Chamber and committees

You do not want to put a label on it, but is it the responsibility of a local authority, the SPS, a Government agency, social work or some other body? Somebody needs to take ownership; we cannot just leave it open to whomever the individual has a relationship with when they are in custody.

It was about whether you think that there is a place for the use of alcohol tagging devices. We are already quite familiar with the concept of GPS monitoring as an electronic means of monitoring. Quite a large-scale trial of the approach I am talking about is being done south of the border, where, I think, nearly 7,000 devices have been rolled out, either as part of a community order or a condition of release or bail. In different scenarios, the device can be used in different ways. My understanding is that it seems to have a reasonably high compliance rate, at around 97 or 98 per cent. Do you think that that might be a helpful part of this conversation?

I will play devil’s advocate, just to probe and test the issues a little. I will start with Keith Gardner, because you are in the room.

If we are saying that legislation is required to reduce our remand population, is it not a valid observation that the remand population is so high because of the backlog of court cases and the number of people who are being held on remand for unlimited periods of time awaiting trial? There is an inevitability that, had those trials been dealt with far more quickly, some of those people would have been released or would have served enough of their sentence to be released. That is an observation. That number could come down quite quickly if we got through the backlog more quickly.

The second one is maybe more of a philosophical question. My understanding is that the Crown opposes bail only when it feels that there is good reason to, based on the information available, including information given by police and other protagonists. The judiciary will therefore remand someone only if they feel that there is good reason and they are satisfied that the argument has been made well by the Crown to do so. That is not something that we need legislation to fix, surely, because all legislation will do is tie the hands of the judiciary in the parameters that it uses to make those decisions. What do you say to that?

That is helpful. Again, the committee probably needs more detail, but my understanding is that the approach is not aimed at people with long-term alcohol addiction. It tends to be better suited to cases in which alcohol was an aggravating factor in an offence and the person does not require a more hands-on, day-to-day treatment approach—it would probably not be suitable for someone who required that kind of support; you make a fair point there.

I have another brief question. If your organisation has any role in the provision or monitoring of bail conditions, what is the likelihood of, as a result of any legislation that passes, more people—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am getting some feedback. Will the increase in the number of people on bail put any additional pressures on what you do, and do you have any comments on the use of technology as part of that solution?

I ask Rhoda MacLeod to answer that, as she has a top-notch microphone on.

How is your organisation and the work that you do funded, especially at a local level? Is it through the wider local authority funding settlement, or is there direct funding from the criminal justice budget or other directorates of the Government?

I can.

Thank you—you have answered the question perfectly. The premise was whether this could be addressed through changes to guidelines rather than through statutory changes that are, if you like, a bit more forceful or permanent. The question is: are we exhausting all the opportunities that guidelines might present before we take these bigger steps? I think that you have answered that, though, so thank you.

The problem is that that could be anyone. Is that your point?

I do not disagree with that. The reality, though, is that, as we heard in the first answer, it is all very well saying that someone has a designated mentor, but if that is not backed up by core services—if there are no houses, no skills and training provision and no mental health services—the relationship is helpful, but it is not enough in itself.

That is probably a question rather than an answer. It is a much wider point, and I hope that you will all be able to input into the solution. I really appreciate those responses.