Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can I clarify something, convener?

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.

Yes. It is all about officer numbers. What we want to know—or what we should want to know—is whether we are still looking down the barrel of a reduction in officer numbers, or will there be a flat settlement to maintain officer numbers? Indeed, is there sufficient budget to increase officer numbers? It would be welcome news if that were the case. However, we do not know.

My first point is maybe a wider point. This is quite a big SSI and we are looking at it in the context of the negative procedure, which, as members know, gives us limited options. For example, it is impossible for us to amend it; such matters are outside of our control because of the primary legislation that the rules are connected to. Had the instrument been subject to the affirmative procedure, we could have heard from the cabinet secretary and his advisers on it, taken evidence on it and done other things with it rather than being left with the only option of annulling it, which is unhelpful, because there is some good stuff in it.

However, there are things in the rules that are not so good, and that is what I wanted to point out. The point that my colleague Russell Findlay made about matters that the board may consider around release was absolutely correct. The issue is specifically about someone who has been convicted of murder or homicide and whether they have failed to reveal the location of a victim’s body. This is a real missed opportunity. The issue will feature in my member’s bill, which is yet to be drafted, unfortunately, and it featured heavily in my consultation. The overwhelming response to that was that there should be an overt rule on the matter with regard to the test for release. The policy objectives just say that the rule

“does not change the underlying test for release”

but revealing a location might be a factor that is taken into account. I presume that it already was a factor, so the rules do not seem to make any change there.

Had I been given the opportunity to amend the rules, I would have made them stronger. The Government has missed an opportunity to introduce Suzanne’s law through a simple procedural mechanism that would go a long way towards serving justice to the families of those victims.

The second point is about the final paragraph on page 5 of the policy note, which talks about changes to the rights and roles of victims in all of this. The provision simply allows for victims to observe parole hearings. Again, that is a missed opportunity. It still does not give victims the opportunity to make meaningful representation during those hearings, which is a long-standing issue. The rules could easily have been altered to allow victims to speak or have a voice during parole hearings, and I have felt strongly about that for some time.

Furthermore, that paragraph talks about those who are registered with part 1 of the VNS who do not want to be involved with the Parole Board process. I question the evidence on that. How many chose not to be involved in that process? How many victims or their families were subject to poor communication from the VNS and were notified so late or out of the blue that they were unable to participate in the process, or unwilling to because of retraumatisation? We know that uptake of the VNS is poor because of its opt-in nature. Again, there is a missed opportunity to look at opt-out versions of the scheme.

We also know that a number of people who asked to participate in—when I say “participate” I mean “observe”—parole hearings were rejected. I would have liked to have seen some numerical evidence about that. How many people asked to attend a parole hearing and were rejected? I have only anecdotal evidence but the figure is certainly in the dozens, and I have tried to get some more information about that in the past few months. A number of people were denied access to those hearings, especially when the process went online.

Should the Parole Board rules be explicit and make it clear to victims way in advance and up front that they have the absolute right to observe hearings unless there is good reason for them not to or a reasonable objection is raised? It should not be a matter of discretion for the person who is in charge of that Parole Board hearing. I have more questions about that.

I am disappointed that we are being asked to shoo through a negative instrument when it concerns important matters that could have empowered victims of crime and is failing to do so.

Yes—at summary level. However, that is not my interpretation of what I heard. Perhaps you can write to us. I am sure that we will talk about the issue again.

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.