Good morning, everyone. My colleague Katy Clark has already covered this area quite well, and I get the impression that this is a necessary evil, given the two options in front of us. No one wants cases to be timed out, so there must be a mechanism for extending them. Historically, as you will know, people had to apply for an extension, whereas under the emergency procedure, the extension was automatic.

The bill makes permanent some of the temporary features that were brought in during Covid. Do you have any concerns about the extension of the limits to 17 or 18 months for solemn cases and the other extension for summary cases? Would you rather that they were time-limited automatic extensions and that the limits would revert back to their original 11 or 12 months? If so, at what point in the future would you like that to happen?

Sorry, yes—I should have made that clear.

That was a reactive measure in response to an emergency. There was not even a testing regime in place, so you were dealing with what you had within months of the pandemic starting. We are two years on from that now, of course, in a very different world, and the measures before us are being proposed for the future, not for today.

Referring to my original question, what criteria should be used in that respect? We have to go back to the Government and say what we think is right or wrong about the bill. If the measures are only about the pandemic, the health situation in the prison, the prison population or how many people are in a cell, and less about the type of prisoner or how long is left on their sentence, what sort of people were being released, from your point of view, and was it entirely appropriate that they were released early? Would we do something differently next time? Ultimately, the Government will have to rewrite the rules for future pandemics or for variations of this one.

I have a follow-up to Rona Mackay’s question. In its response to the consultation, HMIPS has said:

“this has been a long-term pandemic and HMIPS would like to see those powers where used reported on transparently and regularly with clear and sufficient justification.”

The inspectorate is asking for more transparency in reporting, as are we, but I get the impression that your response to that is that all the information is there if somebody wants it. The approach does not seem to be joined up. How do we make things much more proactive in that regard so that everyone’s needs might be addressed?

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?

Of course. I understand the implications of that.

Ms Medhurst, what were the criteria for coming to a decision about early release? I ask that not to look backwards, but because the bill that is before us means that the same situation could arise again. From what you said earlier, the criteria seemed to be largely to do with your ability to confine people in single-occupancy spaces, given the issue of population versus capacity. What criteria did you use for the early release of prisoners? Would you use the same criteria again? If not, what would be different?

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 do not mind. It was a tough question.