Seòmar agus comataidhean

I might ask Jeff Gibbons to come in on that but, as a layperson, I think that the gap could be bridged, although I am not saying that I have the answers now. Many of the qualms that legal representatives have raised have been about looking somebody in the eye and having that kind of presence. The Faculty of Advocates has said that things such as presence in the courtroom and being able to read somebody’s reactions and body language are extremely important. I will say this now without having the expertise, but there might well be digital solutions that will allow us to improve in that respect.

I hope that the gap could be bridged, given some of the benefits. We have heard about vulnerable witnesses, but there is also the issue of people having to travel a long way, as well as the issue that was raised yesterday about domestic abuse. There are potentially huge benefits, but we want to try to take the profession with us. You are absolutely right that, even between the Law Society and the bar associations, there are different points of view. It must be possible to reach agreement, but it will take some work to do that, and we will have to listen to people’s concerns.

I ask Jeff Gibbons whether he wants to come in.

First, I do not consider any offence to be acceptable. That is probably true of everyone in the justice system. However, it is true to say that, as I mentioned, across different jurisdictions a level of reconviction—between 50 and 60 per cent—is associated particularly with people on short sentences. Jennifer Stoddart might want to come in on that. That is one reason why, in recent years, we have made the change to a presumption against—not a bar on—short sentences. Such sentences are very often ineffective. One of the principles and values that underlies the justice vision that we have just published is that community sentencing is often much more effective. There are lower reconviction rates among those who are given such sentences. We do not find the statistics that you mentioned to be acceptable. We want to drive the numbers down.

You quite rightly asked what we would do differently, having learned the lessons, in order to reduce reoffending. The community justice system needs to be better prepared, but it was, of course, not without its own impacts from the pandemic, whether they related to staff or the places where people needed to work. If providing more availability in that regard could reduce reconviction rates, that would be one lesson that I would want to learn. We want to ensure that the community justice system is able to rise to that challenge, were we again to release prisoners early—I underline that we have no current plans to do so.

It might be worth hearing from Jennifer Stoddart, because she was there when the decision was made last time.

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.

As I have said, the priority was the 285 live cases, which have now been completed. That is the priority that we set for those involved.

I should say that it was 13 January when concerns first came to light, and further tests were done by Government on 24 January, leading up to 25 February.

On the previous point, about the types of offences, those 285 live cases would have been subject to the LS/CMI, which is why we made them a priority. However, I again mention that the ones that involved sexual offences or serious violence would have been subject to a different tool that manages that high level of risk. What Cat Dalrymple is now talking about is going further and considering previous cases to ensure that we are satisfied with the rest of the system, too.

I will let Cat Dalrymple come in, but our priority was to make sure that there were no public protection issues. As has been mentioned, the index case for which somebody was first convicted sometimes does not give the full information.

I do not know whether Cat wants to add to—

That would vary from prisoner to prisoner but I will ask Jennifer Stoddart whether she can give those figures. I am sure that they have been reported to Parliament previously. I do not know whether she has them to hand.

That is an entirely reasonable request. It is perhaps a bit distinct from the point that Mr Findlay raised about the chief inspector not having the information that she was looking for. I am happy for what Mr Greene suggests to happen. Obviously, when lockdowns happened very unexpectedly, it was more difficult to achieve that, but there should now be no reason for not having the maximum possible transparency. We are talking about prisoners, but their rights are being affected, so the call for transparency is legitimate. I will certainly do what I can, and I am sure that the SPS will, too, to ensure that we have that.

It is, for the straightforward reason that there are, literally, boundaries that apply to the prison estate that do not apply to wider society. It is true to say that no society had their public estates, whether it was their schools, hospitals or prisons, as they would have wanted them to be, in relation to ventilation and so on, to deal with a pandemic. That is no less true for the Prison Service. Despite the substantial modernisation that has taken place over the past 15 to 20 years, some of the prison estate is still Victorian. The Prison Service cannot get past that constraint. In wider society, we can change our behaviours or change where we go in a way that prisoners and prison officers cannot. That is why there are higher levels of restrictions in prisons. The consequences of one person getting the virus in an enclosed environment such as a prison can be much faster transmission.

I do not know whether Allister Purdie wants to add to what I have said, but that is the main constraint that I see. That is why, throughout the pandemic, as he said, we have required prisoners to meet a different standard. That approach has been really successful, and I acknowledge the work of the Prison Service and the pressure that staff have been under during the pandemic.

It is true that we are looking at only a temporary extension of that particular power for the purposes of the pandemic, but we are also consulting on whether the power of early release should be made permanent in separate legislation. In fact, the United Kingdom Government has the same power embedded in legislation for, it seems to me, contingency planning reasons.

I think that the same argument would apply in this case. If you have to do this in response to something unexpected, you might well not have all the time that you would like for consultation and forward thinking. The early release happened before my time as justice secretary, but I know that there were concerns about whether there was enough time for throughcare to be effective and, indeed, whether victim notification was as effective as it could have been. All that I would say is that we have learned lessons from that and will seek to apply them to any future early releases, even though we have none planned. Even taking our best guess with regard to the pandemic, I have to say that its impact on society does not seem to be anything like it was. For those reasons, this is a contingency power.

On a wider point, mass releases of prisoners have been a feature of systems across the world—I think of the states of Texas and Georgia, for example, and there are other countries, too—but we do not intend to use the measure for any other purpose. The state of California, for example, was told by its Supreme Court to release around a third of its prisoners more or less overnight, because the prisons were at 120 per cent capacity. We are not in that situation; we are simply looking for a temporary extension so that the power could be used if the pandemic were to justify such a move.