Seòmar agus comataidhean

Only if you think that you would be involved.

That is really interesting. When things were more people-based or manual, there was a sort of mystery shopping element: you turned up at the address, and if the individual was not where they should have been, you took appropriate action. Now you know in real time about every breach that occurs and have a duty to respond to that. Are you able to respond? Is it physically possible for you to turn up to the address of every person who is tagged and deal with the situation if they are somewhere that they should not be, or do you just have to compile reports and let them accumulate?

There is a parallel question about those changes. At the moment, one of the serious considerations for sheriffs in granting bail is the risk of interference with witnesses or victims. There are mixed opinions on what would happen if there were to be any changes to that. Some think that that ground for refusal is being diminished; others believe that it will still exist and will be protected under the new legislation. I am not sure that I know the answer. If there is a risk of that ground for refusal being taken away or diminished, what concerns might the police have about those accused of quite serious crimes who do not necessarily pose any immediate public safety risk but present quite a significant risk of interference or of prejudice to justice?

Unfortunately, we can deal only with what the bill does. We cannot fix the other issues.

I apologise—it is not in my nature to interject—but I want to get through my questions. I will pose a scenario that fits in nicely with the mention of children. Let us say that, over the course of a weekend, an adult male beats up his wife, partner or child and appears in custody on the Monday morning, which, unfortunately, is a scenario that arises. In your view, is it the default position that that person would be released on bail or, in scenarios in which it is clear that an act of domestic violence has been committed and a member of the household has been assaulted, should that person be held on remand? As a sitting sheriff, what would your default position be?

Your comments are on the record, and we can ask those questions of the Government when it appears before us.

Let us imagine that it was, though. You have to scenario plan because, presumably, there would be a knock-on effect on you, your resource and your ability to deal with any increase. If there were an increase, would that require additional resource or funding? I know that the police already have a heavy workload as it is, given that you deal with a wide range of emergency situations that, perhaps, other agencies ought to be dealing with. We have taken evidence to that effect, and it is already a matter of public record. Would it put increased pressure on the police to deal with that 17 to 19 per cent rate of reoffending by individuals on bail if the numbers increased? What would you say to alleviate the concerns of your front-line officers, who may have expressed concern through the federation rather than directly to the committee about potential increases in workload due to changes in bail conditions or the rules around granting bail?

That is interesting. I am keen to let others come in if they want, convener. I have only one question to ask at the end, if we have time, about serious organised crime.

Okay—no problem.

To follow on from the conversation that we have just had, one of the difficulties that we are having is perhaps a keenness not to equate subjective assumptions or analyses with facts. It is quite easy to say that there are too many people on remand. That may or may not be true, but it depends on your definition of what is right and what is wrong in terms of remand decisions under the status quo.

Is it the case that there are too many people on remand or is it the case—I am throwing this out there, not taking a view—that the right people are rightly being held on remand but are wrongfully being held on remand for too long? Due to court backlogs, there is an inevitability to that—we have heard anecdotal evidence of people being held for longer than the end result of their custodial sentence would have been, even after conviction. It appears that there are simply too many people in prison on remand who should have been released much earlier because their cases should have been heard much earlier. That is off the back of the first evidence session that we had.

Professor McNeill made a point about the data—that we should look at not just the numbers but the context and the profile of those who are being held on remand and the types of offences that they are being held for.

I am just throwing that point out there to play devil’s advocate, because it is quite easy to say that there are too many people on remand, and then it becomes seen as a truth without being challenged, so I am keen to make sure that we challenge it.