Chamber and committees

The matters for which I have responsibility involve Police Scotland; I am not responsible for any investigations, and I think that the member knows that. He knows exactly what he is doing in relation to that. It is reprehensible that we are seeing more evidence of individual cases being referred to, and now there has been reference to an on-going investigation, on which I obviously cannot comment.

I heard it loud and clear, Presiding Officer.

The latest figures show a 43 per cent reduction in recorded crime across South Ayrshire under this Administration. That includes a 69 per cent fall in housebreaking and a 73 per cent fall in vandalism. The decrease reflects wider improvements across Ayrshire, where the proportion of adults who were the victim of a crime, including those not reported to the police, fell from 24 per cent in 2008-09 to 10 per cent in the years immediately prior to the pandemic. Looking ahead, we will build on that encouraging progress through investing £1.45 billion in policing across Scotland in 2023-24.

I see that Katy Clark wants to intervene again—I am happy for her to do so.

I will help Paul O’Kane, if I can. In 2021, 70 people aged 20 or under suffered a drug death. [Keith Brown has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] As the member said, each of those deaths was a tragedy both for the individual and the family concerned. That figure represents a reduction by 10 from the previous year, but it is still far too high. There has also been a recent decline in deaths of people aged 25 and under. As I say, however, any deaths in that age group are a real concern for everybody, including the Government.

We agree on data streams with the relevant professionals, because the Government could be criticised, quite rightly, for being too close to formulating the criteria under which data is collected. However, I am happy to pass the member’s request on to the relevant minister, Angela Constance, and to make sure that a response comes back to him with more detail.

The member mentioned a number of witnesses during his speech, many of whom had different points of view from other witnesses, even within the judiciary. Different views were indeed brought forward, but what we heard from Mr Findlay was a point-by-point attack on every part of the bill; there is no way that we will arrive at any consensus or have any reasonable discussion in relation to it.

Russell Findlay rose—

It is impossible to predict future decisions of the court, but I go back to the purpose of the bill, which is to refocus the use of remand.

I highlight something that was said at the Criminal Justice Committee; I think that Katy Clark would have been there. It might have been Jamie Greene—I am sorry if I am wrong on that; it can be proven correct or otherwise by referring to the Official Report—who said that around 66 per cent of cases had to have remand for public safety or other reasons. If that is true—it is a relatively reasonable observation to make—it means that a third of cases do not have to have remand.

Of course it is not possible to predict future decisions of the independent court system, so I am not able to make such a prediction. I simply say that the reasons for introducing the bill are about refocusing the use of remand.

I also remind members of the deleterious effects of remand. Someone may not be guilty of the offence with which they have been charged, and there will be an impact on their family, their job prospects and their community. It is also worth bearing in mind that it costs nearly £40,000 a year to keep somebody in the prison service. Daniel Johnson and others made points about the fact that there are other disposals available. I understand that the judiciary has to have faith in those disposals, and we have—and we will—put more money into that. However, it is surely a better process—

Katy Clark rose—

I can only repeat what I said to the member before: the Government’s intention is that remand should be used where it is most appropriate and should not be used where it is not appropriate. Members from all parties have given examples in which they believe that remand would be inappropriate. We are trying to reduce the number of cases in which that happens.

On the point about flight risk—or, in other cases, the potential victimisation of witnesses or victims—we have to ensure that we protect people from that. Beyond that, we have to consider things that might have an impact on the judicial system, such as the intimidation of juries. Those are situations in which remand should legitimately be applied.

On the definition of public safety, I am happy to listen to any issues that people have in that regard. However, I have looked into the matter in some detail, and there does not seem to be a great deal of doubt—to go back to Carol Mochan’s point—around what people think is meant by the words “public” and “safety”. I am not sure where the doubt creeps in. Some of the people, such as lawyers and others, who are involved in the process seem quite keen on, or certainly seem comforted by, the idea that the term “public safety” will cover the cases in question. One may want to move to prescribing that in law, but that can often have unintended consequences, which I am sure that members would not want to see.

The case that Ruth Maguire mentions is a tragedy. My sympathies go to Grace’s family and friends. I think that I am right in saying that I have previously met Grace’s father and others, but I would, of course, be happy to meet both Ms Maguire and Mr Handling to discuss suggested reform in the area.

The Government is committed to abolishing the not proven verdict and the matter will come before Parliament very soon. The Scottish Law Commission is currently looking at the more general operation of homicide law. I encourage people to pass to the Law Commission their views on how this specific area could be reassessed as part of the wider look at homicide law. Once that response comes back to Government, I would be happy to discuss it with Ruth Maguire and the individual concerned.

I cannot provide that information at this time, but I appreciate that Sue Webber wants the information, so I am happy to speak to the minister who is responsible, Angela Constance, to ensure that she provides a full account to the member.

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?