³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That is an interesting response, and you have almost identified the solution in your answer. First, there is a dearth of data. Let us fix that and fix the information that is available to the Crown Office to allow it to make a better decision about whether it is appropriate to oppose bail in the first place. It may take a different view if it has access to more or different types of information—more in real time, as you say.

Secondly, we do not need legislation in order to provide more information to sheriffs and judges at the time of making those decisions; we can do that already. Indeed, there have been some recent changes to the options available to them that may have a positive impact on remand numbers, but we have not really let that bed in or given any substantial time to get qualitative data out of it. Why do we need a bill to further restrict the parameters around how such decisions are made? That is what I want to get to the root of.

Thank you for your forbearance. I want to make this point while we are in public. We have a live panel and have had two other panels. Of the nine witnesses from whom we took evidence today—this is not a criticism, so please do not take it in that way—only one responded to the call for evidence from the Finance and Public Administration Committee when it was analysing the financial memorandum for the bill. That ran from July to September. I appreciate that some organisations may not have been aware of it, because it is often difficult to uncover calls for evidence.

Today, we heard evidence on some of the work that is on-going on the bill’s potential financial and resource effect on the witnesses’ organisations, but we can use only what is in front of us when we prepare our stage 1 report. I ask all nine organisations, with the exception of Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership, which responded to the consultation, to raise with the committee any financial analysis or concerns in writing at the earliest opportunity, so that we can include that in our stage 1 report. Without that information, we cannot comment.

I am sorry to keep pressing on this, but I am just picking up your language and words. Is it your view that there is a wider lack of understanding of the decision-making process, or is the decision-making process itself faulty?

Let me clarify what I mean by that. I get the impression that judges and sheriffs do not take lightly the decision to hold someone on remand, so they use all the information that has been presented to them at the time by the Crown and defence solicitors and, where necessary, social workers and other stakeholders who are involved in the case. Do you think that they do not have enough information to make the right decision—that is a bit of repetition of my first question—or do you think that, because of the backlog and the volume of cases that they are trying to get through, they are not taking enough time to look at all the factors involved in individual cases and are therefore make the wrong decisions? I am still a bit unclear about what your criticism of the system is.

Thank you very much. That really helps. It clarifies your position.

I will ask the other two panel members a question. The other side of that has been mentioned. I realise that it is difficult to conjecture on this, but maybe there is concern that decisions are made because there is a lack of confidence in alternatives. That is an easy thing to say, but it is quite difficult to prove that because, surely, we would think that sheriffs and judges make decisions that are the right ones based on the information—or lack of information—that is available to them at the time. However, it would be a problem if they are making decisions to remand people in custody because they have little faith or confidence that the alternatives are there or will be delivered appropriately, safely and confidently. Is that a problem? Is it a fact that there are no proper alternatives for many people? There should be, and that would give another, better option.

That question is for Charlie Martin and Tracey McFall.

That is very helpful. I would be fascinated to hear more about what Lady Dorrian had to say on that matter.

I will move on to Tracey McFall, and I will load the question with a secondary one. As part of discovering what rightful alternatives might look like, how can we ensure that there is fairness in the system and that victims of crime—specifically those who feel that they may be harmed mentally or physically, such as those who have suffered domestic abuse or other violence of that type—are protected? I guess that there may be concern that more people who would have been remanded under the current system may be released because the new rules permit them to be released. How can we ensure that there is balance there?

That is really helpful.

I will let other members come in, because I am sure that there is a lot of interest in the bill. However, I would like to come back to funding and resource later in the session, if that is okay, convener.

I have just a brief supplementary to Rona Mackay’s questions on women in custody.

I listened carefully to what Sharon Stirrat had to say on the issue, and it struck me that some of this could be dealt with through the Scottish Sentencing Council rather than through new legislation. I just wondered whether you felt that the council had a bigger or better role to play around sentencing guidelines, in light of the quite prolific effect it has had on changes to sentencing guidelines for under-25s in Scotland.

Whatever your views on that approach, the academic research that it undertook formed a part of the decision making. Could the council do the same with sentencing guidelines in this respect or make other potential changes for women? Should judges and sheriffs be allowed to make different decisions on the basis of revised guidelines instead of through new legislation that has had to be introduced and which we are considering today? [Interruption.] I am sorry, Sharon—I think that you are on mute.

I will try to keep this quick, then. I thank the witnesses for the session that we have had.

My first question follows on from the previous conversation. It is clear that a cohort of people are released from custody with no conviction after being on remand, that there are those who have been given a sentence but have been on remand for the duration of that sentence, and that there are those who are coming to the end of their sentence. Different cohorts of people are released.

It has become clear that there is a lack of joined-up co-ordination when many of those people are released. Lots of good work is happening; we have seen that at first hand and spoken to some of the protagonists. However, for a lot of people, the prison door is simply opened and that is it: they are homeless and have no access to funds, food, medication, mental health or addiction support, skills training or employment. Other than putting words on paper, I cannot see what will change as a result of the bill, because it is still unclear to me who owns the problem when a person is released. What are your thoughts on that?

Thank you. I am just waiting for the screen to change. It is hard to see who is waving at me to come in.

The money has to follow. I presume that what happens will have to be backed up by funding.