Chamber and committees

Every drug-related death is a tragedy and I offer my condolences to any family that is impacted by the issue.

As part of our national mission to reduce drug deaths and improve the lives of those who are affected, we published our framework to improve holistic support for families who are affected by substance use. That is supported by investment of £3.5 million per year in alcohol and drug partnerships and £3 million per year in vital third sector organisations. In addition, we provide the third sector organisation Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs with £160,000 per year to provide national services to support families, including through bereavement support.

If it is wholly unacceptable for the Scottish Government to have the power of emergency release, why would it be justifiable for other Governments, such as the UK Government, to have such a power?

I am sorry, but I have to try to make some progress. I note that, unfortunately, Mr Greene would not take an intervention from me, even though he was given more time to make a speech than I was and had three minutes left when I asked to intervene.

There was nothing positive or constructive from the Conservative Party. A number of members said that the issue of remand is very hard; indeed, many people have tried to get to the bottom of why the remand figure is so high. We have to try to address that issue, but nothing whatsoever was suggested by the Conservatives. The member ended up saying that the approach was “half-baked”.

Let us not fool ourselves: there is no point in trying to have a discussion with the Conservatives on these justice measures as their attitude will not change. It leaves the rest of us with the opportunity and the obligation to try to see where we can make progress on the matter.

I listened to the comments that were made by a number of Labour members, in particular to those of Daniel Johnson, with whom it was hard to disagree, even when he made trenchant observations about the proposal.

I know that he was unable to stay, but Liam McArthur made a very good intervention, too, and I am grateful that the Liberal Democrats will be supporting the general principles of the bill.

I come to the concluding points that Pauline McNeill made. There is no piece of information that I have said that we will not provide; there is no unwillingness on the part of Government to discuss the issues. In fact, she knows that I took the initiative this week to speak to her about some of the issues of concern. I will continue to do so, as I have done throughout my various appearances at committee, in my responses to it and in the discussions that I have had with members. There has been no unwillingness. I do not gainsay her point that she feels that more needs to be said and more information needs to be provided.

Although the Government has to be careful when it provides data, I understand, too, the point that Pauline McNeill and a number of other members made about data. It might help provide more information that might help us better understand why we currently have that high prevalence of remand.

The point that Donald Cameron made about the backlog was true—that is not unique to Scotland, however, because jurisdictions everywhere have problems with the backlog that Covid has caused. The member could at least acknowledge that going from 44,000 to less than 30,000 summary cases in the space of 18 months shows some progress towards reducing that backlog.

It is also true, as Rona Mackay said, that issues exist around section 23D. I am happy to listen, as she asked that I do, to some of the concerns around the removal of that section. However, its removal is the exact opposite of what Jamie Greene suggested about interference with the judiciary. Both the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland have said that the removal would increase the scope of the courts to deal with those issues, as the section currently limits that scope.

I go back to Jamie Greene’s comment about the proposal undermining judicial independence to some extent. It is clearly the case that judges interpret but do not make the law. The latter is the role of Parliament, and we cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibility to make law because another part of the state—here, the judiciary—might have observations that contradict the process; indeed, we still have to take decisions on the law.

I do not think that Lord Carloway would say that there is an intention that the removal of section 23D will affect judicial independence. It is important to remember that we are giving more power to the courts in relation to those issues and that it is right that we should do so—indeed, that is one of the observations that we have heard.

Somebody mentioned an example to me just now—off the record—of a person being put on remand for shoplifting. Usually, such cases that are highlighted involve a woman.

The member and others have made the point that we have too many women on remand, and that the proportion is even higher, given that women comprise only 4 per cent of the prison population. We are trying to reduce the number of examples like that. However, where there is a risk of violence to an individual, that is of course in the realms of public safety, as is the question of intimidation of the jury. If we leave those decisions to the court, albeit with the bill’s renewed focus with regard to when remand should be used, we can ensure both that public safety is looked after and that nobody is on remand who does not need to be.

With that, I am happy to propose that Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for their support, and for the support of the Scottish Green Party, as we heard from Maggie Chapman. I will continue to listen to and engage with the committee and with members on all sides of the chamber as we move forward to stage 2.

Will the member take an intervention?

Keith Brown has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 2, paragraph 5—

Original text—

In 2021, 70 people aged 20 or under suffered a drug death.

Corrected text—

In 2021, 70 people aged 25 or under suffered a drug death.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and, honestly, thank you to everyone who has spoken today. I welcome the support that has been expressed for the bill’s key aim of refocusing how we use imprisonment in Scotland. I also express my thanks again to the Criminal Justice Committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Finance and Public Administration Committee for their consideration of the bill and to all those who have contributed as witnesses.

I will turn first to the points that have been raised during the debate. I regret that we will not have the support of the Conservative Party, although I have to say that it was my expectation that we would not have its support. I predict that we will not have its support for any proposal that we make to progress justice in Scotland during this session of Parliament. Any proposal will be opposed regardless of, for example, the fact that in this case we all agreed on the need to try to tackle the remand issue just over a year or so ago. However, that seems to have gone by the board.

If people need any evidence of the futility of trying to work with the Conservatives, they can listen to the speech that has just been made, which was, essentially, the single transferable speech that we get from Russell Findlay every time he gets to his feet. It was a tabloid-type tirade—just look at some of the words. He said that the bill would result in more crime and more victims and more misery—that was his considered response to the proposal that we are making here.

I am pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill. I thank the Criminal Justice Committee for its scrutiny of the bill and all those who gave evidence to it. The committee’s report raised a number of important points, which I have addressed in my written response to it.

At the heart of the bill is the aim to reduce crime, to reduce reoffending and to make Scotland safer. The bill will do that by focusing on two critical points in the justice system: the point at which bail decisions are first made by the court, and the point at which people are released from prison.

The bill addresses long-standing concerns about the use of remand. Of course, the use of remand can be necessary. I am clear that it plays an essential part in protecting victims and the wider public, and the bill does not change that. However, we also know that remand can be damaging. For individuals who do not pose a risk to public safety or who do not pose a clear risk to the administration of justice, there must be a better approach.

The reforms to bail law recognise the negative impact of short periods of imprisonment while ensuring that public and victim safety will be central to decision making. They will mean that people are remanded in custody only as a last resort—if they pose a risk to public safety, victim safety or, in certain cases, the delivery of justice. The bill also includes reforms that will better enable reintegration after a period in custody by improving pre-release activity and throughcare support.

I encourage members to support the bill for the following reasons. First, on the use of remand, although prison is obviously necessary for those who pose a risk to public safety, remand removes people from their homes, families, jobs and communities. We must remember that, at that time, those people have not been convicted of any crime—or, at least, of the crime that they have been accused of.

As well as damaging those connections, short periods of imprisonment, including on remand, do not address the underlying causes of offending or support rehabilitation. As Professor Fergus McNeill put it, short periods of imprisonment are

“not a magic box that removes or eliminates risk and keeps us safe”,

but

“Imprisonment is actually more likely to serve as an incubator of risk”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 January 2023; c 23.]

It should therefore be of concern to us all that the number of people who are held on remand remains at a historic high. On 1 February, 29 per cent of the total prison population—2,150 people—were held on remand.