³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I apologise, convener. I have been looking at our schedule of questions, and I have another question about prisoner release.

What Mr Purdie has said is very welcome, but can I double check that all prisoners are tested before they are released from prison, irrespective of whether their release is early, planned or due? Does that happen as a matter of course, or are they tested when they go into the community, as a general public health measure?

Of course. I understand the implications of that.

Ms Medhurst, what were the criteria for coming to a decision about early release? I ask that not to look backwards, but because the bill that is before us means that the same situation could arise again. From what you said earlier, the criteria seemed to be largely to do with your ability to confine people in single-occupancy spaces, given the issue of population versus capacity. What criteria did you use for the early release of prisoners? Would you use the same criteria again? If not, what would be different?

That is great.

My second question on that concerns the fact that some people think that, for some trials, even 18 months is ambitious, albeit that that is an extended time limit. We have just heard examples of some trials that are already taking way beyond 18 months. If we assume that that is what is happening, the backlog is going to take four or five years—perhaps longer—to clear, given the volume of cases.

What are the main causes of the delays to trials? Do they involve the capacity in the system? On numerous occasions, the committee has asked the SCTS and the Crown Office whether they think that there is capacity in the system to deal with the backlog, or what more they might need to get through it more quickly.

Alternatively, do the delays simply involve the nature of the processes that we work with? Is it that, even with all the will in the world—if we doubled court capacity and the number of defence solicitors and Crown agents—we would still not get through it at the same rate as we would wish because of the inherent nature by which trials take place?

What are the main barriers to reducing the length of time that people are waiting? In other words, how do we clear that backlog quickly but also fairly, so that each party is given the absolute right to fairness throughout the process?

What effect has the rather elongated extension to remand time had on the Scottish Prison Service? Do you have a view as to whether the measures seem necessary and proportionate enough to make them permanent features?

I do not mind. It was a tough question.

Good morning. My first question is for Emma Jardine from the Howard League. Do you feel that your organisation and the people whom your organisation assists or represents have been adequately consulted as part of the bill process?

What are your main concerns about the bill, if any?

We will come back to the issue of prisoner release.

I come back to time limits, because that is a technical matter and the bill deals with it on a technical level. I think that there is a general understanding of why there has been an extension of statutory time limits, both for trials and, in the more direct case, remand, which has a direct effect on the prison estate. However, the extensions of the time limits for remand are quite stark: a jump from 80 days to 260, from 110 days to 290, and from 140 to 320, which is nearly a year. Those are marked differences. The original extensions were emergency measures and they were temporary. The bill seeks to retain them and make them on-going features of the justice system. Do you have a view on that? Is it right that those extensions are in the bill? Do we still need them, given that the First Minister announced yesterday that the majority of Covid restrictions would be dropped next month? Why should the extensions become permanent features of our justice system?

The difference between this petition and the previous one, albeit that they have been open for comparable lengths of time and have both straddled multiple sessions of Parliament, is that there is a commitment from the Government to introduce the outcome that the petitioner seeks.

However, words on paper are different from deeds and actions. A manifesto relates to a parliamentary session, whereas a programme for government is an annual statement. The proposal was in the 2021-22 programme for government and there are only a few months of that period left. Therefore, I suggest that, until we have sight of either the required legislation or a more detailed proposal from the Government—even something as a simple as a policy for the Parliament to consider—it would be in our interest to write to the cabinet secretary to ask him to outline timescales for the actions that the Government has promised to take. At that point, if we are satisfied that the actions will deliver what the petitioner seeks, we can consider closing the petition, but it should remain open for now.

Good morning, colleagues.

For the record, I note that this is the third session of the Scottish Parliament in which the petition has been considered and the third iteration of a justice committee to consider it. As with the next petition that we will consider today, it is my view that this petition should not remain open indefinitely. Indeed, it has been open for more than a decade now, and it is in the best interests of the committee and its work, and of the campaigners—on which I have no specific view—that some other recourse be sought. If the work carried out in three parliamentary sessions has not been able to address the campaign’s wishes and needs, I cannot see our committee having the time and ability to do so either.

Of course, there are still some important considerations to take place. The family’s legal representation is well within its rights to pursue the legal recourse that is available, and it can make direct representation to the Government and its ministers. I would also note that we have a new justice secretary, one of many with whom those involved with the petition have dealt over the years. That would be the best line for them to pursue, but not for this committee. Given that this is a very specific and direct case, I suggest that, if we do not close the petition today, we at the very least agree a future date for coming to a decision on what we recommend next, to give the committee closure in this parliamentary session.