Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is not the first time that we have been put in the position of being asked to review legislation days before it comes into force. Especially ahead of a recess, there is no opportunity to discuss the matter until after the SSI has come into force.

It would be a different matter if there were clear policy differences or matters of opinion in the SSI that would be suitable to oppose, but there is little to oppose. There is nothing in the SSI that I disagree with, and it seems to make some sensible changes, but there are things that could have been done differently or better, and things that should have been added to the SSI. That is where the matter is unclear. If our only option is to lodge a motion to annul, we would lose the 70 per cent of the SSI that is comprised of good bits if we have a problem with the other 30 per cent. That is the unfortunate position that we are in.

In this scenario, there is no point in stopping the SSI going ahead, but I wonder how we can raise those issues. They could perhaps be dealt with in a further SSI, which I am sure that the Government could find an appropriate way to get to us in good time. We should stress to the cabinet secretary that we should have had a paper on the SSI weeks ago.

I am happy to put this to Mr Lamont and the cabinet secretary. We heard evidence last week from David Fraser from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. He said:

“I have managed to determine the number of people who are on remand and awaiting trial in our legal system … In summary cases, only 1 per cent of people are on remand. For sheriff and jury cases, it is 12 per cent, and for High Court cases it is 27 per cent.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 25 January 2023; c 33.]

That contradicts what I have just heard from Mr Lamont, who said that, by the very nature of those types of offences, those people will likely be held on remand anyway, even under the new rules. Surely that contradicts the purpose of the legislation, because you are trying to reduce the number of people held on remand who you consider do not need to be, but, at the same time, we are saying that people who commit serious offences and who should rightly be held on remand will still be held on remand. The two do not add up. Either those people will still be held on remand or we will be letting them out with bail conditions.

I am a bit confused about the purpose of the legislation. It is clear from the statistics that the lion’s share of people held on remand are there through High Court cases, which are normally quite serious cases that result in a custodial sentence.

In summary cases, it is only 1 per cent. Very few people in summary cases are held on remand, which is where you would think that the bulk of it would be. If that were the case, there absolutely would be a problem, but there does not seem to be a problem.

That is interesting. The cabinet secretary said that it is not for the Government to interfere overly with decisions that are made by the Crown but, if we make legislative change, that will alter its behaviour and decision making.

Mr Lamont mentioned Kenny Donnelly, who raised a particular concern that I do not think has been properly addressed in the bill—I hope that that is done as the bill moves forward. That concern relates to section 23C of the 1995 act. Mr Donnelly talked about removing

“from a summary court the ability to oppose bail for people who simply have a record of not attending or about whom there is information that they will not attend.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 25 January 2023; c 27.]

That would not necessarily fulfil the public safety criteria, based on the ordinary meaning definition that you have described.

How do we counter that? How can we ensure that courts have the ability to remand people where there is a significant risk of their not appearing at or attending future hearings? We know all the implications that come with that—the financial and human costs and, of course, the implications for court time, which is precious. It seems that people feel that their hands may be tied in that respect.

I could talk all day on this subject, but I appreciate that there are lots of other members who want to ask questions. I am happy to come back in if there is time later.

Is what you have just said, by its very nature, vindication that judges and sheriffs are sending people to prison on remand because of the offences that they are in front of the courts for? There is a perception—the Government is stating—that we have a high remand population. As you know, the committee previously criticised the Government for that. Is that because too many people are being sent to remand in the first place, or are they spending too long on remand? Those are two very different things, and they are dealt with very differently. The bill seems to address the latter by implying that too many people are being sent to prison on remand, rather than by addressing, perhaps, the real issue, which is not that there too many people being sent to prison on remand but that they are there for too long.

Okay. Bail-related offences are rocketing. Five years ago, they were 18 per cent; they are now sitting at 26 per cent. There is a real problem with bail-related offences, which will, I presume, only get worse if more people are on bail.

Anyway, let us move on.

Okay. Let me set out what I do not understand. The intention behind the bill is to reduce the remand population by sending fewer people to prison in the first place. There has been a debate among the judiciary as to whether the bill will meet its objectives. There seems to be a school of thought that remand hearings will just progress as they currently do, because of the lack of clarity around the changes to public safety issues. The Government, however, seems to think that the bill will lead to a reduction in the numbers.

Back in 2015, the remand prison population in Scotland was just shy of 20 per cent. Over the past seven years, that has increased to nearly 30 per cent, which is probably where it sits at the moment. What has driven that? What, over the past seven years, has resulted in our remand population rocketing? What legislative changes have taken place that we are trying to reverse? Why is legislation needed to address what seems to be quite a short-term spike in the increase in the remand population when, historically, it was there or thereabouts and, in fact, is favourably comparable to England and Wales as far back as 2000?

At the moment, the rate in Scotland still falls considerably short of the rate in many other comparatively small countries with a similar population, such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway, which have remand populations of 30 per cent, 39 per cent and 25 per cent. Those figures are not low either. I am trying to get my head around why the Government is using legislation to address what seems to me to be a very marked but short-term increase.

Can we clarify that, though? It is a matter of law. This came up as an anecdote last week. If the Parole Board takes a view that someone can be released and that person commits an offence during the short timeframe before release, which is quite possible—they might get into some sort of infraction or break the rules in prison—what happens? The Parole Board seems to think that it has no further powers to stop release happening, even though there is a further incident after the decision is made. Will governors have a veto on such decisions or will ministers have a veto? It is unclear where the power lies in that scenario.