Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

We get regular updates that go down to individual prison level. During the worst of the pandemic, they set out the increases in individual prisons and the movement between wings when people had to be isolated. The updates that I get also mention new prisoners coming in and give some background on where the virus is thought to have started and whether it was brought in by someone new coming into the prison. They give details of the number of prisoners who have been vaccinated once, twice or three times, and details about levels of testing. They also give levels of testing among prison staff. They are pretty detailed, regular accounts.

I have asked lots of questions that might have encroached into other systems that the Government has put in place for the general management of the pandemic, but apart from asking for more information, I cannot think of any time that I have had to intervene to impose a political steer on things.

Yes, Allister Purdie might be best placed to answer that. However, the number, which Allister will be able to confirm or otherwise, includes quite a high level of remand prisoners, for reasons that we are all aware of, as well as people moving in and out of prison. The Prison Service is more susceptible to and not at all immune from the wider increase in the figures that we have seen in the past week or so.

It will not need the annual review. Even in advance of an annual milestone, it is possible for the Government to decide that the powers are no longer needed and, if the committee thinks that the situation has changed sufficiently, it can request that of the Government.

I do not wholly agree with that. The backlog is a direct consequence of the pandemic. Therefore, we can legitimately try to address it through the powers. I have said before that virtual trials would have a beneficial impact on the backlog but that is not the principal reason for wanting to pursue them. The powers that we are discussing are being taken to address the Covid situation. That includes the backlog. It is legitimate to do that.

I will just say first that, in my opening statement, I read out the testimony from the chief inspector and it was extremely positive about the way that the prison service is applying these regulations. Of course it should be the case that she should have the information that she requires. Allister Purdie may want to add to that.