Chamber and committees

May I add a point, convener? This is probably obvious to committee members, but when I went to Perth prison and saw some people in a social space where prisoners could gather—I am not sure that it was a recovery cafe—the point was made to me that being in prison was the least chaotic period of their lives. The scariness involved in trying to cope with going back into society is huge. That is partly what this is about.

I make it absolutely clear that I am not drawing any analogy between veterans and people who have been in prison, but I have been making the argument for a number of years with the Ministry of Defence that, on day 1 of somebody joining the armed forces, they should be given the right to sign up to their local authority’s housing scheme so that they can get points for housing for when they eventually need it, even if they are not the slightest bit interested.

Similarly, we still have not cracked getting the MOD to give the health records of individuals who are leaving the armed forces directly to a general practitioner to make sure that the process is seamless and that a GP is informed about what a person has been through when they get to them. At the start of the process but especially towards the end, if people are more likely to have a rounded support package when they go into society, there is less chance of reoffending.

I will just say that, if cultural change results from the legislative change, which is to say that the Prison Service becomes aware of the need to plan from the early stages, that can also apply to people on remand. It will have less time to take effect, and we acknowledge that. It is also true that, if you are on remand, you often have access to other services, such as navigators, who will help in the process as well. I acknowledge that that is an issue, and it catches too many people by surprise. We have to be alive to it.

The point that I have tried to make is that the public will know exactly what the legislators have done and what discretions have been afforded to the Crown. Things would be less transparent if they were the result of a back-room discussion between us. We, as legislators, have stuck to our legitimate role of providing the framework, and the Crown sticks to its role and independently comes to its own conclusions while having regard to what the legislators have put in place. The approach is more transparent. People will know where the influence is. That is why we have chosen that route.

I cannot talk to the interpretation that whichever academic you were referring to put on this. I acknowledge, though—I said this in the chamber recently—that risk is a part of the justice system. It is part of every justice system that I know of. I am happy for anybody to point to me a justice system—whether it is parole boards, courts or other parts of the system—that does not have to balance risks on a regular basis.

I acknowledge the risks that are there, but we are trying to minimise those risks. To go back to an earlier answer that I gave, you can argue that, by reducing the numbers of people who are on remand and do not necessarily need to be on remand, you are also reducing risk. There is an element of the bill that helps to reduce risk. Of course, the part that we have not really got on to so much—part 2—is also designed to substantially reduce risk. The package of proposals that we are making is designed to reduce risk. We are not asking the public to trade risks or to accept a higher level of risk. We are trying to minimise risks.

You started with quotes as if there was a dichotomy between different groups of witnesses. I have a number of quotes from Victim Support Scotland that are supportive. Kate Wallace said:

“It seems to us that one of the main purposes of the bill is that it will potentially strengthen the approach to public, complainer and victim safety.”

She also said:

“Given the size of the remand population”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 January 2023; c 9, 12.]

You also mentioned the police. I cannot put my hand on them just now, but there are also supportive quotes from the police about what we are doing. It is probably never going to be the case that we will get everyone to agree—that is not going to happen—or that people who do agree with it will agree with every part of it or people who disagree will disagree with every part of it. I accept that, but in the end, the purpose of Government is to show leadership, so we are putting this forward.

At this point, however, it is important to reiterate the point that I made before. Jamie Greene, I think, said in the chamber that we have to wrestle or wrangle with this issue—it might have been Pauline McNeill; forgive me if I am wrong. That is what we are doing. We are not saying that we have a monopoly on wisdom. If people have better ideas on how to do what everybody here says that they want to do, which is to reduce remand, please come forward and say, “This is the way to do it”, and we are happy to look at that.

I will come back to Jennifer Stoddart, but you are absolutely right, convener. The problem of unexpected release, say, straight from the dock, which can happen for a number of reasons, has been raised. We are wrestling with that and with how the agencies can gather round to meet the different demand made in that circumstance. It most frequently happens to somebody who may have been on remand for only a short time.

Jennifer Stoddart might want to put some detail around that.

I think that what Philip Lamont said was that, if part of the case against a person is related to non-appearance, it can be taken into account at summary level. However, we will write with clarification on that.

As Philip Lamont said, there will be demand—you are right—for justice social work services to step up. However, there is also demand on the court service, as has been described. I have mentioned the steps that we are taking to improve justice social work and the relatively uneven provision across the country, and we have seen improvements over the past year. Those have been achieved by providing additional resource. We have been involved in discussions on the bill with local authorities and Social Work Scotland. As ever, it will be for local authorities to decide how to deploy the resources that they have, but, at the bottom of this, there will be the statutory requirement for the court to have the services, and we will have to meet that. Our task is to make sure that we build on the additional resources that we have already provided to make sure that justice social work has the resources to do that across the country. That is the challenge.

As I said, we currently invest a total of £134 million in community justice services, including £123 million to local authorities. We have made a specific investment this year of £3.2 million to support bail assessment and supervision services. That is having an impact, as I said, in more local authorities. I cannot remember what we started from at the beginning of the year, but the service is now available in 30 authorities. Gearing up has already started. We know that it has further to go and that we have to provide the resourcing for it, but that will be detailed in a financial memorandum and will be a result of discussions that we will have with COSLA and Social Work Scotland.

It does not do so in the detail that you mentioned, but yes—the principle is that, when sentencing, courts should be able to take into account not only time served but a diminution of rights. I tried to answer this point earlier. If someone has been subject to electronic monitoring, that is a diminution of their rights, and it should be taken into account by the court in sentencing.

There is no plan to amend the bill, because the issue that has been raised by the chair of the Parole Board is not a result of the bill. He has raised it, and it is a concern for him—I do not deny that—but it is not an effect of the bill. That is the existing situation. We are willing to be and are engaged in discussions with the chair and, I think, the Parole Board—I am happy to confirm that—on the issue. It opens up other issues, which is why it is probably not suitable to be dealt with in the bill, but it is a live issue that we have been and are discussing with the chair.

Once again, it would be useful to hear from Jennifer Stoddart. You have probably gathered from contributions that I have made today, including the previous one and the one on Rona Mackay’s point about exclusions from emergency release, that there are areas on which we are listening to people. It is the way to do this. Through the bill, we are genuinely trying to find solutions that we all agree on. We are still involved in the discussion, but for the reason that you mentioned, directing the Parole Board is a very tricky area for us to get involved in, given its independent powers. Perhaps Jennifer wants to add to that with specific reference to the evidence that has been mentioned.