Chamber and committees

So, individual risk would be taken into consideration just as much as public risk.

I am conscious of the time, but I have one other question and, rather than ask everybody to respond, I will ask Joanne McMillan to do so.

It is currently estimated that, at any one time, 30 per cent of the female prison population in Scotland is on remand. To me, that is a huge number. Some 54 per cent of them lose their tenancies, 61 per cent have children, and there are huge knock-on effects for families.

Joanne McMillan talked about a case in which the woman went to the 218 project, which is very successful. In your opinion, why does that not happen more often? Is it because of a lack of resources?

Thank you. That is really useful.

Do you think that they are getting enough information about that?

Okay. That is good to know.

That is reassuring.

Are all sheriffs aware of those options?

I have two questions. The first goes back to section 23D and my colleagues’ earlier questions. I will be frank: I do not think that your explanation for the removal of section 23D, on which you are unanimously agreed, will reassure women’s organisations or victims. I understand what you are saying about the whole-system approach. That is fine if it works, but that is a big if.

I cannot quite grasp your point. Are you saying that you want to have the ability to release a domestic abuser? Why would that ever be correct? I cannot understand that. It is possible that I do not understand your reasons. Why not keep the exceptions to reassure victims and organisations? I am unsure of your reasons for not doing that.

Does it go down to individual solicitors such as you, who know about those things and will proactively look for them? Are there some who just say, “Well, this is the system. This is what happens. You will be remanded” or whatever?

There would be fewer women on remand if more people were able to go to those things.