Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I am happy to come back in later with substantive questions, but, timing wise, this question might follow on nicely.

I heard every word that you said, but I struggled to follow the flow chart of it in my head, because it was a verbal flow chart. I wonder whether you might help the committee by illustrating that in writing to us. I hear where you are coming from and I am trying to follow the flow chart of where you make decisions and where the cut-off times are.

I have a question for Mr Watt. You said that one of the frustrations that you felt as a fiscal was the binary choice between remand or release. However, is it not the case that there is a middle ground in which a sheriff can release someone either with enhanced conditions or on supervised bail, which seems to be a more popular option these days? Is that the middle ground?

Are you scenario planning for a reduction in the prison population in the way that the Government is?

I will put my first question to the Crown Office. I foresee that I will get the diplomatic answer that, “Those decisions are for Government and Parliament to make”. However, the Crown has submitted a detailed paper outlining several concerns, so I think that my question is appropriate. Is it your overarching feeling that the 1995 act is fit for purpose and does not need to be amended? My question relates primarily to part 1 of the bill; part 2 is a separate matter.

No. I am willing to be corrected by our wise adviser, but my understanding is that the provisions in the bill are nothing to do with emergency legislation or pandemics.

Is that not the inherent problem, though? When you leave it open to politics, there is a risk. Whatever one’s politics, the judiciary and the executive should be at arm’s length and politicians should not be interfering in those decisions, or indeed overruling decisions, if we are to ensure the sanctity of the independence of the board.

It is just about that correlation. There is clearly a disagreement and there are different schools of thought. We are remanding too many people while not necessarily analysing the data on who has been remanded and for what reason. That important piece of work, which would help to inform a view on whether too many people are being remanded, is yet to be done.

Thank you.

Mr Fraser, you talked earlier about data to which you have access. You have probably heard committee members complain a lot about the lack of available data on the issue.

There seems to be a pyramid. At the top, we have very few people in summary cases being remanded, with people not being remanded unless the offence was grave or the sheriff sees an immediate need to do so. Lower down, we have the serious cases at High Court or solemn level, in relation to which there has been a marked increase in the number of people who are remanded.

Is that due to the nature of the offences that come through the courts, or is the issue simply that, as some people think, too many people are being remanded for the wrong reasons? There is a philosophical debate to be had about that. It seems to me that the volume of remands comes from the serious cases, where remanding someone might be the right thing to do, not just on public safety grounds but for a wide range of reasons.

The financial memorandum associated with the bill includes commentary that the Government believes that what is proposed will not result in any up-front or one-off costs for the Crown or the SCTS. However, earlier, you stated that some procedural or technical changes would need to be made within the system to accommodate and implement any changes as a result of the bill.

Do you agree with the Government’s assertion that the bill will come at no cost to your organisations? If you disagree, will you go away and do any associated analysis or work on what changes would be required and the potential costs of making those changes?

Thank you.