Seòmar agus comataidhean

We always listen to local authorities. Interestingly—I think that I am right in saying this—the COSLA spokesperson with whom we primarily carry out such discussions is also from South Lanarkshire Council. Of course we listen to local authorities. It will often be the case that we have different views, but we have to evidence those views.

Things should also be seen in the light of the increased investment that has already been made. This year, we have done something that is important but not always easy to achieve. We do not want, at the same time as we encourage some authorities to get off the ground services that they are not providing, to be punishing authorities that are providing those services. We have to help them to improve their services as well. We did that effectively with a split of, I think, £11.8 million and £3.2 million for different purposes.

We have therefore funded those things already—we are not going from a standing start—but we will, of course, continue to have discussions with COSLA and Social Work Scotland. That is part of the general process of finding out what the exact resource requirements will be. I do not think that this committee, or any other committee of the Parliament, gets through many evidence sessions in which the issue of resource does not come up, and matters are often contested. However, we will try to reach an agreement with COSLA in that regard.

No. We are careful not to make any projections about a reduction in the remand population as a result of the bill, but what might underlie that point is that, if you see a reduction in the prison population, resourcing will be made slightly easier for the Prison Service. Perhaps the council’s point is that successful implementation of the bill might lead to savings that might help it get further resources. It is a reasonable observation for the council to make, but, no, we are not looking to cut the prison budget to fund any of this.

Obviously, it is easier for me to talk about the time when I have had responsibility in this area, but I do not think that it is a short-term increase or that the concern is just a recent one. I have mentioned 2018. I could read out the quotes from various members—

Thanks, convener. As you said, many respondents pointed to the need for legislation. I cannot remember which one, but one of your academic contributors was very clear on that. A member of the judiciary, who was also speaking for the Howard League, mentioned the need for legislation.

You asked how the legislation would improve things, and, if I am correct, your point is about how people can have more faith in bail supervision. The first thing is to get it right with the people who are given bail, so that there is public confidence that the interests of victims and others have been considered. By others we might mean juries, where there might be a threat of jury tampering, intimidation of witnesses and so on. If we can get that right, it must mean that the ability to be more effective on bail management starts off on the right premise.

Beyond that, however, shrieval or judicial confidence in bail supervision has not been there. Over the past year, we have put more money towards improving supervision and we now have 30 local authorities providing bail supervision, with the other two scheduled to come on stream. In addition, the bench may consider electronic monitoring and have confidence in that. Twenty-one local authorities are providing electronic monitoring, and the intention is that that will be rolled out across the board. Of course, there are technological advances and as yet untapped existing potential for that to go further through a much more nuanced use of electronic monitoring, whether it is confined to a particular location or used to monitor whether a person is taking drugs or alcohol that could exacerbate things. Providing resource for that can help matters.

Going back to the input, if you like—who is on bail—the provisions for justice social work reports that we have proposed in the bill will not only give the court a better basis on which to decide whether to grant bail but will better inform those who undertake the bail supervision about the points of concern and what has to be looked after. I think that those things together will make for more effective bail supervision and will give more confidence to the bench in taking those decisions.

The other side of the points that Rona Mackay rightly made is the rights argument for everybody under the system. Whether we like it or not, everybody has rights. Those are underpinned by the European convention on human rights and other legislation, and this Parliament and its legislation are obliged to follow them.

First of all, on the issue of remand in general, it is important to say that, by putting someone on remand, you are fundamentally affecting someone’s rights. To state the obvious point, you are locking someone up when they have not yet been convicted of a crime. That is why we think that that should be done only in the circumstances that we have mentioned. Also, if you put somebody on bail and subject them to electronic monitoring, you are impacting on and curtailing their rights in a number of ways, such as their right to freedom of movement and their right not to be monitored by the state. We need to recognise that. Leaving the courts with the discretion to recognise that is important, and it is done in other jurisdictions, so I am supportive of that being taken into account.

The concerns expressed, if I am right, are about the idea that victims should consent to any information being shared. As I am sure that you would agree, there is no track record of victims’ organisations acting against the interests of victims. It is a bit more complex than it first appears, but we are willing to have further discussions on it. It might be useful to hear from Jennifer Stoddart. We will not set ourselves against it just for the sake of it, and our view is probably understood by the victims’ organisations. We are in a continuing dialogue. Perhaps Jennifer wants to add to that.

I do not think that it will have an impact on the bill as it goes through, given the timescale that you mentioned. I understand the many arguments for and against, but one of the crucial arguments for their inclusion in the NCS is the fact that Social Work Scotland believes that it is very important that the entire profession is under the one umbrella. However, there is a difference. I know that it is probably not helpful to give both sides of the argument—and there are a lot of arguments on both sides—but the other side to it is that, compared with the work of other social workers, justice social work is of a different nature with respect to court orders and other things.

It seems to me, in that context, that the right thing to do is to build up a body of evidence, which is what we are doing, to support whatever decision is finally made. At the earlier stages, when the Government was discussing the national care service, I was keen that we should build up the evidence first. The purpose of doing that is to see how effective we can make the inclusion of justice social workers if they are to become part of the NCS. However, if that body of evidence comes back showing that that inclusion is not the most effective way to do it, we are willing to listen. That is the right way to do it. Any decisions should be based on the best possible evidence.

Was there another aspect to your question, which I have forgotten?

First of all, there is the legal aspect of it whereby we will name public bodies, which will then have a legal obligation to engage in pre-release planning. I am aware of different practices across the country. In Barlinnie, there is some very good practice in a particular location on the prison estate where different bodies get involved and talk with prisoners in advance of their release. That is quite effective, but I think that it can go further. For example, if somebody who lives in the Western Isles is to be released on a Friday afternoon but that person has an addiction problem and has no house to go to, that seems to be setting somebody up to fail, in my view. The idea is that local authorities and others will be named to make sure that that planning is done before a person is released so that the person can get to where they need to go and will have the support that they need.

I will give you one example. I know that the committee went to see the new routes throughcare mentoring service in Glasgow, but I do not know whether you heard the same example as I was given. One of the chaps there said that he had been released but, by the Friday of that week, he ended up in a pub. He did not have alcohol addiction but had drug addiction, and, because he felt particularly low, that temptation was there. In that case, he was—“saved” is maybe not the right word—hugely helped by the mentoring scheme there, and that prevented that issue going any further. If that support is not there, you can see where things will end up. It has to be joined up so that transport, someone’s housing options and social work support, if that is required, are covered. Those things are too hit-and-miss just now. We have to be more co-ordinated in how we do that.

Most local authorities, where they have responsibilities, are resourced to provide those services in any event. It may change some configuration, and, of course, we are always willing to look at resource implications for it. It might be useful to hear from—I hope that I can get a 100 per cent success rate in choosing the correct official—Jennifer Stoddart in answering this point. The idea is to make sure that it is joined up across the country. I think—I hope—that it is uncontentious to say that we have to better prepare people if we are to reduce crime in future. If I have missed anything, Jennifer can perhaps add to it, convener, if that is all right.

I do not want to go into the details of the particular case that you mentioned, but I think that the murder took place in a kitchen. If it is the one that I am thinking of, it was a horrendous case, and I offer my condolences again to the family concerned.

If somebody thinks that the Friday release change is not the appropriate way in which to go and their idea is to provide seven-days-a-week or 24-hour services, they should by all means lodge an amendment. They would have to quantify the cost of that, which would not be nugatory—it would be substantial. There would also be real questions for the people who would have to provide those services overnight or seven days a week. We do not directly control some of those services. They are provided by the third sector.

I think that the proposed route is better. It responds to demand. Many times over the years, there have not been Friday releases, so that we could better enable support services to be available to people who were being released. That is the route that we have chosen. However, I am happy to consider any amendments that members lodge.

I am not sure that I can be more articulate on that point than many of your witnesses have been. You have heard from the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and even Sheriff Mackie and others who do not believe that that was a good measure. They were not entirely certain why that section was introduced in 2007, and I think that I am right in saying that they believed that, to some extent, it fettered the court when it was trying to make a judgment. You are right, however, to put your finger on that being a potential concern.

Public safety will be at the heart of that test. Although it will be for the courts to decide, virtually anybody who was refused bail under section 23D would likely be refused bail under the new test. That will bring more consistency and specifically includes the concept of victim safety, which is important to your point about victims of domestic abuse being a factor when making a determination on a person’s entitlement to bail. It goes further in saying that any assessment of the risks should include physical and psychological harm to the victim.

Removing section 23D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 does not remove the protection for victims as a new bail test will be applied in every case, and repeal does not mean that those accused of serious offences who pose a risk to public safety will be admitted to bail under the new test. That is because the offences that section 23D covers—sexual offences, domestic abuse offences and violent offences—all relate to public safety, which includes complainer safety. As such, I think that accused persons who are remanded under section 23D at present would, in many cases, also be remanded under the proposed new bail test. That bail test also has essential considerations to justify remand on public safety grounds where relevant. That will help to keep the complainer safe from harm.

As I said, although this is not directly related to the categories that you referred to, the test goes further in terms of people who might prejudice the process through the intimidation of witnesses, complainers or even potential juries.

I hope that that reassures the member. We are working with different groups to ensure that that reassurance is provided.