Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

We can do without the courts having to interpret more legislation from this Parliament; we get enough of that already.

Would either of the other witnesses care to address that point? It has been very well explained. I have something else that we can move on to if you prefer.

Presumably, the bill seeks to narrow that definition.

Another element that has been referred to is section 23D. My understanding is that, in section 23D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, there is a presumption against bail for certain types of offences, including violent offences, sexual offences and domestic abuse offences at summary level and drug trafficking at solemn level, if there is a previous conviction to that effect. That might be overly simplified, but that is more or less it.

All of today’s witnesses are for the abolition of section 23D, but we heard last week from victims groups who are of the view that it should be retained. Do their views cause you to rethink that in any way? If it is to be abolished, could or should it be replaced by something else to give protections to victims?

Indeed. Thank you.

What is the timescale for that? When do the clerks need to know about any queries or amendments?

The written submission from Dr Graham and Professor McNeill is 12 pages long and there is a lot of strong opinion in it. In the past, Dr Graham, you have been politically critical of me and my party. We are thick skinned and it is entirely your prerogative, but I wonder whether such political commentary risks undermining academic neutrality. I also wonder how that reflects our ability to assess the evidence that you have submitted. Is it personal opinion, academic research or something in between?

I want to respond quickly to what Collette Stevenson said about the two on-going bits of research. The letter specifies a completion date of spring this year for the Ipsos MORI research. For the other one, it simply says that the analysis will be concluded “in due course”. It is perhaps worth seeking some clarity on that in relation to the issue at hand regarding summary trials, as it could be useful to get a steer from the Scottish Government.

Good morning. The intent of the bill is to reduce the number of people on remand and therefore to increase the number of people who are granted bail. We already know that one in eight crimes are committed by people who are on bail.

In your submission, you say:

“The unfortunate reality of more individuals being released on bail that would otherwise be remanded will mean an increase of individuals who commit crime whilst on bail.”

We also hear later in the committee’s paper from some academics who address the same point in their written submission. They say that bail reform

“need not be causally associated with increases in crime.”

Can you explain that a bit more? There seems to be a contradiction there. On the one hand, victims organisations say that more bail equals more crime, and the data that exists suggests that that is the case, but, on the other hand, some academic research or opinion appears to suggest otherwise.

It is about electronic monitoring as time served.