Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would really appreciate that and I am that sure other members would as well. If you have spotted a gap in the proposed legislation, and we can help to fill that gap, I am sure that the committee would be willing to do so in some way. That is very useful and helpful feedback.

I wanted to put a wider question to the Parole Board. You say that the ministers already have the power to effectively overrule decisions that the board makes or to decide that a prisoner may be released. There is a perception that the bill goes a little further than that. For example, measures arose during the Covid pandemic, through which decisions were made at a ministerial level to release prisoners. An explanation was provided and there was an understanding around that, although whether you agreed with it or not is another matter. However, the new rules bake that into the system. What are your wider views around that issue? Do you feel that it is appropriate? Are you comfortable with it?

Okay, but the wider question is whether those decisions are best made by the Parole Board, prison governors or ministers in St Andrew’s house?

I will come back in later, convener. I will let other members ask their questions.

They are very unwilling to go on the record and share their views with us, which is unfortunate because they are on the front line.

We went to see some custody courts in action. My personal impression—other members will have their own thoughts—is that remand is very much a last resort in those scenarios and that sheriffs explore all options. However, that does not tally with 26 per cent of our prison population being prisoners on remand. Is that because too many people are being sent to prison on remand? Are the appropriate number of people being sent to prison on remand—the public safety test has already taken place—but the length of time that cases are taking to come to fruition is such that the prison population is burgeoning? As other members have said, the problem is that we do not have the right data to work that out. That is unfortunate when we are considering a bill that will change the rules around bail. That is a comment rather than a question.

I have a final question. The Government has introduced the bill with the ambition of reducing the number of people who are remanded and not given bail in many scenarios. The financial memorandum seems to back that up with some estimates around the reduction in the number of people who will be held on remand.

Obviously, it would be beneficial for the SPS if fewer people came into the system. However, there is a school of thought among the judiciary that the bill will not make a huge difference to the decisions that it makes and that it is already making the appropriate decisions. The removal of liberty is a very serious decision that justice partners make, and although politicians are free to tinker with the rules, justice partners will still go about their business as usual.

I am unsure as to what the potential outcome of the bill might be. Have you given that any thought? Clearly, the bill will have a large implication for the prison population and its numbers. That question is directed to the SPS.

Okay.

I will reframe the question; it is relevant for both witnesses. If the Government’s intention is to reduce the remand population, there are three important ways of potentially achieving that. One is to narrow the grounds for refusing bail, which would affect the decisions that the judiciary makes. As we have heard, the remand population is quite high because of the backlog of cases and the time spent on remand, so that is an option for change. There is a middle way, which we touched on earlier, around whether the Crown opposes bail in the first place. That is the principal driver when there is a debate over whether or not bail is granted. Could changes be made by clearing the backlog and shifting the culture, procedural or otherwise, around the decision by fiscals to oppose bail?

A third and final way of reducing the remand population would be to narrow the discretion of judges and sheriffs, which would seem to be a last resort. Perhaps we need to do it the other way round: if we narrow the grounds for refusing bail first, everything else will follow.

That would be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

You have, however, expressed in writing some reservations about the proposals. They might be less diplomatic in writing than in person, but they are notable. Aside from public safety is the issue of prejudicing the whole justice process, including those who use the system to evade justice through non-appearance, for example. You used the phrase “cohort of defenders”. Is there any concern that, as a result of shifting the balance to the sole principle of public safety as the primary ground for granting or refusing bail, sheriffs will be unable to remand people when there is a concern or significant risk that the person will simply not appear in court at a future date?

The committee saw that in person; I noticed that dates for court appearances were normally set quite soon after the custody hearing. We know that there is a cohort of people who simply will not attend. Is the inability to remand those people, specifically for that reason, a problem?