Chamber and committees

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.

If you think about the emergency release powers that were used two years ago, you will recall the caveat that prison governors would essentially have a veto for an individual prisoner whom they did not think it was right to release. It is about recognising, as Jennifer mentioned, the Prison Service’s expertise. There is closer experience in the Prison Service than anywhere else, in fact, so it is important to keep that expertise.

It is not stated in that level of detail, but the principle is there.

Perhaps Philip Lamont will add to that.

As many witnesses have said, there is no question but that there will be a resource demand, especially on justice social work. The bill’s ambitions have to be met by that resource provision being in place. It will take time to make sure that that happens in advance of the bill’s commencement. We must minimise any delay. That is the intention and, of course, it is the Government’s responsibility, along with others, to make sure that those things are in place.

Let us say, however, that there was a delay in receiving a justice social work report—for a case for which there would not previously have been a report—and that that person could then get bail. That delay of hours—possibly a day—must be compared with the number of days, weeks or months, even, that somebody might be on remand. There is a substantial benefit to be had there. I have given you some of the figures already. We have said that we would put more money in this year—I think that it is an extra £15 million, split into two chunks of £11.8 million and £3.2 million—for the specific purpose of increasing our bail supervision capacity. That is the way in which we intend to meet it, and we are not at all denying that it will present a resource demand.

On Philip’s point, one of the criticisms that was rightly raised last year is that somebody might be on remand for a period that is longer than the sentence that they eventually receive; that somebody who was on remand and kept in custody with other criminals could be found not guilty; and that somebody on remand could receive a non-custodial sentence, meaning that we have kept them in custody for that period even though the crime for which they were convicted was judged by the courts to be deserving of a non-custodial sentence. The measure is to capture that as well.

Thanks, convener. As you said, many respondents pointed to the need for legislation. I cannot remember which one, but one of your academic contributors was very clear on that. A member of the judiciary, who was also speaking for the Howard League, mentioned the need for legislation.

You asked how the legislation would improve things, and, if I am correct, your point is about how people can have more faith in bail supervision. The first thing is to get it right with the people who are given bail, so that there is public confidence that the interests of victims and others have been considered. By others we might mean juries, where there might be a threat of jury tampering, intimidation of witnesses and so on. If we can get that right, it must mean that the ability to be more effective on bail management starts off on the right premise.

Beyond that, however, shrieval or judicial confidence in bail supervision has not been there. Over the past year, we have put more money towards improving supervision and we now have 30 local authorities providing bail supervision, with the other two scheduled to come on stream. In addition, the bench may consider electronic monitoring and have confidence in that. Twenty-one local authorities are providing electronic monitoring, and the intention is that that will be rolled out across the board. Of course, there are technological advances and as yet untapped existing potential for that to go further through a much more nuanced use of electronic monitoring, whether it is confined to a particular location or used to monitor whether a person is taking drugs or alcohol that could exacerbate things. Providing resource for that can help matters.

Going back to the input, if you like—who is on bail—the provisions for justice social work reports that we have proposed in the bill will not only give the court a better basis on which to decide whether to grant bail but will better inform those who undertake the bail supervision about the points of concern and what has to be looked after. I think that those things together will make for more effective bail supervision and will give more confidence to the bench in taking those decisions.

The other side of the points that Rona Mackay rightly made is the rights argument for everybody under the system. Whether we like it or not, everybody has rights. Those are underpinned by the European convention on human rights and other legislation, and this Parliament and its legislation are obliged to follow them.

First of all, on the issue of remand in general, it is important to say that, by putting someone on remand, you are fundamentally affecting someone’s rights. To state the obvious point, you are locking someone up when they have not yet been convicted of a crime. That is why we think that that should be done only in the circumstances that we have mentioned. Also, if you put somebody on bail and subject them to electronic monitoring, you are impacting on and curtailing their rights in a number of ways, such as their right to freedom of movement and their right not to be monitored by the state. We need to recognise that. Leaving the courts with the discretion to recognise that is important, and it is done in other jurisdictions, so I am supportive of that being taken into account.

The concerns expressed, if I am right, are about the idea that victims should consent to any information being shared. As I am sure that you would agree, there is no track record of victims’ organisations acting against the interests of victims. It is a bit more complex than it first appears, but we are willing to have further discussions on it. It might be useful to hear from Jennifer Stoddart. We will not set ourselves against it just for the sake of it, and our view is probably understood by the victims’ organisations. We are in a continuing dialogue. Perhaps Jennifer wants to add to that.

I do not think that it will have an impact on the bill as it goes through, given the timescale that you mentioned. I understand the many arguments for and against, but one of the crucial arguments for their inclusion in the NCS is the fact that Social Work Scotland believes that it is very important that the entire profession is under the one umbrella. However, there is a difference. I know that it is probably not helpful to give both sides of the argument—and there are a lot of arguments on both sides—but the other side to it is that, compared with the work of other social workers, justice social work is of a different nature with respect to court orders and other things.

It seems to me, in that context, that the right thing to do is to build up a body of evidence, which is what we are doing, to support whatever decision is finally made. At the earlier stages, when the Government was discussing the national care service, I was keen that we should build up the evidence first. The purpose of doing that is to see how effective we can make the inclusion of justice social workers if they are to become part of the NCS. However, if that body of evidence comes back showing that that inclusion is not the most effective way to do it, we are willing to listen. That is the right way to do it. Any decisions should be based on the best possible evidence.

Was there another aspect to your question, which I have forgotten?