���˿���

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.

You are absolutely right that it comes down to judgments. However, it is also true that, if we were to seek to pardon those convictions, it would set quite a precedent for similar offences that are committed now or in the future. Based on the consultations that we have had, I think that there would be a lot less sympathy when it comes to offences such as street fights, intimidatory conduct, violence or damage to property.

The point about the picket line is important. Our view—which, as you said, is based on a judgment that we have to make—is that, on the balance of probabilities, the miners’ conduct on a picket line or demonstration, or when going through a community to attend one of them, was directly related to support for saving jobs, rather than being an action born of anger or retribution against an individual. Therefore, you are right that it is a question of judgment, and that is the judgment that we are making. However, we will, of course, listen to other points of view.

For the people who have called for the pardon, including former MSP Neil Findlay, this was about reconciliation. Neil Findlay’s views on compensation might be different from mine, but the rationale for the pardon was about reconciliation, as I said in my answer to Alexander Stewart.

A compensation scheme would not be consistent with the proposal for miners to self-assess their eligibility for a pardon. We would need a much more stringent process if people were applying for compensation, and, given the lack of records and so on, that would be problematic for quite a number of the individuals who are involved.

If we had such a scheme, we would run the risk of the bill moving away from its intended symbolic effect into the territory of questioning decisions that were made by the judiciary at the time. To be clear, we are not doing that—we are not quashing any convictions; we do not have the ability to look back in time, assemble the evidence and do that, in any event. Also, a compensation scheme would run the risk of creating a precedent for pardons that are granted. Other legislation for pardoning convictions such as the Historical Sexual Offences (Pardons and Disregards) (Scotland) Act 2018 did not offer compensation, so there would be a risk of legal challenge.

Employment and industrial relations are reserved to the UK Government. The Scottish Government was not the employer, was not party to the dispute and was not in existence at the time. A compensation scheme for loss of earnings, pension and other rights would touch on employment issues, which are for the UK Government to consider. We have pressed—and will continue to press—the UK Government to hold a full public inquiry. That is the place where such issues should be discussed or addressed. For us, we think that the pardon is a reasonable measure to try to introduce some reconciliation in communities that were driven apart during the strike.