Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Is what you have just said, by its very nature, vindication that judges and sheriffs are sending people to prison on remand because of the offences that they are in front of the courts for? There is a perception—the Government is stating—that we have a high remand population. As you know, the committee previously criticised the Government for that. Is that because too many people are being sent to remand in the first place, or are they spending too long on remand? Those are two very different things, and they are dealt with very differently. The bill seems to address the latter by implying that too many people are being sent to prison on remand, rather than by addressing, perhaps, the real issue, which is not that there too many people being sent to prison on remand but that they are there for too long.

Okay. Bail-related offences are rocketing. Five years ago, they were 18 per cent; they are now sitting at 26 per cent. There is a real problem with bail-related offences, which will, I presume, only get worse if more people are on bail.

Anyway, let us move 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?

In last week’s evidence session, the chair of the Parole Board for Scotland made a specific call on the Government, which I am sure that the cabinet secretary’s advisers will have noted. He said that there might be some benefit in an “independent judicial body” deciding whether it would be appropriate for the Parole Board to make decisions on temporary release. That probably falls into a conversation about the powers of ministers in relation to those of the Parole Board. Has the Government taken cognisance of that evidence, and does it plan to address it in the bill?