, the Faculty of Advocates raised with us the issue of digital exclusion, which we are looking to address.

That said, on the other side of the argument, you might have heard Rhoda Grant talking yesterday about how beneficial the approach can be in domestic abuse cases and cases in rural areas.

As ever, there are arguments on both sides, and we want to take those into account, along with things that we learn from the pilot projects, before proceeding further.

It is possible that, given its powers, the judiciary could advance the approach in the meantime, through a practice note. However, for the reasons that you mention, I think that its preference would be to have legislation. There are a lot of things to work through in relation to the approach. On the surface, it seems appealing, but some people—especially those who are most closely involved in the process, such as defence representatives—have concerns that we want to address as best we can.

Some of that pre-dates my time as justice secretary. We have had a constant dialogue with all justice partners on the issue. The 16 additional courts involve court service staff, defence lawyers, prosecutorial staff, sheriffs and so on, so there has been a very big increase in their workload. We thought that providing those courts was the most effective way to tackle the backlog, and I still think that. Others might have different ideas, but we think that that is how to tackle the backlog. The decision was made following maximum consultation with justice partners. Such a radical step could not have been taken without discussion and consultation with, and the consent of, justice partners.