Chamber and committees

I will bring in Marsha Scott in a minute. The bad news, unfortunately, is that the numbers speak for themselves. Of the 348 people who were released early under the emergency power, 142 reoffended within six months. I do not know the specifics of the cases—I am sure that we can find that information—but I suspect that a chunk of them will involve domestic abuse or gender-based violence. That is a worry. There was a public health emergency, and we had to release people from prison, but they went on to reoffend when, in normal circumstances, they would still have been serving their sentences. In this instance, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, unfortunately. That said, I would be grateful if you could share with the committee any anecdotal evidence of such cases that you might come across.

Dr Scott, can you give us your views on the general concept of early release and use of the emergency power?

Good morning. My first question is for Emma Jardine from the Howard League. Do you feel that your organisation and the people whom your organisation assists or represents have been adequately consulted as part of the bill process?

What are your main concerns about the bill, if any?

We will come back to the issue of prisoner release.

I come back to time limits, because that is a technical matter and the bill deals with it on a technical level. I think that there is a general understanding of why there has been an extension of statutory time limits, both for trials and, in the more direct case, remand, which has a direct effect on the prison estate. However, the extensions of the time limits for remand are quite stark: a jump from 80 days to 260, from 110 days to 290, and from 140 to 320, which is nearly a year. Those are marked differences. The original extensions were emergency measures and they were temporary. The bill seeks to retain them and make them on-going features of the justice system. Do you have a view on that? Is it right that those extensions are in the bill? Do we still need them, given that the First Minister announced yesterday that the majority of Covid restrictions would be dropped next month? Why should the extensions become permanent features of our justice system?

That is great.

My second question on that concerns the fact that some people think that, for some trials, even 18 months is ambitious, albeit that that is an extended time limit. We have just heard examples of some trials that are already taking way beyond 18 months. If we assume that that is what is happening, the backlog is going to take four or five years—perhaps longer—to clear, given the volume of cases.

What are the main causes of the delays to trials? Do they involve the capacity in the system? On numerous occasions, the committee has asked the SCTS and the Crown Office whether they think that there is capacity in the system to deal with the backlog, or what more they might need to get through it more quickly.

Alternatively, do the delays simply involve the nature of the processes that we work with? Is it that, even with all the will in the world—if we doubled court capacity and the number of defence solicitors and Crown agents—we would still not get through it at the same rate as we would wish because of the inherent nature by which trials take place?

What are the main barriers to reducing the length of time that people are waiting? In other words, how do we clear that backlog quickly but also fairly, so that each party is given the absolute right to fairness throughout the process?

What effect has the rather elongated extension to remand time had on the Scottish Prison Service? Do you have a view as to whether the measures seem necessary and proportionate enough to make them permanent features?

I have a two-part question about early release.

As you know, short-term prisoners in Scotland must be released after serving half their sentence. Long-term prisoners may be released after serving half their sentence, subject to decisions by the Parole Board for Scotland. First, what do you think about that concept?

Secondly, the emergency provisions in the coronavirus legislation gave the Scottish Government the ability to release prisoners earlier than the mandatory time limits. The bill, as I said in my previous question, seeks to make those temporary provisions more permanent features of the justice system. Is that appropriate? Would you prefer the provisions not to be permanent in legislation? I think that we all agree that some good justice system reforms have come from the Covid pandemic; we have already talked about those. However, we might not want that provision to become a permanent feature of the system.

Perhaps Kate Wallace can start.

The question was about the ability to release people even earlier than halfway through their sentence. That was a temporary measure to deal with the public health emergency of the pandemic, but the bill will make the measure permanent. What is your view on that?

Have there been any?

I apologise, convener. I have been looking at our schedule of questions, and I have another question about prisoner release.

What Mr Purdie has said is very welcome, but can I double check that all prisoners are tested before they are released from prison, irrespective of whether their release is early, planned or due? Does that happen as a matter of course, or are they tested when they go into the community, as a general public health measure?