Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The prisoner release took place just before I took up office. One of the first things that I had to do on coming into office was to read voluminous tracts on public health and the framework that had to be applied to prisons.

I think that it is true to say that prisons will have learned from that. They have heard that question—it is not the first time that it has been asked—and I am sure that we would want to give the matter further thought. I think that, in some cases, there were good reasons for not testing prisoners, but each time we do something new, we want to learn from previous experience.

We will listen to any representations that are made. We have had substantial consultation with interested parties, mining communities, trade unions and others. As you say, there have been calls for other offences to be included. Some of those will fall under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875, which I am sure that we are all familiar with, which covers a wide spectrum of behaviours relating to attempting, without legal authority, to compel another person to support a strike or not go to work, which relates to your point about miners who continued to work during that time. Convictions under the 1875 act could cover the use of violence to intimidate another person or their family or damage their property; behaviour such as persistently following another person from place to place or following, along with others in a disorderly manner, another person on or through any street or road; or things such as watching, or what the 1875 act calls “besetting”, a house.

The lack of any surviving police or court records is a problem, and makes it very difficult to confirm the exact circumstances of the offences that were committed during the strike. We could not confirm, for example, the degree of violence or malice that was involved or where they actually occurred. It is also very difficult to determine the motivation behind such conduct. In some cases that have been reported, previous disputes between people were the basis for some of the things that happened during the strike.

We have extended the independent review group’s recommended criteria—for example, we are not introducing a constraint that says that someone is disqualified if they have had a previous or subsequent offence—but we do not think that it would be right to extend the pardon to those other potential offences when we cannot ascertain their details. We have tried to make the pardon applicable exclusively to miners and incidents that took place in the specified locations, or when travelling through a community to them. That is why we followed the views of the independent review group and have those qualifying criteria, although we have extended them slightly.

I do not think that the bill is the vehicle for doing that. The bill’s legacy will be the impact that the pardon has on communities. I reiterate that that will be significant. The bill is us—not the state that was in control at the time but the Scottish Government that is now established—saying that we understand the pressures that obtained at the time of the dispute and that led people into the situations that we are talking about, and that, as a society, we want to pardon that.

We have made the bill simple and straightforward for those reasons. However, you are right that other work must continue. Work started straight away. I used to work for Stirling District Council and, in its various different political guises, that council worked right from the strike to support communities such as those in Fallin and Plean. That was true throughout Scotland, so such work is not new. However, because of the time that has elapsed, the help for regeneration finds different routes. The main route that the Scottish Government takes is to support the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. We intend to commit to that.