Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have just a brief supplementary to Rona Mackay’s questions on women in custody.

I listened carefully to what Sharon Stirrat had to say on the issue, and it struck me that some of this could be dealt with through the Scottish Sentencing Council rather than through new legislation. I just wondered whether you felt that the council had a bigger or better role to play around sentencing guidelines, in light of the quite prolific effect it has had on changes to sentencing guidelines for under-25s in Scotland.

Whatever your views on that approach, the academic research that it undertook formed a part of the decision making. Could the council do the same with sentencing guidelines in this respect or make other potential changes for women? Should judges and sheriffs be allowed to make different decisions on the basis of revised guidelines instead of through new legislation that has had to be introduced and which we are considering today? [Interruption.] I am sorry, Sharon—I think that you are on mute.

I will try to keep this quick, then. I thank the witnesses for the session that we have had.

My first question follows on from the previous conversation. It is clear that a cohort of people are released from custody with no conviction after being on remand, that there are those who have been given a sentence but have been on remand for the duration of that sentence, and that there are those who are coming to the end of their sentence. Different cohorts of people are released.

It has become clear that there is a lack of joined-up co-ordination when many of those people are released. Lots of good work is happening; we have seen that at first hand and spoken to some of the protagonists. However, for a lot of people, the prison door is simply opened and that is it: they are homeless and have no access to funds, food, medication, mental health or addiction support, skills training or employment. Other than putting words on paper, I cannot see what will change as a result of the bill, because it is still unclear to me who owns the problem when a person is released. What are your thoughts on that?

Thank you. I am just waiting for the screen to change. It is hard to see who is waving at me to come in.

The money has to follow. I presume that what happens will have to be backed up by funding.

I should declare an interest as I met the Shine group last Friday. I am really impressed by the great work that it is doing. That is an excellent plug.

Tracey McFall, do you have anything to add?

That is helpful. Thank you.

You do not want to put a label on it, but is it the responsibility of a local authority, the SPS, a Government agency, social work or some other body? Somebody needs to take ownership; we cannot just leave it open to whomever the individual has a relationship with when they are in custody.

It was about whether you think that there is a place for the use of alcohol tagging devices. We are already quite familiar with the concept of GPS monitoring as an electronic means of monitoring. Quite a large-scale trial of the approach I am talking about is being done south of the border, where, I think, nearly 7,000 devices have been rolled out, either as part of a community order or a condition of release or bail. In different scenarios, the device can be used in different ways. My understanding is that it seems to have a reasonably high compliance rate, at around 97 or 98 per cent. Do you think that that might be a helpful part of this conversation?

I will play devil’s advocate, just to probe and test the issues a little. I will start with Keith Gardner, because you are in the room.

If we are saying that legislation is required to reduce our remand population, is it not a valid observation that the remand population is so high because of the backlog of court cases and the number of people who are being held on remand for unlimited periods of time awaiting trial? There is an inevitability that, had those trials been dealt with far more quickly, some of those people would have been released or would have served enough of their sentence to be released. That is an observation. That number could come down quite quickly if we got through the backlog more quickly.

The second one is maybe more of a philosophical question. My understanding is that the Crown opposes bail only when it feels that there is good reason to, based on the information available, including information given by police and other protagonists. The judiciary will therefore remand someone only if they feel that there is good reason and they are satisfied that the argument has been made well by the Crown to do so. That is not something that we need legislation to fix, surely, because all legislation will do is tie the hands of the judiciary in the parameters that it uses to make those decisions. What do you say to that?

That is helpful. Again, the committee probably needs more detail, but my understanding is that the approach is not aimed at people with long-term alcohol addiction. It tends to be better suited to cases in which alcohol was an aggravating factor in an offence and the person does not require a more hands-on, day-to-day treatment approach—it would probably not be suitable for someone who required that kind of support; you make a fair point there.

I have another brief question. If your organisation has any role in the provision or monitoring of bail conditions, what is the likelihood of, as a result of any legislation that passes, more people—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am getting some feedback. Will the increase in the number of people on bail put any additional pressures on what you do, and do you have any comments on the use of technology as part of that solution?

I ask Rhoda MacLeod to answer that, as she has a top-notch microphone on.