Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that I speak for everyone here when I say that the more data we have on what is available at the moment and how it works, the better.

Indeed, but that applies now and no one is suggesting otherwise. No one is suggesting that people are getting locked up willy-nilly because of some vague idea that they might offend. From what we have seen, each case is based on a pretty robust process. Do you disagree with that?

The bill suggests that criminal justice social work will have a much earlier and more active role in informing the Crown and the court about cases. Would that be helpful, as far as the Crown is concerned?

Does that means that the bill would, in effect, formalise the existing system, whereby criminal justice social work can and does feed into decision making?

I will be quick. If the bill leads to more bail, there will probably be increased reliance on supervised bail, which I believe includes electronic monitoring. We have heard evidence from some people that the amount of time for which a person is subject to electronic monitoring should have a bearing on the sentence that is ultimately imposed, if a sentence is imposed.

As things stand, does the Crown have confidence in supervised bail electronic monitoring? If so, does that apply Scotland wide or is it a bit of a patchwork quilt? Secondly, does the Crown have any view on the suggestion that the amount of time for which a person is subject to supervised bail electronic monitoring should be a factor in subsequent sentencing?

Last week, the witness from Howard League Scotland gave a fascinating insight. He used the phrase “risk appetite” when he was making a comparison with another country—Finland—where, at some point, the authorities decided that they would stop remanding and imprisoning so many people. That has radically changed the proportion of people who are imprisoned. I think that, by “risk appetite”, he meant trying to persuade the public that that direction of travel is the right one. Are the public agreeable to that? If they are not, how can you go about convincing them with those statistics that that approach is the right one?

There is a huge amount of detail. We have had 21 witnesses so far, with many more to come, and there will be lots of talking in future. However, it is helpful to understand that there is a direction of travel in the criminal justice community.

If the other witnesses want to come in on that, they can, but I have a specific question about prison.

I wonder whether that might slow down the process on the day.

Thank you.

My final question is a much more overarching one, if that is okay, convener.