Seòmar agus comataidhean

On page 7 of the paper, you say:

“Time spent on electronic monitoring should be no substitute for time that should have been spent in prison as part of a sentence.”

I turn to the submission from the academics. They suggest that, at the time of sentencing, it would be reasonable to treat two days spent on electronic monitoring as the equivalent of one day in custody. Have you come across that formula or suggestion, and do you agree with it?

Should they come and see us?

Thank you. Convener, have I time for another question?

Is that partly ideological and partly because there are offenders who play the system and prolong proceedings? We know that they churn cases. Is that a softer way of doing time?

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

About halfway through the letter, in the last paragraph on the first page, we learn that virtual summary domestic abuse trials have been taking place for three years. The cabinet secretary tells us that that has been at the direction of the Lord Justice General, which makes perfect sense, but I am somewhat surprised that he goes on to say that, if we want to know how many trials have actually taken place, he and the Scottish Government do not have that information. I find that surprising, because we have already had a bit of to and fro on the matter. It should not be this difficult to get such basic data. There has been some anecdotal suggestion that the numbers are very small.

The cabinet secretary goes on to say in the following paragraph that the powers will run for the next 10 months and then expire, but that they can be extended until 2025. In one breath, we are talking about not having the basic data but, in the next, we are talking about extending the powers without that basic data. It is really poor.

We have been battered around a bit on transcripts. We have not had a clear explanation from anyone of how much they cost. My understanding is that a private company provides the service. One thing that strikes me about Parliament is how quickly transcribed debates are online—it is incredibly efficient. I am not saying that the courts could do that easily or without cost, but we have not had an explanation as to why it cannot be done properly.

The existing crimes that occur while people are on bail need not happen in a system that is fully reformed across the board. Is that a fair assessment?

I would like to pick up on another issue, convener. Is that okay? Do we have time?

My first question relates to bail. As we know, judges make the decision about whether someone should be remanded. The judiciary have expressed some opposition to the bill. They seem to be downright hostile to it, but it is difficult for us to interpret that, because they have declined our invitations to give evidence and answer questions, which is making our job a bit more difficult than it should be.

Hannah, you are on the Scottish Sentencing Council. You are not a judge, but you are perhaps the closest that we will get to hearing from that sector. I know that you are not speaking for the Scottish Sentencing Council, because you have already said so. Can any of you give me any sense of what the opposition to the bill is? Is it perceived to be meddling in judicial independence? Do you think that the judiciary should give evidence to the committee?