Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Perhaps the lion’s share is not what we are looking to tackle here; it is the other part of it, if you like.

I am just very surprised and delighted to be asked by both the Conservative members to get involved in a philosophical discussion about this, which is a pleasant change.

There is another aspect of the test that covers the administration of justice. Philip Lamont or someone else can give the details of that.

That is a legitimate concern, but what we are saying is that the safety test will dominate in that area. When we talk about the administration of justice—we can get the exact words; I could not put my finger on those right away—we are also potentially talking about things such as jury tampering or the intimidation of witnesses. It is also about continued and wilful non-appearance at court.

If there is a worry that somebody might not appear in court and they are remanded for that reason, which is the greater harm that is caused? Somebody could be remanded for quite a lengthy period. You have just said that those things can get delayed for all sorts of reasons. Somebody who does not present a safety risk to the public could be kept in jail at the taxpayer’s expense simply to avoid the possibility of non-appearance.

The obligation on us is to ensure that we get better at making sure that people appear in court when they are meant to do so. I understand the risk. I speak as somebody who represents an area that had a very particular problem—one of the worst in Scotland—with that. The police took particular action to try to remedy it. We have to do more on that.

On the point about the test, maybe Philip Lamont could fill out the text that I have been unable to bring to mind.

What Philip Lamont said is that, even at summary level, where non-appearance is part of the case against a person, that can be taken into account—unless I am getting that wrong.

May I add a point, convener? This is probably obvious to committee members, but when I went to Perth prison and saw some people in a social space where prisoners could gather—I am not sure that it was a recovery cafe—the point was made to me that being in prison was the least chaotic period of their lives. The scariness involved in trying to cope with going back into society is huge. That is partly what this is about.

I make it absolutely clear that I am not drawing any analogy between veterans and people who have been in prison, but I have been making the argument for a number of years with the Ministry of Defence that, on day 1 of somebody joining the armed forces, they should be given the right to sign up to their local authority’s housing scheme so that they can get points for housing for when they eventually need it, even if they are not the slightest bit interested.

Similarly, we still have not cracked getting the MOD to give the health records of individuals who are leaving the armed forces directly to a general practitioner to make sure that the process is seamless and that a GP is informed about what a person has been through when they get to them. At the start of the process but especially towards the end, if people are more likely to have a rounded support package when they go into society, there is less chance of reoffending.

I will just say that, if cultural change results from the legislative change, which is to say that the Prison Service becomes aware of the need to plan from the early stages, that can also apply to people on remand. It will have less time to take effect, and we acknowledge that. It is also true that, if you are on remand, you often have access to other services, such as navigators, who will help in the process as well. I acknowledge that that is an issue, and it catches too many people by surprise. We have to be alive to it.

The point that I have tried to make is that the public will know exactly what the legislators have done and what discretions have been afforded to the Crown. Things would be less transparent if they were the result of a back-room discussion between us. We, as legislators, have stuck to our legitimate role of providing the framework, and the Crown sticks to its role and independently comes to its own conclusions while having regard to what the legislators have put in place. The approach is more transparent. People will know where the influence is. That is why we have chosen that route.

I cannot talk to the interpretation that whichever academic you were referring to put on this. I acknowledge, though—I said this in the chamber recently—that risk is a part of the justice system. It is part of every justice system that I know of. I am happy for anybody to point to me a justice system—whether it is parole boards, courts or other parts of the system—that does not have to balance risks on a regular basis.

I acknowledge the risks that are there, but we are trying to minimise those risks. To go back to an earlier answer that I gave, you can argue that, by reducing the numbers of people who are on remand and do not necessarily need to be on remand, you are also reducing risk. There is an element of the bill that helps to reduce risk. Of course, the part that we have not really got on to so much—part 2—is also designed to substantially reduce risk. The package of proposals that we are making is designed to reduce risk. We are not asking the public to trade risks or to accept a higher level of risk. We are trying to minimise risks.

You started with quotes as if there was a dichotomy between different groups of witnesses. I have a number of quotes from Victim Support Scotland that are supportive. Kate Wallace said:

“It seems to us that one of the main purposes of the bill is that it will potentially strengthen the approach to public, complainer and victim safety.”

She also said:

“Given the size of the remand population”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 January 2023; c 9, 12.]

You also mentioned the police. I cannot put my hand on them just now, but there are also supportive quotes from the police about what we are doing. It is probably never going to be the case that we will get everyone to agree—that is not going to happen—or that people who do agree with it will agree with every part of it or people who disagree will disagree with every part of it. I accept that, but in the end, the purpose of Government is to show leadership, so we are putting this forward.

At this point, however, it is important to reiterate the point that I made before. Jamie Greene, I think, said in the chamber that we have to wrestle or wrangle with this issue—it might have been Pauline McNeill; forgive me if I am wrong. That is what we are doing. We are not saying that we have a monopoly on wisdom. If people have better ideas on how to do what everybody here says that they want to do, which is to reduce remand, please come forward and say, “This is the way to do it”, and we are happy to look at that.

I will come back to Jennifer Stoddart, but you are absolutely right, convener. The problem of unexpected release, say, straight from the dock, which can happen for a number of reasons, has been raised. We are wrestling with that and with how the agencies can gather round to meet the different demand made in that circumstance. It most frequently happens to somebody who may have been on remand for only a short time.

Jennifer Stoddart might want to put some detail around that.