���˿���

I am just very surprised and delighted to be asked by both the Conservative members to get involved in a philosophical discussion about this, which is a pleasant change.

There is another aspect of the test that covers the administration of justice. Philip Lamont or someone else can give the details of that.

That is a legitimate concern, but what we are saying is that the safety test will dominate in that area. When we talk about the administration of justice—we can get the exact words; I could not put my finger on those right away—we are also potentially talking about things such as jury tampering or the intimidation of witnesses. It is also about continued and wilful non-appearance at court.

If there is a worry that somebody might not appear in court and they are remanded for that reason, which is the greater harm that is caused? Somebody could be remanded for quite a lengthy period. You have just said that those things can get delayed for all sorts of reasons. Somebody who does not present a safety risk to the public could be kept in jail at the taxpayer’s expense simply to avoid the possibility of non-appearance.

The obligation on us is to ensure that we get better at making sure that people appear in court when they are meant to do so. I understand the risk. I speak as somebody who represents an area that had a very particular problem—one of the worst in Scotland—with that. The police took particular action to try to remedy it. We have to do more on that.

On the point about the test, maybe Philip Lamont could fill out the text that I have been unable to bring to mind.

What Philip Lamont said is that, even at summary level, where non-appearance is part of the case against a person, that can be taken into account—unless I am getting that wrong.

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.

That is an interesting part of the bill, because, as you hinted, what you will get from recording is a seam of really rich information that others can use, which is the court’s statement on why bail was not granted. That will lead, over time, to greater refinement of those decisions. Some of the academic witnesses from whom you heard also said that they think that it will be a rich source of information in an area where such information is currently very limited. That, perhaps, is the main benefit. I know that it is another process for the court to go through, but it will be extremely productive. I wonder whether—I will try to get the right official—Philip Lamont wants to comment on that. Yes, he has put his hand up; I have the right person.

The quote that I read out at the start from Professor McNeill is useful in this philosophical discussion. He talked about the idea of remanding somebody reducing or eliminating the risk—I forget the exact quote. I think, and he said, that there is an increased risk sometimes. If you imprison somebody, especially in situations where they are then found to be innocent of the crime with which they have been charged, you increase risk. If somebody is put into the prison system—I know that we would all agree that, sometimes, currently, because of the pandemic, that occurs for longer periods than we would otherwise like to see; sometimes, that might be for months—you are increasing risk through that process. It is not recidivism in that case, because they have not committed an offence.

Bear in mind that, these days, since the presumption against short sentences was passed, a far greater proportion of the prison population in Scotland comprises violent and sexual offenders. If people, including those who are then found to be innocent, are being incarcerated with those offenders, there is bound to be a risk attached to that. That is what Professor McNeill was saying. That is one area, at least, where the increased risk comes in.

The length of time on remand, as I have just conceded, has been exacerbated by the pandemic. That is true of every jurisdiction. The concerns about the high levels of remand in Scotland, however, predate the pandemic. The 2018 report of this committee’s predecessor said exactly that, but it has been said many times.

Compared with England and Wales, we have a higher remand population, although theirs is growing fast. There is now a higher prison population in England than we have in Scotland, for the first time in many years. They have seen a huge increase, and their remand population is at a 50-year high, although that is still not as high as the remand population in Scotland.

We are sending more people to remand and we are trying to deal with that. However, we are also dealing with the other point that you rightly make about how long people are spending on remand. I mentioned the reduction in the backlog, although I concede that that is mainly on the summary side rather than on the solemn side. Over the past year, that has been reduced by more than 13,000—it is down from around 44,000 to around 30,000—which is a fantastic achievement. We are tackling the backlog, but we are not blind to the fact that—I have just put this argument to you—being remanded can have a negative effect on risk and being remanded for longer increases that risk. I concede that point and we are trying to deal with it.

You correctly identify the two sides to the issue. On the one hand, we need to get effective bail supervision services in place. We had an underlying concern that we did not have that level of consistency across the country, so we have put in place measures and resources over the past year to make sure that we do. The other side of it—this is the critical side for some of the intentions behind the bill—is to make sure that the courts have confidence in that supervision. I am not sure that I saw that in the evidence that the committee has heard, but I am happy to acknowledge the fact that there is variability—at least, there has been hitherto—in the confidence that different sheriffs have, depending on where they are in the country, about how effective bail supervision is. If they are confident that bail supervision is there, that has to lead to a more proactive approach from the courts where they say, “We know that this is a real and safe alternative, so it is the route we will go down”.

Yes. We are obliged to, in any event, in terms of the financial memorandum that will accompany the bill. In addition to what I have just mentioned, we have provided £53 million, I think, in the current year to try to reduce backlog and make other provisions that will impact in that area to try to make it a more effective service to the courts, should they wish to use it. The fact is that the current provision—just to state the obvious and make the point that you have made—does not require the level of activity or presence from justice social work that will be required by the bill. Necessarily, justice social work will have to be present to a much greater extent. It will have to step up to do those things and make reports as quickly as it is able to do.

On the one hand, justice social work will have to step up, and, on the other, the Government will have to find the resources to make sure that it is able to do that. That is recognised and I mentioned the figures that we put in. I mentioned the fact that the bill will have to be accompanied by the financial memorandum, so we understand that challenge.