Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Okay. So that test could still apply in solemn cases, and it would be grounds for remand but, at summary level, it would not. There is the removal of that ability. We know that there are people out there who are repeat offenders at summary level who regularly do not appear and are taking the proverbial, with the system. There now seems to be no way to hold them on remand as a result of that behaviour. That is unfortunate.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to ask a few perhaps more philosophical questions about the nature of the proposed legislation. Obviously, the bill comes in two parts. The first deals with the issue of bail and the parameters around the courts’ decisions, and the second deals with release from custody.

You said in your opening statement that the intention behind the bill is twofold: to reduce crime and to reduce reoffending. Will you explain which bit of part 1 of the bill around narrowing the conditions for bail and remand will reduce crime and reoffending?

Is it the Government’s view that the wrong people are being remanded in custody? If we look at the statistical data, the nature of offences is really enlightening. What has changed over the period that I mentioned when the remand population has seen a huge spike? The change has been to the offences for which people are held on remand. For example, the figures for those on remand for crimes of violence and for crimes of sexual violence have doubled and crimes committed by people on bail for similar offences have been markedly high. In Scotland, 40 murders and 770 attempted murders or serious assaults were committed by people who were on bail; the numbers of rapes and attempted rapes are high as well.

From what we can see, we are not sending low-level criminals to prison on remand. In fact, 1 per cent of summary cases end up on remand. It seems that high numbers of cases are being dealt with at the High Court, in those solemn cases where the offences are grave and serious. Is the Government suggesting that people who are currently on remand for those serious offences should be walking the streets? This is what I cannot get my head around.

I am pleased to be having an interaction with the cabinet secretary rather than there being just questions and answers. This is a discussion, and I hope that it is a constructive one.

Issues have arisen as we have got to understand how the system currently works. We have spoken about the parameters that the bill will change, including changes to public safety testing, and we have talked at length about remand periods, which might be another way of addressing the issue.

The third aspect that has struck me is the use of opposing bail by the Crown. It seems that, although the final decision is made by a sheriff or judge, the deputes in remand hearing courts on the day are pretty busy—to say the least—dealing with dozens of cases. They probably spend very little time looking at each individual case, especially those in Monday courts involving people who have been held on remand over the weekend.

Is there any feeling in the Government that there is overuse of opposing bail by the Crown? It is clear that, if the Crown were to oppose fewer bails as cases came through remand hearings, that would alter the numbers quite substantially.

If that is not the case, what more could be done on the day through empowering deputes to make more instant decisions, rather than there being centralised decision making from above, that would clearly and inevitably lead to fewer people being held on remand?

It seems to me that the sheriffs listen to what the Crown says and take its views on board. If bail is not opposed, it will probably be granted. There are probably very few cases in which the sheriff will go straight over the Crown’s head and say, “No, you should have opposed bail on this condition.” What are your thoughts on that? That struck me as an issue that we have not gone into much detail 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.

I know that you have quotes, but the statistics show that, in 2000, the remand population was 16 per cent; in 2005, it was 17 per cent; five years later, it was 18 per cent; and five years after that, it was 19 per cent. So, the number was creeping up—I admit, by around 1 per cent every five years—but, by 2022, it jumped to nearly 30 per cent. What happened?