Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that I mentioned the figures on Covid cases, at least from 4 March, in my opening statement. You can check back and confirm that.

I will take a stab at the current prison population; the latest figure that I saw was 7,502 or 7,503, but I am happy to be corrected on that. If I can just look back at my statement, I can tell you the number of inmates who currently have Covid—unless you have that figure to hand?

Sorry, I meant Allister Purdie—I thought he might have the figure to hand, but it is in my statement—

Yes, although it has to be said that that pilot would have to be done by the judiciary—it cannot be done by the Government. The format of court business and how it is run are decisions for the judiciary, although we have encouraged that. We are lucky that both Sheriff Principal Pyle and the Lord President are keen for innovation to happen. Such a pilot would certainly require their consent and possibly their initiative. However, I agree with you that, if we want to have such trials, we need to have a stronger evidence base.

I have been asked why we have not included that in the bill. The reason is that virtual trials are not strictly speaking about Covid—there might be beneficial impacts with respect to Covid, but there are different purposes. I have seen the Parliament get quite annoyed about emergency or exceptional legislation that it does not consider to be directly related to the pandemic. If there is to be a more permanent change, it must be evidenced. We have to work through some of the differences and work with the judiciary. The Parliament can always decide for itself if it wants to make a fundamental change.

There could be more virtual trials under the direction of the Lord President and others, but, in answer to your question, we should have more of an evidence base before we move forward on the matter.

It is worth saying at the start—Mr Greene will understand this, but others who are listening might not—that we are not saying that somebody who has a court case coming up now will have to wait four years for it to be addressed. However, the backlog itself will take four years, in some cases, to be addressed.

I have that confidence based on what the partners that you mentioned, including the Crown Office and the court service, tell me. They have given me the same dates that they have given the committee, and we have analysed them and explored them at some length. Within that, however, there is willingness on everybody’s part to look for other innovative ways in which we can address some of the issues that might stand in the way of a quicker throughput of cases.

Going back to Mr Findlay’s question, I note that we come up against some hard blocks that we will not be able to overcome. Given the number of people who are involved in the process and are delivering the service, there is only so much that we can do through all the different courts that we have mentioned.

I have that confidence given what I am told by justice partners and the discussions that we have had with them, but I fully expect that we will have to find further innovations along the way to make sure that we achieve it.

Part of the explanation for that might be that the 30 per cent figure applies to all releases from prison. I do not know the detail; I have not seen that. It might be useful to hear from Jennifer Stoddart about whether the 40, 50 and 60 per cent figures, and even the 30 per cent figure, are correct.

In relation to short-term prisoners, the release date will have been set as part of their sentencing in the first place. In relation to longer-term prisoners, it will be a decision for the Parole Board, which will have all the different experts to provide the risk assessment at that time.

Perhaps I can provide further reassurance. Everybody has now been made aware of the issue, so all current assessments are being looked at in the light of that. In any event, that will quickly be overtaken by the three-month assessment to which offenders in that situation will be subject. Therefore, even if we had discovered something, the process is starting to bite whereby such matters will be taken into account in future assessments.

Cat Dalrymple, as a former procurator fiscal, will correct me if I am wrong but, with short-term prisoners, the original sentence is handed down by the court, and we do not have the ability to change that.

I am happy to give that assurance. It is an on-going process, as you said, convener, so it might be worth providing more than one update as we go through it. However, we will make sure that the committee is kept informed.

I should add that, as I have said, we want to examine how we increase the evidence base. I think that Mr Greene asked about pilots and so on, but we would need the support of not just the Crown Office and the courts but the judiciary—and the Lord President in particular—in advance of our introducing any such legislation. If I may say, the Lord President is keen for innovation to happen, especially in relation to digital technology, and I am confident that he would be eager to help in that respect, but he would have to give permission for any further extension of the current basis for virtual trials or any pilot beyond what has been done already. However, you can see from Sheriff Principal Pyle’s report that there is an eagerness to examine this matter, and we would certainly be responsive to such a move.

That is one of the most serious powers that we are looking to extend. I have not come to that conclusion by myself—we have had strong representations from justice partners that the move is necessary to deal with the pandemic situation that we find ourselves in. Of course, the power contains certain safety valves. For example, anyone who is held on remand for longer than would normally be the case is able to challenge that, as can others.

We do not want to extend the power beyond what is absolutely necessary because, as I would acknowledge, the issue relates to fundamental questions of people’s right to liberty. We think that the move is absolutely necessary just now with regard to people on remand, but there are, of course, other time limits, some of which go in the other direction. For example, people can get longer if they are due to appear in court but cannot do so because they have contracted Covid. Given that, according to yesterday’s figures, 11,500 people in Scotland contracted Covid, that is not a theoretical possibility.

This is about ensuring that we make the justice system work and that people are safe. In summary, I would say that we recognise that these are substantial and profound powers that we do not want for any longer than is necessary, but we continue to believe, not least because of the representations that we have received from those in the justice system, that they are necessary. I realise that it would be for her to answer this, but the Lord Advocate, who is the person charged with guaranteeing people’s rights, believes that the move is necessary, too.

I do not know whether my officials have anything more to say about the issue.

I am not informed of every single use of every single power, but if, for example, a wing has to be closed down or people have to be isolated in that way, or if there is a move towards double shifting, which means more purposeful activity is taking place, I am advised of those things.