Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is highbrow.

I understand that Victim Support Scotland produced considered evidence, some of which was supportive of the intent, but it remains that it believes that the outcome will be that more people being bailed equals more people committing crime. Indeed, the Scottish Police Federation’s position was different in parts from what Police Scotland had to say about it. It is worth putting those views to you on the record.

In one of your answers, you spoke about philosophical issues around bail, and this question will be an attempt at a hybrid of a practical and philosophical question.

Victim Support Scotland told us in evidence that it has serious misgivings about the bill, as you will be aware. It effectively says that more bail equals more crime. The Scottish Police Federation told us that

“it’s another good day for criminals”.

However, the social work/academic lobbyists, to put them into one group, are largely supportive of what is being proposed. One of the contributors from that side of the argument used the phrase “a risk appetite”, and that struck me as interesting. The point that they were making was—this is the philosophical part—that the public need almost to be persuaded that the risk in changing the system radically may lead to more crime on the streets and that is just a quid pro quo in terms of the benefits that you would get from not having people on remand.

Given what Jamie Greene just said about some of the serious offending that takes place by those on bail, and the inevitability that that will continue no matter what the system, do you think that the public have the appetite for that risk, and what can you do, as the cabinet secretary, to persuade people about this direction of travel? That is quite philosophical.

I echo the convener’s words about the tragic loss of the life of firefighter Barry Martin.

I will ask about resources. We heard from your ministerial colleague Kevin Stewart that we will not know until late 2024 whether criminal justice social workers will be part of the national care service. Do you have a view on whether they should be part of it, and do you have a view on the impact that that might have on the bill?

Thank you.

My final question is about bail. One of the inevitable consequences—indeed, the intended consequence—of the bill is that there will be more people on bail and, therefore, greater reliance on supervised bail, using measures such as electronic monitoring. We heard evidence from academics who take the view that two days under such conditions should have a direct trade-off, in effect, for any future sentencing, with a ratio of two days under such conditions to one day in custody. Do you agree with that? Does the bill factor that in in any way, or is it not part of it?

Will the bill state that? Will it prescribe it or will it be entirely discretionary?

I thank David Fraser for facilitating our visit to Glasgow sheriff court the other week. I found it to be enlightening. The care and attention that was being put into bail decisions was pretty robust, and was consistent with what I have seen over the years. The sheriff gave everything due consideration, and the fiscal did a hard job competently, with a lot of cases to deal with.

Most of the people whom we have heard from so far say that there are far too many people on remand; ergo, people should be bailed more often. The responsibility for that ultimately lies with the judge, but the Crown plays a huge role in that, with its input.

Written evidence from the Howard League Scotland suggests that

“significant cultural change—particularly amongst some parts of the Crown and judiciary—will be required”

to fundamentally change things with the bill, if it is passed. I suppose that I am asking whether that criticism of the Crown is a fair comment. Is this about cultural changes, or is it really about resources, as just about everything else is?

It is worth getting on the record that we have been asked not to ask certain questions about a particular case that is being reported on today because we are discussing the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill. I will therefore ask about that.

So far, we have heard from 21 witnesses, and the vast majority, but not all, of them believe that there is a fundamental problem around this issue. If you look at the statistics on crimes that are committed by people while on bail, the general public might wonder what we are trying to fix, given that, for example, in the past five years, there have been 49 rape convictions, 54 homicide convictions and 962 attempted murder convictions of people on bail.

I suppose that my question is a broad, overarching one: do the witnesses have a view on whether the bill is necessary and whether the task of keeping the public safe is being done adequately under the current model?

In essence, the Scottish Police Federation and Victim Support Scotland say that the more people are bailed, the more they will offend. A significant proportion of crimes are already committed by people who are on bail. If resources are not put into managing those people and more people are bailed, is the inevitable consequence that there will be more crime and more victims?