Chamber and committees

Obviously, it is easier for me to talk about the time when I have had responsibility in this area, but I do not think that it is a short-term increase or that the concern is just a recent one. I have mentioned 2018. I could read out the quotes from various members—

If I am getting this right, I think that, if somebody is released on temporary licence and they breach that licence, they can be recalled for that reason. If they commit an offence, that is a breach of their licence conditions. It is the same if someone is paroled: they are paroled on licence and, if they breach their parole requirements, they can be subject to a recall at that stage. That power is there in law. I am not sure that it has to be exercised by either the Parole Board or the Prison Service; it is a consequence of them breaching their licence.

Given that we are talking about a point of law, perhaps Jennifer wants to add to that.

To return to the first question that was asked about the issue, it is not an effect of the bill.

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.

First of all, it is not for us to say whether the court system has been wrong in relation to those people who have committed serious offences while on bail. One of your expert witnesses—Philip Lamont might have the exact reference—said that around 21 per cent of prisoners did not need to be on remand.

One of the purposes of the bill is to take into account the gravity of the offence, as well as the likelihood of risk of further offending. Of course, to have a sensible estimation of the recidivism—the offending rate—of those on bail, you have to compare that with what it would be if they had served in custody. The two rates are a very useful comparison.

We think that there is a cohort, although not necessarily in relation to serious crime—as I mentioned in response to Rona Mackay, the vast majority of people who are currently remanded under section 23D are likely, for the same reasons, to be remanded in the future—that need not be put on remand.

It would be useful to hear from Philip on that as well, convener.

That does not necessarily relate to the nature of the crimes of which they are accused. It does to some extent; I realise that.

I am a little bit confused. What is it in the test that is proposed that does not go far enough to capture more of the people about whom you are concerned? I say that because I think that the discussion with the committee is also meant to be a bit of a dialogue. I am happy to be questioned, but we are genuinely looking for other people’s ideas about this, so if there is a category of people that we are not going to capture with those proposals, I am happy to hear that.

Since you asked Philip Lamont about a contradiction in his statement, maybe we should hear from him too.

That is a fairly good prediction. I think that Mr Findlay proposed an amendment previously. We are looking at how we can proceed at stage 2, as well.