The next item of business is a Justice Committee debate on remand. Can I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Margaret Mitchell to open the debate on behalf of the Justice Committee. Ms Mitchell, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased on behalf of the Justice Committee to open this debate on remand and talk to our inquiry report. When a person first appears in court, a decision is taken as to whether they can be released on bail or whether they require to be remanded and held safely and securely until their trial. Although remand is therefore a central part of our justice system, concerns about how it is operating have been expressed for many years and remain today. It is for this reason that the committee made the decision to look at the issue as a priority. We started with a round table evidence session in January of this year on the use of remand in Scotland. Over 40 submissions were received and six meetings held in the spring. During this time, the committee heard from a range of witnesses representing all aspects of the justice system and prison service, as well as from those involved in advocacy and support of prisoners and their families. As part of our inquiry, the committee also undertook a visit to Circle Scotland, a charity that provides support to families, including those affected by imprisonment, to hear more about their work with remand prisoners and their families. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who took part in our evidence session and took the time to speak to us and share stories about their experience of being on remand. Last, by no means least, my thanks goes to the committee clerks and committee members for all their work in compiling the inquiry report. The committee heard and understands that judges do not refuse bill without good reason. Figures on the numbers being held on remand can vary year on year. However, the former chief inspector of prisons set in his final annual report published in September 2018 that he was still concerned about the numbers held on remand. According to official figures from the Scottish Prison Service, there were 1,361 people on remand in 2017-18 out of a total prison population of 7,644. That compares to around 1,000 people on remand out of a prison population of 6,000 or so back in 1997-08, when the Parliament was coming into being. In terms of women prisoners, around 90 prisoners on remand out of 370 is the figure now that compares with 50 out of 200 or so way back in 2000 and 2001. I note in today's Scotsman, the new chief inspector of prisons, is quoted as saying that remand should be an absolute last resort that the prison population is creeping up due to an increase in remand prisoners and that she has particular concerns about women prisoners held on remand. We therefore believe that to make any difference in the numbers, the reason why judges decide to remand people have to be better understood. Currently, information is not recorded consistently or in a way that allows for more meaningful analysis of the reasons why remand is being used. It is not possible, for example, to determine if remand numbers are artificially high. That is because they include figures of the same individual being remanded several times, as opposed to different individuals being remanded. The committee therefore recommends that the Scottish Government works with the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service to look at options for capturing data in a systematic manner. This could include the use of a proforma on reasons for granting or refusing bail. We therefore ask the minister to comment this afternoon on the recommendation and the Scottish Government's willingness to implement it in order to gain a better understanding as to why people are being remanded in custody. The Criminal Procedures Scotland Act 1995 sets out the rules that the court must follow when making decisions and bail. Those include any substantial risk that the prisoner might not appear in court, might commit a further offence or interfere with witnesses. Here, David Strang, the former HMI chief inspector of prisons for Scotland wrote, in some cases it appears that remand is used as a heavy-handed way to ensure that they accused a tense court for their trial. Clearly, a failure to appear in court often has severe consequences for an individual. However, the committee considers that further steps could be taken to improve the way the courts keep in touch with those required to attend hearings. It notes that text messages are already used to remind witnesses to attend court and considers that a similar system could be piloted for accused, many of whom are categorised as having chaotic lives, to see if that reduces the use of remand because of a risk of failure to attend. The committee considers that that is a cost-effective way to address the problem and welcomes the Scottish Government's response that it has sought the views of the Scottish Court's tribunal service as to whether that would be possible. We look forward to the promised updates. In terms of the experience of remand prisoners, various witnesses told us that many of those individuals can be categorised as having chaotic lives. While the average period of remand is just over three weeks, this relatively short remand time can then cause a disproportionately serious long-term disruption to housing, benefits, employment, relationships and health. The committee was also told that this time on remand is largely unproductive, with few services available to remand prisoners or opportunities to engage in any rehabilitative services. Members were told that there were a number of reasons for this, including the short time that they may spend on remand and uncertainty about a release date coupled with the sheer churn of remand prisoners through the prison system. Finally, remand prisoners could sometimes be reluctant to engage with services or other opportunities in prison because they considered that that might be taken as an admission of guilt. Furthermore, the statutory obligations that require services to be provided to the longer-term convicted prisoners can limit the resources that are available for remand prisoners. The committee recognises the difficulties, but considers that more can be done to ensure that remand prisoners' needs are assessed and that they are offered the support and opportunity to engage in purposeful activity. The committee has, therefore, included the issue in its budget scrutiny. During the inquiry, the committee heard concerns about the negative effect of remand on an individual's physical and mental health. We heard about the barriers that remand prisoners may face merely by trying to obtain their medication or continuing with the services that they had access to in the community. Reasons given for this are that community health records may not follow prisoners into custody. Thus, delays or breaks in treatment can result in remand. In addition to that, medication is routinely removed from prisoners on their entry into prison. The committee asks the Scottish Government and the NHS to respond to those concerns and to put procedures in place to address those problems. The committee also heard that communication between local health boards and the prison service varies and is, in effect, a postcode lottery. The committee welcomes the indication that steps are being taken to address barriers to information sharing and asks the Scottish Government to provide full details and timescales of the work to be undertaken. In 2008, a report by the Scottish Prisons Commission cheered by Henry McLeish stated that prison options should include establishing community-based accommodation to tackle the issue of having no abode resulting in a refusal of bail. Ten years later, the Justice Committee heard that this issue has not been resolved. For example, Professor Hutton undertook a small-scale study of 60 cases within a share of court in 2016. He found that, in five cases, only a single reason was given for remand. Three of those were no-fixed abode. In 2012, the Commission on Women's Offenders, chaired by Damian Eilish Angelini, found that 70 per cent of women who are remanded in custody do not ultimately receive a custodial sentence. The commission recommended that bail supervision be available across the country with mentoring, supported accommodation and access to community justice centres for women. The Scottish Government should further examine the potential of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail, and that there should be improved awareness of alternatives to remand among those dealing with alleged offenders. At the time of the Scottish Government's response to the consultation, it accepted all three of the above recommendations. That was six years ago. The committee hopes that the inquiry will now make those recommendations a reality. In conclusion, the committee hopes that, despite the varied and complex factors affecting the level of remand in Scotland, its inquiry findings and recommendations will not be ignored but will instead help to make positive changes and improvements to how remand works in Scotland today. I have the opportunity to contribute to today's debate on the issue of remand in Scotland, following the Justice Committee's inquiry into the use of remand. Let me begin by thanking the Justice Committee for its consideration of the matter and the huge amount of work that has gone into it. I express my thanks to all those who gave evidence, either in person or in writing. I also thank the convener for her thoughtful speech on the matter this afternoon. Remand is a complex issue, and I welcome the priority given to issues relating to the use of remand in Scotland through the inquiry. Between 2008-09 and 2017-18, the total remand population fell by 19 per cent, from 1,679 to 1,361. That is a very important context for the overall debate. It is unfortunate that a news release that was issued yesterday by the Labour Party represents some of the data on the remand population. Obviously, there can be wide fluctuations at different times of the year, so highlighting a December figure against an August figure, as happened yesterday, is, unfortunately, not at all helpful and is, in this case, quite misleading. The truth is that the average remand population, which is by far the best way to assess the levels of remand— Excuse me a minute. I will just say to members that if you want to make some points, could you just intervene? It is much handier and it is on the OR. The best way to assess the levels of remand, the figures that we use, have shown that they have gone down in each of the last three years from 1,525 in 2015-16 to 1,361 in 2017-18. Despite that, I accept the overall conclusion of the committee that the proportion of remand prisoners compared to the total prison population continues to be high, especially in relation to female prisoners. The committee took evidence from a number of key stakeholders to explore the issues in depth and look at how those issues could potentially be resolved. In its report, the committee notes a number of issues that it considers to be key when looking at remand. That includes the use of remand, the data on the reasons for remand and the impact that a period of remand can have on an individual. Reducing the use of remand and alternatives to remand and the role of a third sector were also key issues for the committee. I agree with the committee's conclusion that remand has the same negative impact on people held in custody as short-term prison sentences. That is consistent with the available evidence. Disruption to employment, housing, family life, continuity of medical care and benefits can have a substantial impact on individuals and their families. I welcome the consideration given to those issues and the recommendations to address the level of remand and ways to better support the numbers of people held on remand. It is important to remind ourselves that decisions on whether to remand a person in custody or to release them on bail are always made by the court based on the full facts and circumstances of a case and within the legal framework that is provided by this Parliament. That legal framework creates a presumption in favour of bail in the vast majority of cases. However, it lists a number of grounds that may be relevant when the court is deciding whether to refuse bail, such as risks to public safety and risks of absconding. The report that was published and the recommendations that were made, of course, need to be considered and assessed within that context. I note that there is no suggestion that the legal framework be adjusted in the report. I do not think that anyone would disagree that remand will always be necessary for some people accused of an offence. The question is whether there are further steps that can be taken to help those either given bail or who could be given bail if there was additional support for them in the community. The committee made a number of recommendations to address the level of remand, along with suggestions in ways in which the numbers of people held on remand could be better supported. The Scottish Government's response to the committee report was issued on 23 August, and our commitments in programme are well. David Stewart I thank the minister for giving way. Would the minister share my view that those with mental health conditions are particularly at risk in remand, particularly if their medication is discontinued, albeit for a brief period? Those who are taken into remand with medications are assessed at the time that they are taken in, but I would agree with the member that there is potential for some risk to them, and they are supported in that where possible. Presiding Officer, revised national guidance on bail supervision schemes will be issued to local authorities, and we will be exploring with COSLA the possibility of providing funding to radically increase the uptake of supervised bail and support to help to ensure that services can be accessed across Scotland. That provision would be in addition to those supervised and supported bail programmes that are already funded through the grant funding formula to local authority, criminal justice, social work services and the targeted funding for women's services. The Scottish Government's response to the report of the committee was developed in dialogue with justice partners, including the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, and sets out action across a number of areas. Of course, we are open to further engagement, and today's debate provides a welcome opportunity to hear views across the chamber, including members of the committee. As we acknowledge in the report, the issues that are faced by those on remand go beyond justice, and the work that we will be carrying out stretches across portfolios, including health, housing and social security. The Scottish Government's justice vision and priorities set out the Government's intention to adopt a more progressive, evidence-based approach supported by partners across the justice sector and beyond to ensure that we live in safe, cohesive and resilient communities. Ensuring appropriate alternatives to custody, in particular around the increased use of diversion and community sentences, is consistent with our understanding of what works to reduce re-offending. We know that short prison sentences do little to rehabilitate people or to reduce the likelihood of their re-offending. Short-term imprisonment disrupts families and communities and adversely affects employment opportunities and stable housing. Those are the very things that evidence shows support and assistance from offending. Individuals released from short sentences of 12 months or less are reconvicted at nearly twice as often as those sentenced to a community payback order. In the year ahead, we will extend the presumption against short sentences to 12 months, once relevant provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act are implemented. That will, of course, be subject to scrutiny and approval from the Justice Committee. Reconviction rates in Scotland have fallen to their lowest level in 19 years. However, we still have the second highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe, behind only England and Wales. A bold approach is required. The new model for community justice in Scotland has been implemented by community justice partners, and we have allocated around £100 million per annum to local authorities to deliver community sentences, support rehabilitation and reduce re-offending. Our commitment to help to ensure that remand is only used where necessary and appropriate support for our broader approach to the prison population while keeping the public safe and reducing re-offending. Data on the use of remand was one of the primary issues raised by the committee, and while the issue of whether more data would be helpful has been explored in the committee's report. It is possible that the data on remand that already exists could be more extensively utilised. Analysis of where remand is being used, using administrative data from the SPS, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, criminal justice social work and prisoner surveys, routinely conducted by the SPS on the remand population, already gives us an important insight into the characteristics and need of the remand population and issues relating to the use of remand. I do not think that I have time for that. No, the minister is just coming into her last minute, I would say, at the very outside. The previous cabinet secretary did indicate, before the committee, that any new burdensome requirements falling on our courts in respect of recording reasons for bail would need to be fully justified when set against the costs of such an approach. I share that view, especially at a continuing time of scarce resources available within our justice system. My preference is that the analyst develop the existing sources of information that we have further to help to inform our work on remand. I want to, if I have time, address some issues relating to women. No? Okay. I look forward to the debate. Minister, you have time and you are summing up. You have had an extra minute and a half. I will address that in my summing up. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I call on Liam Kerr to open for the Conservatives. Mr Kerr, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just for full transparency, I refer the members to my register of interests as a currently practicing solicitor. I am pleased to have the opportunity to open for the Scottish Conservatives in this debate on the Justice Committee's report on remand and to introduce some of the themes that I am looking forward to hearing about more this afternoon. Credit goes to the clerks for its production, but also to the witnesses for what was a fascinating and highly informative inquiry. The first major learning that I think bears restating is that we should be wary of bracketing those remanded with those convicted. The remand prisoner, at least as far as the report uses the term, has not been found guilty of a crime. Rather, he is accused but kept in custody prior to trial. He holds that status because a sentencer has decided, based on statutory criteria, that remand, rather than bail, is appropriate. I think that it is important, particularly where we seek solutions to the fact that around one-fifth of the prison population are on remand, that we do not rush to equate those remanded with short-term prisoners in particular. It is important that we look at why we remand because of the impact of being remanded. The average time spent on remand is around 25 days. David Strangley, HM inspector of prisons, told the committee that it can be disorientating, unsettling and stressful. Those remanded may face barriers to obtaining medication or continuing services that they access in the community. Housing or employment may be disrupted. Furthermore, last weekend, I visited HMP Grampian with families outside who contributed to the report. They reiterated a crucial point, picked up by the committee, that the impact on families as well as their remandee is considerable, particularly in relation to Peter Head. Although there is some very impressive work going on, particularly around visiting arrangements, there is still a long, potentially expensive journey for many of the prisoners' families. It is vital that the decision to remand is not taken lightly. That is the key point that I wish to make today. The decision to remand is a difficult one. It is a decision made at the start of the process when someone who is accused is brought before a court and the sentence must decide whether to release the accused on bail. According to the law, bail is to be granted unless the court decides that the public interest warrants remand and there is a substantial risk that granting bail will lead to issues such as non-appearances or obstruction of the course of justice. The court will also have regard to matters including the nature of the offence, the likely punishment if convicted and so on. It is not a straightforward process in which a capricious judge takes one look at the accused and decides to remand. On the contrary, as Sheriff Little told us, judges are not eager to remand people. Of course they are not. They are more aware than perhaps any of us of the issues and the impacts set out in this report. They are the experts who make the decisions daily as part of their job and their decisions, according to Sheriff Little, are made based on adequate information, provided variously by the prosecution, the defence and the criminal justice social work, whose decisions, according to the Edinburgh Bar Association, are well justified and it is difficult to suggest that they are made in error. According to the statistics, there is no significant difference in numbers being remanded over the last 10 years. They feel uncomfortably high but we cannot yet say that they are inappropriately high. We cannot make that legitimate value judgment because there is not the data to know why bail is being refused, to know which of the criteria has proved definitive in a particular case, because reasons for refusal of bail are not recorded or collected in a way that allows for meaningful analysis. Without knowing why people are being remanded, it is wrong to conclude, as the then justice secretary did, that there is inappropriate use of remand. Maybe there is, but absent the data, we cannot say. Nor, most crucially, yes. I agree with your premise about data collection, but would the member agree that the fact that 75 per cent of women on remand do not go on to receive a custodial sentence is pretty compelling evidence? I am not sure what it is compelling evidence of, but it is highly concerning. I definitely agree with you, and I think that there is an issue there, but absent the data to understand why those remand decisions are being taken, it is very difficult to draw the conclusions and go on to address those factors that have led to remand through measures such as, as the COPS said, bail supervision, electronic monitoring, mentoring or other alternatives that would deal with that statistic. Most people were being remanded because judges were concerned that they would not turn up, then the solution of a text message reminder becomes attractive and appropriate and a great deal cheaper. Or, if that were about restricting movements, David Strang spoke about the possibility of electronic tagging. However, more data gathering was not universally welcomed. Judges expressed a view that they would not find it very useful when it comes to the question of bail, but surely what it would do is allow perhaps the third sector and social care to design alternatives to remand, which address the key concerns of sentencers when refusing bail, such that their knowledge of and confidence in using those alternatives is raised. The justice secretary also argued that sentencing decisions around bail and reminder are individualised, so it would be difficult to create a data collection system that would allow us to deliver greater consistency in decisions. Respectfully, I do not understand that. Surely the whole point is that the system ought to be as bespoke as possible when it comes to decisions on remand, such that consistency, i.e. defaulting to giving both individuals the same outcome of remand, is sacrificed, whereas sentencer adjudges that one can meaningfully be diverted to a programme that is right for their individual circumstances. It was suggested that additional capturing of data would increase demand on court resources and place extra pressure on clerks. No doubt, but the law society tells us that there are significant cost savings to be made by utilisation of alternatives to remand, of between £2 million and £13 million over three years. The minister asked for justification for shifting that resource. I think that it is right there. I do not dispute the significant pressures on courts at present and the staff, but if we are realising such savings in the remand system through adequate data capture, surely we can employ those savings elsewhere. I commend the report to the chamber, but particularly conclusion 66 on page 18, which states that information is not recorded consistently or in a way that allows for any meaningful analysis. Then it says that, to make any difference in the numbers, the reasons why judges decide to remand people in custody have to be better understood. Those are decisions being made by professional, experienced, expert sentences, and it must surely not be the role of Parliament ever to fetter the decision making of the courts. There will always be people who need to be remanded for public safety and other reasons, so let's use appropriate data capture to ensure that those who are remanded need to be remanded, while ensuring that those who should not be, who remember, have never been convicted of a crime, do not have their liberty curtailed and all the negative consequences that follow simply for want of an alternative. I should say to members and openers that, wait for it, I can be a little light touch about time, so don't look anxious because I'll let you know if I think you're not getting any more time to it. That goes for speakers in the open debate tone and don't interpret it as being over generous, but you will be warned by the pen if I'm leading you to come to a conclusion. That said, Mr Johnson, it's your turn now. Please, opening for Labour. Julie noted, Presiding Officer. This is an important debate because it gives us an opportunity to talk about prison. Prison is important. Prison is necessary. It provides public protection and it is our harshest punishment for the most serious of crimes, and it is right that we use it. But it's not without consequence and it should be used as a last resort. Many of the issues that concern prison are therefore reflecting on remand. It's right that we use remand in order to protect the public, but with imprisonment in general, but remand in particular, we have to ask ourselves the question, is its use making the situation better or is it making it worse? Indeed, I think that this is a useful debate because it allows us to explore both remand in particular but some of the broader issues around prison in general. Remand is both part of the issues that the prison system faces, but it also helps us to identify many of the wider issues when we are looking at the many aspects to prison. That's why I thank the committee for bringing forward this debate. I would like to thank the clerks for their diligent work for enabling us to do this short inquiry earlier on in the year. I would also like to thank the prison officers and the number of prisons that I visited over the summer because they do vital work for not very much pay and they do it with professionalism and diligence, which I think is truly admirable. However, I do think that this is an issue that is a test for the Government and indeed a test for Parliament because, as we have heard from both the convener and indeed from the minister and from Liam Kerr already, this is not a new issue. This is an issue that Parliament and politicians keep returning to. When we look at prison and say that we should seek to lower the prison population, remand is one of the first things that keeps coming up, both in terms of its proportion and the status of those in remand. As I think that Liam Kerr was very right to point out, the people who are on remand in the eyes of the law in the strictest possible sense are innocent because, if we believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, we have to remind ourselves of that status. However, what is also clear from people like David Strang, the former inspector of prisons and indeed former chief constable of Lothian and Borgers Police and Kirsten Aber, Cromby of Turning Point, it is being used and I quote too frequently. What the Government must grasp is that this is both a complex problem and one that does require investment because prison can cause harm, but there are also savings to be had if this is done properly. Before I continue, I would like to point out that prison involves disruption. We are dealing with people already who live chaotic lives, and that is an inextricable link and relationship. Crime and prism then can compound those factors. People lose jobs, which means that households lose incomes. Children then use a parent. All too often in recent months and years, we have rightly focused on ACEs, but are we compounding those problems in terms of the removal of a breadwinner, the removal of a parent and the disruption in chaos to a child that simply reinforces the problem and ensures that it continues in the future? That is why this debate is important. The importance of looking at remand is underlined when you look at the numbers. It is 18 per cent of the adult prison population around remand—almost a quarter of the female population. Between the start of the millennium and 2017, the proportion—a per head of population in general—went from 19 per 100,000 per population around remand to 25. It is also a significant part of the pressures placed on prisons. 50 per cent of the daily incoming prisoner population and outgoing prisoner population is down to remand, so while it might be around 20 per cent of the prison population as a whole, it is 50 per cent of the prison's work. I note the minister's remarks about the numbers that I released. I always find it interesting when you release an average figure. Of course, that does not reflect the accurate figure as it stands today. If you release a snapshot figure, it is the average that you should be looking at. What is beyond that is that, as of this moment, prison is at a four-year high. If the Government takes the right actions and reduces the prison population and reduces the use of remand, I will be the first to congratulate them, but only once that happens. The reality is that, while that might be a snapshot, since the beginning of this year, people across the sector have been talking to me informally about expressing their concern about what they see as a rise in the use of remand. If it reduces, I will be the first to welcome it. Others have rightly pointed— Of course. Stuart Stevenson is just—I seek clarification of what I think I heard you say, that the reception of remand prisoners is 50 per cent of prison's work. Was that intended to mean 50 per cent of reception's work? It is. Daniel Johnson, thank you. For clarity, of the number of prisoners on a daily basis coming into prison, 50 per cent of them will be remand prisoners, if that—again, in terms of numbers, 71 per cent of people on remand under solemn procedure will go on to receive a custodial sentence, but 43 per cent of people on remand for summary means that a majority of people on remand under summary procedure will not go on to prison. My question is this, and this is the most fundamental question. If they do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, what are they doing in prison at all? The cost of this is huge. If it costs over £35,000 per year per prisoner to keep someone in prison, the total cost of the remand prison population is £15 million a year. That is the true cost, and that is why we must find alternatives, because it is the right thing to do, but also because there are savings to be had. Others will go mention the gender issues, and I know that the minister is keen to do that, but you cannot escape the gender issues with regard to the remand population. The numbers are stark. A quarter of the female remand population versus 18 per cent of the male population, but what is more is that 80 per cent of the women in custody are victims of trauma themselves. I hope that that is an issue that will be covered off by others in this debate. That is not beyond our wit to put this right. There are established alternatives. Supervised bail accommodation is a method that works, and it is cheaper. It costs £2,600 a year versus almost £36,000 a year to have someone under bail supervision rather than on remand. I note the minister's remarks about looking at that. The reality is that we heard it yet again yesterday in the Justice Committee. It is the third sector that is largely responsible for delivering supervised bail and bail accommodation, but the paucity of that funding and the instability of that funding mean that those services are highly unstable and, therefore, both those organisations themselves are not able to say with confidence whether they will continue, but sheriffs and sentences do not have the confidence that those services that they need as an alternative to remand are not confident whether they will be there. As long as that remains the case, that will continue to be a problem, and remand will continue to be overused. Thank you, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Other committee colleagues, I start by putting record my thanks to the clerks despite others who helped in the production of the report, but in particular to the witnesses who gave both written and oral evidence. As others have said, our inquiry grew out, I think, of a general sense and strong evidence that use of remand in Scotland remains more prevalent than we would wish it to be, more prevalent than it should be. While direct comparisons must be made with care, more prevalent than it is in other countries. There is nothing in the Scottish DNA that suggests a higher predisposition to offend or thereafter to abscond, fail to appear in court or commit further offences, and yet numbers in our prisons remain the highest in Western Europe, and the proportion of those on remand is similarly at a comparatively high level. Of course, there are circumstances that I think that everybody has acknowledged, in which bail would be inappropriate, and remanding an individual is the only safe and responsible course of action. However, for anyone labouring under the misapprehension that a greater propensity to lock people up is a sign of a society taking law and order seriously. Let's just look at the facts. It's worse remembering that remand is not, as others have observed, a particularly reliable indicator of the likely outcome of any court proceedings between 2014 and 2017. A little over 40 per cent of those remanded awaiting trial in summary proceedings received a prison sentence. The commission on women offenders reported in 2012 that a mere 30 per cent of women remanded go on to receive a custodial sentence. Context is imperative, but when imprisonment is deemed necessary for so many before, but not after evidence is heard, alarm bells should be ringing. Particularly when we know the damaging and counterproductive effect even a short period of incarceration can have. Remands can be the result of an individual's homelessness, but often it's a trigger. As the committee heard, remand prisoners face the same financial and attitudinal barriers as convicted prisoners when trying to access the private rented sector. Those in work face an increased risk of losing their job and finding future work even more difficult. Potential disruption to benefits can also be significant. Those released on remand receive no financial support and benefits often take weeks to be reinstated. Meanwhile, the impact on family relationships can be severe and, in some cases, are irreparable. The committee heard compelling evidence about how that is a particular concern in the case of women held on remand. Daniel Johnson was absolutely right to point to the gendered nature of the issue. He is right to point to the fact that parental imprisonment is recognised itself as an adverse childhood experience. Trying to mitigate those factors in the case of those on remand is not at all easy, as the former chief inspector of prisons, David Strang, pointed out to the committee. Because of the shortness of the time when they are in custody, the regime for people on remand brings reduced opportunities for activity, education and work. The combination of disruption and long periods of doing nothing is not at all a healthy one. Moreover, given the restrictions around through-care, those in remand are also excluded from what the committee described as the benefits that properly resource through-care support can provide in terms of rehabilitation and reintegration when a person is released from prison. I welcome the justice secretary's earlier offer to me to discuss the issue of through-care, and I will look to raise the question of what support should be available to those on remand as well as those serving shorter sentences. Alongside improving the way that remand is administered, we have to look more seriously at funding the alternatives. The law society has estimated that net benefits over a three-year period of between £2 million and £13 million could be realised by the utilisation of alternatives to remand. However, as the prison reform trust in the Scottish working group for women's offending wrote, the option of bail supervision is not being taken up. In 2015-16, the number was, quote, by far the lowest level in the last seven years. The committee was sympathetic to the evidence that we heard about why bail is often not granted, and I recognise that the decision to place someone on remand is never made lightly. Where compliance seems uncertain and confidence in community-based support services is shaky, sentences are faced with a real dilemma. Indeed, Tom Halpin, at SACRO, told us that the courts are supportive as long as the community alternative is credible, consistent and there. Again, Daniel Johnson was right to remind us of the evidence that we heard at the Justice Committee earlier this week about the funding to those critical third sector organisations, both in terms of the squeeze on funding but also the year-on-year uncertainty about that flow of funding, which cannot be helpful in providing the reassurance that courts quite reasonably are looking for. Surely, given the costs of remand on both individuals and societies, we need to be doing more to invest in community-based services. I welcome what the minister had to say and we will look carefully at where that funding is directed and how it is to be applied. I note from Orkney community justice partnership report in 2017 that figures there appear to be more encouraging. Indeed, the statement is made that particular recognition has been given in Orkney to the value of options of verified information to support bail and provision of short notice temporary accommodation where this could avoid the unnecessary use of custody. While that might reflect the additional consequences and complications of being held on remand for those living in aniline community, it shows that collaboration and with the requisite will across relevant agencies, we can deliver results. Ensuring that, in all but the most extreme cases, courts can be assured that a period on bail will be completed successfully. That should be the presumption. There is much in our criminal justice system of which we can be rightly proud. However, the number of people that we continue to lock up in our prisons is shameful. Given the unnecessarily high financial and human costs of that, we have to find a better, more effective way of responding. I hope that the work carried out by the justice committee and taken up in collaboration with the Scottish Government can contribute to delivering that more effective response. Thank you very much, Mr Kerr. It is open to debate. It is slightly generous, six minutes. Take the word slightly as, yes, not overwhelmingly generous. Shona Robison, followed by Maurice Corry, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a new member of the justice committee, can I start by thanking those who have helped to produce this report? Scotland's justice system must, of course, be guided by the evidence and be effective at tackling the root causes of crime. We aspire for our justice system to be a world leader in pursuing a progressive evidence-based policy. The Scottish Government's presumption against short-term prison sentences demonstrates the value of listening to the evidence. We understand that the disruption caused by short-term sentences can worsen the root causes of crime. Those in custody for 12 months or less are nearly twice as likely to be reconvicted as those given community sentencing. As we know that alternatives to custody such as community sentencing can be far more effective at rehabilitating offenders, the Scottish Government has listened to the evidence and has developed policy to match. Yet it has to be acknowledged that the number of prisoners in remand in Scotland is too high, and it is worth remembering that those on remand, as others have said, have not been convicted of a crime that they are awaiting trial. The impacts of remand on an individual and their family, as the minister herself said earlier and is outlined by the Justice Committee report, are comparable to those of a short custodial sentence. Remand can disrupt employment, it can disrupt family life, it can prevent access to medical treatment, it can disrupt access to welfare support and security of housing. Being unable to pay bills, can put an individual into debt and rears. For those reasons, we have adopted a presumption against short sentencing, yet those on remand who are not convicted of a crime, and indeed may never be convicted at all, may still have to face those consequences. We have to ensure that we are consistent in our approach to justice. Remand levels in Scotland remain too high, and it is right that in Scotland we have a presumption in favour of bail, unless, of course, the court considers remand absolutely necessary. There will be times when that is the only option, particularly with consideration to public safety. Decisions over whether an individual is eligible for bail is a matter for the courts whose independence must be respected, yet it is imperative that the use of remand is justified. As a new member of the justice committee, I find it extremely worrying that only 30 per cent of women held on remand receive custodial sentences. That means that up to 70 per cent of those women were held in custody on charges for which the courts did not hand down a custodial sentence. We know that remand can have a particularly negative impact on women. The justice committee has been told that the number of visits for women on remand can be significantly less than those for young men. Male partners of women in prison are less likely to visit, and bearing in mind that women in remand make up almost a quarter of the total number of Scotland's women prison population. Of course, that is before we look at the impact on families and children. Clearly, we have to question why the numbers are so high, and we have to do something about it. There have been welcome efforts by the Scottish Government in this regard. Since 2015-16, the Scottish Government has invested £1.5 million annually to develop bail sentences and early intervention programmes for women. Bail supervision, bail support and electronic monitoring offer progressive alternatives to demand. For example, by working in partnership with social work in the third sector, bail supervision requires an individual to meet with their bail supervisor a specified number of times each week. An individual's housing or employment opportunity would therefore not be impacted. I am confident that policies such as these can have long-term positive impacts on reducing our prison population. I thank the member for taking the intervention. I do not necessarily disagree at all with anything that she said. Does the member agree that it is important that we understand why, despite those efforts, remand remains so high? Why are sentences still putting people onto remand, despite the efforts that the member alluded to? Yes, I agree. We have to get to the bottom of that. I think that there is more work to be done in that regard. I am sure that, in response to the debate and the issues that are being looked at, the Scottish Government will do just that. I am also pleased that the Scottish Government has announced that it will issue revised guidance and additional funding for supervised and supported bail. The Justice Committee has raised concerns over a lack of consistency on remand sentencing. Revised guidance may allow for a more consistent approach. I look forward to hearing more details of that. Of course, as we recognise the need for remand to be used appropriately, compassion and support for the victims of crime must always be a guiding principle of our justice system. I want to end with that. Develop progressive alternatives to custody is not to neglect the needs of victims who must always have our respect and our support, and that is why I also welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to an additional £1.1 million of funding that will be provided to allow trials involving rape to begin as early as possible, minimising the distress caused to victims. That will be in addition to £18 million that the Scottish Government has already provided to support the victims of crime, including support for organisations such as Victim Support Scotland, who do a tremendously important job. We need a progressive approach to justice that ensures that all are treated fairly and equally. There is, of course, more work to be done in this area, as I said earlier. In particular, the number of women in remand is still disproportionately high. We need to get to the bottom of that, and I am confident that, by developing progressive alternatives to custodial sentences, we can continue to work to ensure that remand is used appropriately as part of Scotland's progressive approach to justice. I thank the clerks and the organisations that have provided input and evidence for this report. The use of remand must not be ignored, and so I welcome this time today to address it. As I have stated already, remand figures have been on the rise since 1997. There is also a significant proportion of those who are remanded, but, in the end, they do not receive a custodial sentence, and we must look at the system head on and recognise that reasons for demand should be better understood. I do not doubt that, in many cases, remand is necessary to have in place. Individuals are put on remand either before their first appearance in court, their sentencing or prior to their being granted an appeal. It can sometimes be the best option for some, especially if they have a long history and record of past crime, a history of breach bail or fail to adhere to court orders. In those cases, it is obvious that it is a safer place to place them in remand for those individuals, but we have to be careful to recognise that problems can stem from remand. Less remand would lessen its negative impact. It has been overused in Scotland, making about a fifth of the prison population and nearly a quarter of the female population in particular. Due to this high level, overcrowding in prison is now a common problem. That means that prison staff are placed under enormous pressure to tackle what can often be difficult situations. We know that bail is not refused without good reason. Judges understand the patterns of crime more than we do, yet this frequency must be examined in further detail. Why do judges remand such high numbers? Having this answer would allow us to better understand why remand cases have risen. As my colleagues have said already, that could be achieved by collecting more data and knowledge behind the reasons for remand. Having access would help us to properly evaluate the current system and determine how it can be improved. I welcome the research conducted by Professor Neil Hutton on his matter. His work found that it is uncommon for offenders to be remanded solely because they represent a danger within the community or due to the seriousness of their crime. Instead, his research shows that individuals are placed in remand due to a lack of services or information in their local community to offer support. There are hosts of issues that can arise from a person being placed on remand. Their lives can be unnecessarily disrupted, while on remand employment prospects are lowered and housing situations have become less stable. Relationships and healthcare can often struggle to continue. I am especially concerned about the toll of remand on health and particularly mental health. The uncertainty of this time in prison can potentially worsen feelings of anxiety and depression in vulnerable individuals. Surely, that must make it harder for them to escape the increasing likelihood of re-offence. Those mental health issues will be more difficult to tackle without the stronger communication between local authority health boards and the prison service. That lack of dialogue means that some offenders can slip through the cracks in the remand system, and the Scottish Government must not allow that to happen. As the justice committee has heard, remand time is largely unproductive with limited opportunities for rehabilitation. That fails to stop the damaging effect on the individual placed on remand and their families. As the charity of families outside found out, the time on remand is too short to allow proper engagement between the offender and their family to kick-start changes that they can make in their behaviour. As the justice committee has found out, parental imprisonment can have a strong impact on children and can lead to offending behaviour in the future. I believe that it would be more valuable to have a greater focus on rehabilitation activities for those on remand from the start. Constructive programmes in encouraging education and work would be far more beneficial and would help their sites' focus beyond the prison walls. That could break up the cycle of crime and re-offending as we see in our communities, and it would create avenues for purpose that can redirect the lives of offenders. Currently, remanded prisoners failed to be offered a robust support system upon their release. The challenges that they face outside prisons such as welfare and housing have not been handled as serious as it should have been. Rehabilitation services would encourage support to be readily available for their release, to decrease the likelihood of re-offent and therefore the burden of remand. Stronger communication is needed between the various bodies within our criminal justice system. That would ensure that information on the best support programmes are considered, rather than placing offenders on remand and stronger collaboration between housing groups, and that the prison service would help to meet accommodation needs with greater advice on offer. In conclusion, remand should not be an unproductive one-size-fits-all system for some support needs to be more readily available to effectively rehabilitate their lives. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. When we were doing the inquiry, I was a member of the justice committee, and I am pleased to say that I am again having just been back on to the justice committee recently. I would like to, as others have said, express my thanks to the clerks for the amazing work that they have done. I will also quickly make a declaration of interest as a social worker registered with the SSCC, a previous experience in the justice field. The number of remands are decreasing, although they remain very high. Commit explore the possible reasons for that, the impact for the person who remanded and, of course, the possible solutions. Evidence from committee has suggested that time spent on remand can result in a significant disruption to an individual's life and their wider family. That can mean terms of an individual's benefits, their housing, their employment, their education and their medical treatment, as well as having an effective impact on the accused's family and children. Some families may experience considerable stress, especially if their procedures are unfamiliar and outcomes are unknown, with consequential impacts on their physical and mental health. That for me was the main focus of the inquiry. The Scottish Government has made considerable progress in implementing the presumption against short-term sentences, but remand periods are in effect a short-term sentence. In some ways, they are even worse. David Strang has already quoted from her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland, for example, stated to the committee that, in general, the regime for people who remand brings reduced opportunities for activity, education and work. I agree with that. Remand prisoners are restricted in terms of visits, access to the gym, exercise and taking part in educational studies or any meaningful work. Indeed, they spend much of their day in their cell awaiting the forthcoming court appearance. Remember that that is before they have even been convicted of any offence or roam doing. We must, however, acknowledge that there is appropriate use of remand, and I know that others have said that. As the then Cabinet Secretary and the Minister today rightly pointed out, it is a matter for the courts. However, it was agreed, and there is a general consensus that we all must work together to reduce the need for unnecessary use of remand. With the majority of those remanded spending, an average of 26 days in prison, it must be noted that this is a lengthy period. Surely, there must be a better way to move forward. Just purely on that point, you talked about unnecessary use of remand. I would be interested to know how the member can understand if it is unnecessary without knowing why it has been implemented in the first place. For that point, it is something that I am going to come to the report, but the member knows, as well as I do, that we took the evidence on a committee together, and we know that remand is not used lightly by judges and sheriffs. However, there is an element there of remand being used for circumstances that I think we could move away from, but as I say, I will come back to that. There is a major impact on the life of those who are subject to remand. Remand does not impact positively on rates of recidivism. In fact, it leads to an increased likelihood of offending, housing benefits, etc. are all affected, as I have said earlier. Access to medications and other health initiatives and interventions can be limited or even, in some cases, cut off for a short period of time. As we have already heard, the impact on an individual's mental health can be major. That could be due to a lack of access to treatment, contact with family and the experience of being remanded itself. Reflecting on the evidence that Ann Binkman gave is that remand should never be used as an alternative to a mental health facility. In fact, just this week, a constituent told me about a situation where a family member's involvement with the criminal justice system and court appearances was, in fact, the result of mental health issues and has subsequently led to treatment. I am pleased that, as part of the mental health strategy, the Scottish Government has committed to funding 800 additional mental health workers in key settings, including prisons. Also, other members have spoken about the impact on women and young people particularly, and that was highlighted through committee. We need bespoke solutions for women who offend and for young people who offend. I am pleased about recent funding and community justice projects in those areas. However, some of the most powerful evidence that we heard from the predictor during the inquiry was on the impact of children and families. Liam Kerr, of course, has mentioned that. The stress and stigma that is caused to families is one that can be difficult for us to imagine. Families outside described impact on children and the trauma that can be caused by the rest in the subsequent remand of a parent. Of course, we must remember that the opposite can be true. I can go back to my time as a social worker in children and families when a period of remand was perhaps for a domestic abuse offence and removed a perpetrator from that situation. We must understand that there are other circumstances where people can be kept safe. I know that there is appropriate use of remand and what can be done to reduce it, particularly where the main reasons are around chaotic lives, misquote appearances and so on, perhaps answering Liam Kerr's earlier question to me. What I am saying is that there is not a concrete danger to threats or threat to others, and that was something that we heard through the inquiry. My belief is that it is more intense community sentences, as the answer. The Scottish Government provides additional funding for bail support services, specifically for women. I am supportive of bail supervision services and had a good experience of that resource while working in South Lanarkshire. Unlike remand, bail supervision does not disrupt families and communities, and through intense intervention does not adversely impact on employment opportunities and stable housing. Bail supervision is through social work or the third sector. For somebody who would otherwise be held in remand or released on bail, they meet with a bail supervisor in a specified number of times a week. Usually, it can be up to every day, about usually two or three or four times a week. Just yesterday at the committee, we heard from third sector organisations that it would often be well-placed to carry out that work if local authorities can, such as, for example, SACRO. 1.5 million has been invested annually since 2015-16, specifically for the development of bail supervision services and early intervention schemes. Courts could also consider arrangements for those already on community orders who perhaps pick up in another fence or folk who are already on supervision orders. More communication between courts and social work is something that came up. That did happen in my area when I was employing social work, but we heard through the committee that it was a patchy across the country, and there is perhaps something that we can do there. Presiding Officer, I just have more to say, but I can see that I am running out of time. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that remand is only used when necessary and appropriate. In the programme for government 2018, the Scottish Government announced that it will issue revised guidance and provide additional funding for supervised and supported bail to ensure that remand is only used in these circumstances. I hope that, if we were to go back and commit to us to take evidence on such an inquiry in the future, we would see that those steps have been taken and that they have worked. I remind members that, as I said, there was room to be slightly generous with time, so do not fash yourself if I thought that you were taking too much time. I would have shown you. Take Mary Fee, please, to be followed by Ruth Maguire. I thank the Justice Committee for the in-depth analysis that it carried out in their inquiry into the use of remand in Scotland. During my time on the Justice Committee and through numerous meetings that I have had with organisations involved in the criminal justice system, I have heard about the long-standing issues around remand and the impact that its overuse has on individuals, on families and on the justice system. I welcome the analysis and the findings of the inquiry. I hope that the act is a starting point for the minister and for the Scottish Government to reduce the use of remand and to limit the impact on families, on children and on health and wellbeing of those on remand and serving custodial sentences. Most of my contribution today will focus on the issues that are faced by women in the justice system. Colleagues will be aware that this is an area that I have given great focus to in my time in Parliament. I remind colleagues of my involvement with the cross-party group on families that are affected by imprisonment and the newly-formed cross-party group on women's justice. Assessing the average daily population by type of custody for the decade between 2007 and 2017, the statistics tell us that women are more likely to be on remand than men, despite there being a decrease in both sets of figures for men and for women. We need to have a clearer understanding of why there is a gender disparity and a further understanding of the impact that that has on children and on families. The commission on women offenders, which was reported six years ago, acknowledged that there has been some progress on the recommendations, and it is clear that women remain at a greater risk of re-offending and falling into destitution as a result of a period of imprisonment. The complex needs and issues that women offenders experience can exacerbate pre-existing trauma and pre-existing mental health issues. That is why we need alternatives to prison, such as wraparound health and social care programmes, and they are vitally important. However, it is fundamental to the success of those types of programmes that funding is guaranteed, and not only that, but that support is tailored to the need and is in place for as long as people require it. Evidence to the committee has shown that 80 per cent of women in custody have experienced trauma and abuse. Without the appropriate support in and out of prison, long-term problems associated with remand and re-offending will continue to impact disproportionately on women. That also has an impact on public funding that goes directly to the criminal justice system and to the external organisations that support women. In the many meetings that I have had with third sector organisations, I often hear about the unintended consequences that women experience when held on remand. One of the most distressing concerns is that women receive fewer visits when on remand or sentenced and are more likely to lose contact or be physically distant from their children. That is partly due to the provisions of the women's estate. Homelessness is also a major worry, as the committee has recognised in its report. Single women and single mothers often find themselves losing their tenancy when held on remand even for a short time or if they are given a custodial sentence. Ensuring that alternatives to remand are available will be beneficial to women and families, but resources must be spent throughout the process to directly support women and to prevent homelessness. Those alternatives to custody should also provide support to the whole family. Children can and are being unfairly punished and often forgotten in this process, especially if they are taken into care. Colleagues across the chamber will be aware that I have frequently spoken of children as the forgotten victims of crime, suffering loss and distress, with no help and no support. Partnerships between statutory services and the third sector are crucial in keeping families together as a result of parental imprisonment. Evidence to the committee shows that alternatives to remand such as the Glasgow Women's Supported Bail Service reduces the damaging impact of imprisonment and increases positive outcomes. Addressing the underlying cause of women's offending is key to that. Third sector groups such as the Prison Reform Trust, Families Outside and Turning Point Scotland are vital to identifying and addressing those issues that can be caused by poverty, by family breakdown, by mental health and by drugs or alcohol abuse. As a final point, I agree with the committee that supervised and supported bail programmes should receive more funding in the next budget and be made readily available to those who could benefit from them. In closing, I want to stress that prison should be a last resort. If you are found guilty of breaking the law, you should expect to receive some form of punishment. However, too many people end up in prison, especially through remand, where more suitable options should be available. Tackling the underlying causes of crime, substance abuse, poor mental health and poverty, they should be a key driver in the Scottish Government's plans to assess remand and break the cycle of re-offending. Ruth Maguire, followed by Oliver Mundell. The short-term imprisonment is often ineffective and reducing the use of ineffective short-term imprisonment and increasing the use of robust bail options is part of a smarter approach to tackle offending and make our communities safer. Evidence indicates that, by weakening social bonds and decreasing job stability, it is possible that short-term imprisonment can increase long-term offending. It is the importance of those social bonds and the impact on families and children that I would like to focus my remarks on today. I recently took part in Send Your MSP to prison, organised by Families Outside. Families Outside is the only national independent charity that works solely on behalf of families who are affected by imprisonment in Scotland. I am grateful to them for the opportunity to experience a flavour and it could only be a flavour of what families experience and for the work that they do supporting families and professionals. I travelled from my home in Irvine to Comarnic prison. That was two buses in about 30 minutes of walking at a cost of £8. For all of us sitting here, that doesn't sound too taxing, but making the journey at various stages wasn't too hard to imagine how much harder it would be having children in tow, in bad weather, how much harder it would be if that £8 was making a big dent in your income for the week, how much harder it would be if it was a loved one that I was going to visit when I was running characteristically late. When someone goes into custody on remands, the issues that families face are very similar to the impact of longer periods of custody that were once sentenced. Liam Kerr It's a very good point that's being made about the bus. When I did the Peterhead one, the transport was actually paid for by the Scottish Government, I think, funding a six-month trial to see if it will work, which is excellent. I just wonder if I can ask the member to ask the minister in closing if that can be extended going forward. I'm sure that the minister heard the member there. Liam Kerr Even for short periods of custody on remand, families will experience considerable stress, especially where procedures are unfamiliar and outcomes are unknown. The impact on physical and mental health and wellbeing of those things are obvious. It may put their income and housing at risk, especially if that has been previously unstable. The potential breakdown in trust can, of course, lead to division within families and breakdown of family relationships, which is something that is likely to have a longer duration than the period of remand. Explaining custodial remand to children was obviously difficult, and younger children will be unlikely to draw a distinction between imprisonment for sentence and imprisonment for remand. Children who have witnessed and arrested will be particularly traumatised, and the publicity and stigma surrounding a person's arrest and custodial remand can potentially leave a lasting suspicion from family, friends and neighbours, even if the person is not convicted. For the person in prison, their experience in the first 24 hours of custody can be crucial to how they cope, especially in terms of risks of suicide. Visits from family can help alleviate stress and depression amongst prisoners, but prison visits can be particularly challenging for families during the period of remand. Families outside told me that, when someone is in prison on remand, families are allowed to visit daily for half an hour a day. Families will want to make those visits. Of course, they will want to make them. We all would if someone we loved was remanded. While those daily visits are welcome, many families will simply not be in a position to travel to prison for regular visits due to distance, costs and time travel consent constraints. From the neighbouring town, my journey was nearly £2.8. I know from constituency casework of families having to make much longer, more expensive journeys. I also know the heartache experience when they are simply unable to make those visits because of distance or finance. The Justice Committee took powerful evidence about the impact of placing a person on remand. Concerns included a lack of information about court procedures, loss of trust and breakdown in relationships, impact on physical and mental health and worries about what to tell children. Families of offenders or alleged offenders are not guilty. Children of offenders or alleged offenders are not guilty. I want to acknowledge the many folk doing good work in this area and, in particular, mention and give grateful thanks to families outside East Ayrshire play motivators, centre stage and the prison officers who I saw first hand doing their very best for families and children visiting Kilmarnock prison. Parental imprisonment is recognised as an adverse childhood experience. That childhood experience can, in itself, lead to offending behaviour. I recognise that bail decisions are, of course, a matter for the courts. In closing, I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to reducing the high rate of imprisonment in Scotland, but we must never forget that the families of offenders or alleged offenders are not guilty. We must never forget that the children of offenders or alleged offenders are not guilty. If we aspire to become a trauma-informed nation that breaks cycles of harmful behaviour, then all of us must do absolutely everything in our power to minimise the disruption and upset in children's lives when a family, when a parent offends—quite simply because that is the right thing to do. Oliver Mundell, followed by Stewart Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to join members and put my thanks on the record to the whole justice committee and the clerks for producing this vital report. There can be no doubt that the number of people on remand appears to be too high, and the reasons for that need to be interrogated further. I think that we must make it clear that the safety of our communities should come first in these matters. As the committee has clearly stated, remand should always be used where necessary for public safety. However, it can also be a blunt tool. The state exercises a great power over the individual when it comes to the removal of their liberty. That power must be matched with the highest possible level of responsibility, especially when the person being locked up has not yet been found guilty of a crime, and indeed, as others have pointed out, may never be. It is not only a removal of liberty. Spending a few weeks in jail can mean losing your job, your home and your family. Chaotic lives are inadvertently made more chaotic by a system, and it is much harder to rebuild your life when you eventually leave prison, so there has to be very good reason for refusing bail. Sheriffs tell us that it is always there and that they do not make those decisions lightly. It is difficult to disagree. Judges are, of course, the experts, and we should, as a general principle, not interfere with their work. They are rightly independent from politicians, and it is for them to decide on individual cases, and that should always remain the case. However, as the committee has so correctly pointed out, there is no way to meaningfully analyse the prevailing reasons that judges give for remand. We can only address any problems that may exist once we start to understand systematically what is going on by recording why bail is refused. As my colleague Liam Kerr has already made clear, we need to be gathering that data as the first step. Whatever action the Government takes has to be led by evidence, and at the moment there is simply not enough evidence to conclude anything. Regardless, alternatives must be readily available when they work. One of the most compelling parts of the Justice Committee's report was the evidence that something as simple as a text message to the accused on the day before trial has the enormous potential to improve attendance rates at court. If those rates can improve, we can get to position where we are more sure that someone is going to turn up and therefore might not need to be in remand in the first place. Text messages have promise. We do it for things like GP appointments, and the technology has been around for a while now. It is a common sense approach, and I think that we should all support it. I urge the Government to get moving with a pilot in one or more courts, as the committee has recommended. Finally, I would like to touch on the lack of opportunity offered inside prison walls. Even if remand is too high, there will always be a need for it to exist. Where there is a clear risk of re-offending or interfering with witnesses, or where the suspected offence is of the most serious nature, remand will always be necessary. However, there is a problem, even where people are on remand, where there is a lack of work and education within prison. That will continue if nothing is done. There has been a decline of purposeful activity generally in our prisons recently. There was a drop of nearly 300,000 hours in the last year alone, and it is now at its lowest level since 2011. That, to me, is not good enough. The number of vocational qualifications completed in Scottish prisons is also plummeting. Again, it is not good enough. That is unacceptable and must be reversed. We know that meaningful activity is crucial to rehabilitation, and there must be an effort to ensure that remand prisoners are using their time to work or learn. That will help not only them but will help and serve our communities. Presiding Officer, remand must always be an option to keep victims and the public safe, but we need more data to find out whether or not it has been used effectively. If anything, the important work that is done by the committee has shown that point, and it deserves action and attention from the Government. It cannot be beyond the Government's power to get on top of the issue and to help members, help the witnesses, help the individuals, families and communities affected by the issue to understand what is happening around remand so that we can make better policy so that judges can be clear about the decisions that they are making and the effects that they have. I previously was the SNP shadow deputy justice minister between September 2004 and May 2007, and, as such, I was responsible in particular for prisons. I am fortunate to have visited prisons in four countries and found very different patterns to which they work. In my own parliamentary constituency, I, right from the point that I was elected, had Peterhead prison, which was originally opened in 1888, a classic Victorian prison long overdue for replacement. Now we have the modern HMP Grampian serving very different purposes and much more of a local prison for a mixed prison population, including remand prisoners. It is worth making the point that this report, which is wide-ranging in its scope, makes many interesting and useful recommendations easily into this very useful debate. The thing that I want to start on is the subject statistics, which I think almost every contributor to the debate has made some comment on. I will just make a few observations. In the 270-plus committee meetings of justice, which I have attended since being elected, it feels even more, Presiding Officer, sometimes. We have made visits to many different places, and one of them I remember in particular was a Monday visit to Glasgow Sheriff Court. I think that there were eight courts running in parallel. The court that we were visiting was the weekend incarcerations. We had 59 appearances in the hour that we were in that court, and a fair number of them were ending up as remands. You have to ask yourself the question of how much consideration therefore was given to the remand process when you are spending about a minute per case. I think that that is a good and valid question that we should properly ask ourselves. It is also worth making the point that my judgment, and that is all it is, but shared by other members who were present at the time, is that there was not a newcomer among the 59 people. They all knew the system, so I could see perhaps where the judge was coming from. Let me focus in on that proportion of people who are subsequently convicted having been remanded but not imprisoned thereafter. I think that that is the part of the issue that might most susceptibly, if studied in depth, give us information. If we were to look at a case where a judge decided for whatever reason that remand was the proper thing to do, part of that is presumably considering that imprisonment might be the ultimate end, we should look at that and see why there appears to be a mismatch between the judgment that was made at remand and the ultimate outcome. That might particularly inform us and perhaps the judicial system about their remand decisions. That is an area where the Government might consider getting an academic to look at an appropriate number of cases that fit that criteria in looking at what is going on. The committee at paragraph 154 talks about what informs remand, and there is a whole series of things, but it makes the comment that decisions are usually made under significant time pressures. I have seen that, and I think that that is absolutely spot on. Similarly, it talks about that there is some data and some courts of a tick list, which at least records. I think that that could, as the committee recommends, be more widely done. In evidence, the Sheriff's Association talks about written reasons for refusal of bail are provided if an appeal is taken, but only then. Most of it is given orally. Having been in court and watched witnesses and accused hearing a quite rapid delivery of various oral things related to bail conditions and so on, it is perfectly clear that the person hearing it is not absorbing it at all. I think that there is a real danger of justice not being served by our not writing it down and making sure that the prisoner and the prisoner's lawyer are getting that so that they know exactly what is happening. I want to, in the short time remaining to me, make a comment or two about health. The committee at paragraph 84 properly says that, when you put people on remand into prison, and that is their only experience at prison, that nonetheless leaves the mark of prison upon them and carries with it a considerable risk. At paragraph 98, and here I am going to pick at the words that the committee has used, the committee considers procedures should be in place to ensure that where appropriate prisoners retain access to prescribed mediation. I do not know what the where appropriate means. I would think that there should be almost no occasion where prisoners should be denied access to the medication prescribed by a qualified practitioner from elsewhere. There is reference in the Government's response to the committee's report to the if the Presiding Officer permits. Yes, I can allow that. Jenny Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Would the member agree with me? I was slightly concerned that, a few years ago, the Government decided that NHS would take over health services in prisons. Does he share my concern that things do not seem to have become more seamless from provision outside prison to health provision in prison with that change? Stuart Steeleamson. Well, certainly with the NHS, supporting people in the community and in the prison, one might imagine that sharing data would be somewhat more easy than other arrangements might place. I think that that is certainly something that we should look at. I think that there are general issues about data and medical data, which health professionals sometimes get in the way of doing. Briefly, Presiding Officer, the immediate needs referral that has been piloted says that, while there is no statutory obligation where local resources permit establishments may extend this model to include those on remand, I encourage the Government to act upon that worthy thought that they have said in their response. I have just taken an intervention on the NHS, and the whole issue is equally covered in the Government's response. A very useful report, Presiding Officer. I can see that the Government is listening, the minister is making extensive notes. I am sure that she will read the official report afterwards. I hope that the finance secretary is also reading. David Stewart, to be followed by Richard Lyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome Asdenham to her new position. I wish her well for the future. Could I also praise the members of the Justice Committee for this first-class report on remand? In my view, it was well researched and constructed. I would like to focus my remarks following on the health implications for remand prisoners. Could I draw members' attention to the health and sport committee's report on healthcare and prisons that were published last year? I would also like to draw on from my own experience as a young social worker in the early 80s working with remand prisoners across the country from Dumfries to Portofield prison in Inverness. The Justice Committee evidence that time spent in remand is often unproductive and can lead to offending behaviour in the future. Many speakers have touched on this already this afternoon and that we must look clearly at alternatives to remand. We have touched on the importance of bail supervision, mentoring and electronic monitoring. As we have heard already, judges, I believe, look carefully at the dichotomy of bail versus custody. They have a clear framework, the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995. I am not suggesting for a second that decisions to remand are taken lightly by experienced judges across Scotland. However, as the committee report concludes, there are limited services available to remand prisoners, such as education and training, which are open to convicted prisoners. I saw this from myself, Presiding Officer, just a few months ago on a recent visit to Portofield prison in Inverness with the families-at-side co-ordinator Carline Cooper. My own assessment is that when someone is put on remand, we must ensure that they get the services and treatment appropriate to them as individuals. There must be proper assessments and evidence gathered on individuals' mental health. There must be information-sharing among organisations that the individuals come in contact with—local authorities, health board and other public bodies. All that reinforces a number of observations in the Justice Committee report. Serious concerns have been raised about those who are remanded not receiving the same level of medical service as they did outside prison, and the Institute seems in touch with that. Some of the issues included problems around medication and continuing medical services. There is also some evidence of failure to pass over medical records to those taking over care. As Maria Cairns, who is the family visitor manager at Polmont, said, some families have told us that they are extremely concerned about a family member in prison because the person cannot articulate their problems to the medical services. Some of the wider data-sharing issues have been touched on by members and have been addressed, I think, by the Health and Justice Collaboration Improvement Board. My own particular interest is in mental health. The Zahn Pinkman of the Scottish Working Group on Women's Offending said, that, too often, prison is used as an alternative to a mental health facility. I have real anxieties that have been raised about the effectively a detox from medication for mental health condition. We all know that mood stabilizers and talking therapies are essential for things such as bipolar disorders. We know that a staggering 70 per cent of prisoners have some form of mental health problem, including remand prisoners. The current position that was reinforced in my recent visit to Portofield is that a prisoner will see a qualified nurse and see a doctor within 24 hours. However, the committee has heard some evidence that remand prisoners have sometimes had their medication removed for waiting to be assessed by a prison-based NHS staff. That will have serious effect on prisoners, and, frankly, Presiding Officer—I hope that the minister can touch on this in her wind-up—I have no idea why that has happened in prison and we really have to get to a group with it. I fully support the Justice Committee's recommendation. What we have got is a postcode lottery for care, depending on what prison and what health board is involved with. We really need to look carefully at our information sharing, which involves IT systems and new protocols. If I can touch on the health and sport committee report that I touched on earlier and tie the two together, as we have heard in November 2011, provision for healthcare in prisons transferred from the Scottish Prison Service to the NHS. There have been a whole series of issues raised about the deployment of healthcare staff across the prison estate and the differences between the establishments. Currently, there is no national workforce standard in place, and the health committee recommended a minimum workforce standard in the report, which will hopefully address those issues. Just for information, which I picked up just this afternoon, on prison workforce planning, particularly for health provision, there is a tool in preparation, but it will take five years before it is effective. One point that I do not think that members have picked up that I am aware of, as members will know, next month there will be a smoking ban across the prison estate, which many members including myself will have sympathy with. That will affect remand prisoners who smoke. However, vaping will still be allowed. On my visit to Portfield prison, some concerns were raised by staff about the short-term implications on prisoner behaviour that they may well entail. Many public health initiatives in prison, such as alcohol interventions, bloodborne virus testing and various screening, do not always involve prisoners on remand, even though they may well have benefit from them. As the health committee included, there is a lack of national indicators applicable to prison healthcare. The other key point is that prison healthcare staff cannot currently electronically prescribe medication. It is all kept on manual records. That is very challenging. 75 per cent of all prisoners are in receipt of prescription drugs. As the chief inspector of prisons has argued, many members of prisoners are very poor health. He said that prisons should be well placed to tackle health inequalities. To improve health, we must also identify prisoners' long-term conditions or conditions that they are at risk of. For example, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. However, access to national screening for remand prisoners is needed. For example, they should be tested for bloodborne viruses such as HIV and HCV, which is the hepatitis C virus. However, testing is currently inconsistent. It is poorly managed and the treatment is not confidential, which clearly discourages testing and treatment. It should be noted, however, that there is a short-term working group set out to look at guidelines on consultation and BBV testing as we speak. I think that this has been an excellent report that provides a policy platform for changes to both justice and health programmes in the future. I am very concerned about health postcode lottery prisons. I echo the conclusion of the Health and Sport Committee, which expressed disappointment about the opportunities to address health inequalities. Remand prisoners, who are by definition and are tried, face unique challenges and stigma. Remand prisoners are often described as the Cinderella's of the health service. Let's have a new focus and get them central stage. The last of the open debate contributions is from Richard Lyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also welcome the minister to a post. Can I begin this afternoon by welcoming the opportunity to contribute to this debate in the process of remanding our justice system? In the early 1980s, as a district councillor, I was my privilege to be nominated as a justice to the peace to serve on motherhood district court. After appropriate training, I sat in the court twice a month. Over the years, I heard various cases regarding breaches of peace, tv licensing, motoring offences, neighbour disputes, multiple of other topics, including the interesting way of signing warrants. It certainly was an interesting experience. Because of that experience, I have come to a conclusion that remanding it individual should be seen as a last resort option and not as a commonly used practice. Of course, situations do exist where a person waiting for trial is a threat to society. In some way, remand should be used in that case. In cases such as that, it is right and proper that they be remandied for the sake of public safety. Unfortunately, many believe that remand is being used far more often than necessary. When the use of remand is necessary in certain circumstances, remand levels in Scotland are high. Often, remanding is counterproductive and undermines our goals of bettering our society and upholding justice—ambitions that I would hope that all across this chamber share. The Scottish Government has stated in the programme for government 2018-19 that it is committed to ensuring that remand is used only where appropriate. However, practical action needs to be taken to achieve that objective. I would be very interested in the minister's view of how that can be achieved. There is a large difference between the number of those who are being remandied and those who are ending up receiving a sentence, which implies that our goal is not being met. Indeed, it seems that women specifically appear to be suffering more from this practice, and I would also be interested to know why that is the case. A 2012 report by the commission on women offenders notes that only 30 per cent of women remandied in custody go on to receive a custodial sentence. In other words, roughly 70 per cent of women who were remandied were judged innocent or not given a sentence by a justice system. The average remand period for women was roughly 22 days from 2012-2013. The cost to society with this actuality is staggering. That means 22 days where women who may have been largely innocent were in custody away from their family, including possibly children, loved ones, friends, their employment and their day-to-day lives. Being absent from your normal life for over three weeks average can have long lasting impacts that are irreversible. Disruption of family and social relationships, as well as the loss of a job or future income opportunities, can make an innocent person delve into desperation. There is a cost to the person personally and their family. Not only is that a severe disservice to those who are remandied, but it is a severe disservice to ourselves here in Scotland. The cost of prison is high, and therefore the cost of needless remand is also high. As representatives of the people we are charged with being good stewards of our people's money, and the cost of remand, as I say, is high, imprisoning people for numerous weeks does not seem to be a particular effect of use of our limited funds. Furthermore, I understand that the Scottish Government also believes strongly in lowering our incarceration rates. High remand rates are not in accordance with that goal. Remand is, in essence, a shortened sentence in prison. As the Justice Secretary said in the Justice Committee meeting on April 24 this year, it is clear to me that remand is just as disruptive as short prison sentences. It impacts on families and communities, and it adversely affects employment opportunities and stable housing. The very things that evidence show support the sentence from offending. I would have to agree with the Justice Secretary. I have therefore briefly mentioned impacts that it can have on a person, but it can be argued further that viewing remand is a shortened jail sentence. Remand simply does not fall into line with its commitment to move away from short-term jail sentences and replace them with community-based sentences. People who have custodial sentences of 12 months or less re-offend almost twice as often as those who instead receive a community sentence. That means more crime, more victims and more prison costs. Our current use of remand only supports an outdated method of sentencing that clearly leads to more harm than good. I would suggest that it is time to change or revise this practice. Remand can affect access to benefits. The ramifications are huge and may affect every facet of an individual's life. Loss of wages, housing and so on, has already been said. As I come to concluding proportions of my remarks, I want to reiterate my main concerns with the current practice of remandding. Our society depends on a properly functioning justice system in situations where a remand is not necessary but a remand is used. All suffer the consequences. The person being remanded wastes away in jail, waiting for a trial for a potential long-time period of time. That not only makes him an unproductive member of society but also increases his chances of re-offending upon release. Our justice system should seek to turn what some people say are criminals into productive members of society, not the other way around. There is obviously a need for action on the current use of remand in our courts in order to improve our justice system and our country. After today's debate, I would be interested to know what action the Government can take to draw that fact to our court officials to take action to reduce remand. I, for one, hope that we do take that action. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been a great honour to sit through this debate this afternoon. It has been a very enlightening debate and it is a great privilege to be part of it. It has been a few years now since I sat on the justice committee, but I remember thinking when I was asked to go on the justice committee that it was really not appropriate for me to sit on that committee unless I had been into some of the prisons in Scotland and seen for myself the conditions of those prisons and the kind of punishment that we send our prisoners to. It was at that point, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I had the opportunity to visit HMP Perth, HMP Pullmont, HMP Cortenvale and HMP Castle Huntley. Across my visits to those four prisons, I really got a flavour of the kind of regime that prisoners in Scotland operate under. There were not easy visits to do, Presiding Officer, as colleagues across the chamber will know. Anyone who labours under the thought that prison is some sort of easy option, I do not think would come to that conclusion having visited any of our prisons. The discussion of remand this afternoon has been very useful. For me, there are a couple of clear conclusions from this afternoon's debate, but let's not be under any illusion. Remand is a relief, and it is a relief for victims of serious crimes and for public safety when it is used properly. Remand protects the public. That is one of the sheriff's considerations and the high court's considerations on remand. It can be justified by accused previous convictions and sometimes it is the only way that the court can get the accused to appear in court. Remand can be used when sheriffs just cannot get the accused to appear, and often that can be because life is so chaotic. However, it is my understanding, Presiding Officer, that sheriffs want to use alternatives to remand. That, for me, is one of the main conclusions from this afternoon's debate, because there has been a lot of discussion from many speakers, especially from the Government benches, about the alternatives to remand, supervised bail and bail centres. However, my big question for the minister—I hope that she can address that in her summing up—is how widely available are those alternatives. Daniel Johnson said in his contribution this afternoon, and he sat through all the committee evidence on that, that he had heard that sheriffs just weren't convinced that those alternatives are available when the accused is leaving the dock and therefore go for the option of remand. I don't think that bail centres are available right across the country, but I would really ask the minister to address that point in her summing up. However, I think that that leads me to our second conclusion this afternoon, that this backs up the need for data on this, and this was a call very articulately put this afternoon by Liam Kerr on the Conservative benches and by my Labour colleague Daniel Johnson. The need for data, the need for the sheriffs' reasons for making the remand decision is vital. We seem to be having this debate in the absence of all of that data, but I do understand it that Edinburgh Sheriff Court has an actual form for its own court records that asks the sheriff to list the reasons for bail. I would like to see the Government, after this debate and on the back of the committee's recommendations this afternoon, make the pledge that it will roll that out right across the court system in Scotland, so at least we have those reasons and we can come back in a year or eighteen—I'll take you in a minute—or 18 months time and look to the reasons and make more informed suggestions about what alternatives should be. I'll take Stuart Stevenson. I support the general point that the member is making, but given that the sheriff orally states the reasons, I think that it could be done by a court official, and that might be more operationally efficient, and stop the sheriff being delayed in doing some of the things that he or she is doing. Jenny Marra. Mr Stevenson, I'm sure that people more informed than us can work out the whys and wherefores of how that and by whom that information should be recorded. What I'm asking the Government today is that they should make the commitment to get that information recorded and get it back to the convener of the justice committee and bring it back to this chamber. Then we will know why remand continues to be so high. I would also say to the minister in all good faith that the Labour Party would consider this preventative spend. We still have the problem in Scotland 10 plus years on from the Christie commission. Daniel Johnson outlined the cost of imprisonment—£35,000 a year, I think, in excess of that. If we think that we are using remand too much and there are alternatives that are better and would be more efficient for the public purse, I think that the minister should see that investment as an appropriate use of public money. I will do a short canter through some of the contributions this afternoon. Shona Robison detailed a lot of remand alternatives, but, as Daniel Johnson had already pointed out, those sheriffs are not convinced that those alternatives are available. Mary Fee and Ruth Maguire spoke eloquently on the issues of families affected by imprisonment. I know that Ruth Maguire is quite new to this, but all the years of work that my colleague Mary Fee has done to represent families and especially children affected by imprisonment continues to humble me and impress me how committed she is to that. It is so important to have that strong voice here in Parliament. Ruth Maguire made a personal and touching speech. She is right that a trauma-informed nation must break that cycle for children. Prisons are not a place for children to be going, they are not a place for children to be taken out of school and taken to during the day, and we must find alternatives to that. Like Stuart Stevenson, I have sat in Glasgow Sheriff Court and I have seen how quick it is, and I agree with him. I think that it has been an excellent debate this afternoon, but I really hope that the minister will address the data points in her summing up. I call Michelle Ballantyne for around seven minutes, please. I am pleased to have the opportunity to close for the Scottish Conservatives on this important issue. As many others have said today, the justice committee and their class are deserving of our thanks for having to put together this report. I think that their work has been invaluable. I have enjoyed the debate and the debate that the report has created today. It has been very insightful and there have been some really thoughtful contributions from around the chamber. Margaret Mitchell started by elaborating on the committee's work, and what was very clear is that this report is the product of thorough analysis and evidence collected from a broad range of sources. I would like to start by adding the same call that others have made today in calling for stronger data capturing, because information is the key to understanding this issue. Continued ignorance will only lead to a greater churn through the system, and that is a solution that helps nobody. It does not help the prisoners, it does not help society, it does not help sheriffs or their staff who have to deal with enlarged caseload, and it does not help our already stretched prison staff. It certainly does not help the taxpayer, and Jenny Maher is quite right in saying that this is about preventative spend, and we need to allocate money appropriately. Liam Kerr spoke in detail on this issue, giving a clear explanation of why data capture is so important. In commending the report, he highlighted conclusion 66 on page 18. It does bear repeating again, particularly in light of what the minister said in her opening statement, because it states that information is not recorded consistently or in a way that allows for any meaningful analysis of the reason why remand is being used. It then continues by stating that, to make any difference in the numbers, the reason why judges decide to remand people in custody has to be better understood. Without improved knowledge and data, it is difficult to know which interventions or changes should be made to the current system. The minister appeared to suggest in her opening that no further data was required but rather better analysis of what already exists, which then directly appears to contradict the finding of the report. I will be interested in her addressing the issue again, having heard the debate, because we do not want a system that is designed and taken forward on value judgments rather than on robust analysis. Daniel Johnson might agree with my colleague Jenny Marra that looking at the Edinburgh system and whether that simple form could be rolled out across Scotland so that data could be gathered and collated. I have not seen the form myself, but having sat in court quite a lot with my own client base when I headed the drug and alcohol unit, I think that there has got to be a way to simply capture the data. If the Edinburgh form works, then absolutely I would have no issues with that. Daniel Johnson, Liam McArthur and Shona Robison and others talked about the disruption that reman causes to individual lives, particularly women, and the negative impact that that can have on their rehabilitation and their families. I listened to Maurice Corry's contribution with interest, his focus on mental health and the need for services to support individuals to be productive during the reman period. Mr Corry was right to say that reman should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. Oliver Mundell highlighted that there had been a decline of purposeful activity generally in our prisons over the past few years, with nearly 300,000 hours lost in the last year alone and sitting at its lowest level since 2011, combined with a reducing number of vocational qualifications. That is really cause for concern if we are serious about rehabilitation, particularly for those people on remand. Mary Fee and Ruth Maguire's contributions, as Jenny Marr pointed out, were extremely poignant, particularly, I have to say. The effect of people being in prison when they are on remand or, indeed, on a prison sentence on the children is horrific. I have worked with many children who have actually suffered as a result of that. I echo my colleague Liam Kerr's plea that the trial that is being run to provide free transport from the station to the prison is extended. Ruth Maguire was right to remind us that the children of an individual are not guilty and we should not be punishing them. The cost of getting it to the prison to visit people is a punishment to the families. Let's see that being looked at, please. Ruth Maguire. I wonder if she would acknowledge and agree that the impact that this has on children and families is the same whether that is a short sentence or whether it is remand. The damage is the same. To some degree, yes, but the difference between a short sentence and a longer sentence for a child does change in terms of the role model disappearing completely or the relationship that it has with that person. However, yes, that real damage and the impact is definitely there regardless of the length of sentence. David Stewart and Stuart Severson raised some very important issues around health and the risks, if records, are not shared appropriately. Again, I have seen this with young people who have been placed on remand. It calls some serious issues, so I would welcome the minister's comments on this as we go forward and how we are going to ensure that we do not get that breakage in the treatment of prescribed drugs. While those issues may have been touched upon already, there are a couple of points that I would like to address. Our prisons are growing increasingly dangerous. Overcrowding has only increased pressure on an already creaking system. Unnecessarily keeping prisons on remand is only adding to that issue. In 2016-17, there were only five serious prisoner on staff assaults, yet that number has lept to 14 in 2017-18. In regards to minor and no injury staff assaults, those have also increased, jumping from 193 to 283 in the same period. By correctly striking the balance between bail and remand, as my colleagues have noted, and by introducing greater opportunity into our prisons, we can make the service safer for all concerned. Having listened to today's debate, I would utter a note of caution, because I think that we should be careful not to interfere in the independence of the judiciary when it comes to getting it right when considering whether or not to grant bail. It is not Parliament's role to tie judges' hands. Indeed, such meddling does go against the very concept of the separation of powers. Instead, it is up to judges to make individual decisions. Sheris has a lifetime of irreplaceable experience, and we should be making use of that, not hampering them in their work. That is why I would advise against too much debate on whether judges are getting it right. They are applying the law that they are provided with, as is their duty. In closing, I would ask the minister to consider whether the evidence that she has is sufficient to commit money effectively to make a difference to both accused and the victim. Parliament's role is to make good law and then monitor that it is working appropriately. Thank you very much, and I call on Ashton M to wind up for the Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank the committee again for its interest in this matter, as well as everybody across the chamber who has contributed to today's very interesting and also helpful debate. Again, it is clear to see from the discussions that the matter of remand is one that is quite complex and one that spans a number of areas, not just justice, and Daniel Johnson raised that in his opening speech. Can I assure the member that the Government fully grasps the complexity of this matter, and we are looking seriously at this? I am not going to have time to recover all the points that have been raised across the debate this afternoon, because there were so many of them, but I want to address a couple of key points in the time that I have. Bail decisions are for the courts alone. In general, bail must be granted in Scotland unless, with regard to the public interest, there is good reason for refusing. The public interest is defined to include the interests of public safety. Public safety may indicate that a person should be remanded for the duration of the proceedings, even if there is no realistic prospect of a custodial sentence. I am sure that members will accept that that is sometimes the case. While bail decisions are a matter for the courts, we are committed to reducing the unacceptably high rate of imprisonment in Scotland, which remains the second highest in Western Europe. I accept the committee's recommendations that remand is disruptive as short prison sentences. I believe that there was consensus across the chamber on that issue this afternoon. Short-term imprisonment disrupts families and communities and adversely affects employment opportunities and stable housing, the very things that the evidence shows support's assistance from offending. In recent years, the remand population has accounted for approximately 20 per cent of the average daily prison population, and it has fallen by one-fifth since 2008. The period of time that individuals are held on remand does not help to reduce re-offending in the long term, as during that time remand prisoners do not receive any rehabilitation programmes, education or work. Reducing the use of ineffective short-time imprisonment and increasing the use of robust bail options is part of our smarter approach to tackling offending. In the year ahead, we will extend the presumption against short sentences once additional protections in the Domestic Abuse Act are implemented. Unlike remand, bail supervision, which was mentioned by many members this afternoon, does not disrupt families and communities and does not adversely impact on employment opportunities and stable housing. The Scottish Government provides funding for each local authority to provide both bail information and supervision schemes. While all local authorities provide community justice services that are aimed at reducing re-offending and in part will support people at risk of demand, bail supervision and bail support services specifically are provided in at least 23 of the 32 local authorities in answer to Jenny Marra's point earlier. The funding that we are committing, which will be discussed further with COSLA before being finalised, will help to ensure that bail supervision can be accessed from all areas. Many members raised this point about bail supervision and the funding for it, including Liam McArthur, I think, Daniel Johnson raised this as well. Subject to the spending review and discussions with COSLA, we intend to double the capacity for bail supervision services from 2019-20. I hope that that answers the member's point. So, would she acknowledge the point that was made by Tom Halpin yesterday from SACRO, that it is not just the level of funding but the stability of that funding, which is one of the key factors that undermines the services that she is talking about? I do take the member's point, but we are in a one-year funding cycle at the moment. That is the way that the Parliament operates, but I do take the member's point on board. I am afraid that, if I am going to get through the points that have already been raised in the debate, I am going to have to press on, I am afraid. I wanted to address the issues that are made about women, which were raised by a number of members, including Shona Robison and Mary Fee as well. The proportion of the female prison population on remand peaked at 32 per cent in 2008-09, and while the proportion of the population on remand is similar for men and women, once the like for like comparisons are made, particular attention needs to be given to the impact of women on remand. The Government is looking at that and has taken action specific to women on remand, including providing additional funding of £1.5 million per annum for bail support services specifically for women on remand and support for the shine mentoring service for women in the justice system. We will look at what more we can do in this area. I would like to address the points on data now that both you and your colleague Margaret Mitchell and Jenny Marra have raised. Many people raised the point about the data collection, and I have some sympathy with that argument. However, I want to note that the Scottish Court and Tribunal service commented in the written evidence that recording the reason for refusal of bail could be prejudicial to the accused at a future diet. For example, it could result in reference being made in court minutes to a schedule of previous convictions prior to a trial, and the Sheriff's Association made a similar point to that as well. While it may be possible to extract data from papers when an appeal against refusal of bail is lodged, any such extraction and collation would be a manual process that would significantly impact on SCTS resources. There were also three penal policy improvement projects that were running a couple of years ago supporting local efforts to reduce the use of demand. Those pathfinder projects collected data themselves, and they found that the reasons for remanding people and found that their reasons were quite consistent. They mostly related to previous convictions, the nature of the offence or simply that there was no application for bail. The Lord President has observed that noting of reasons in court would impose a very substantial burden on the clerk and may also then require rechecking by the sheriff. On balance, I have listened carefully to what has been said today in the chamber, but I am still not yet convinced that additional recording in court is the most helpful way to impact on the use of remand. I mentioned those opportunities earlier for further analysis of the existing data on remand, which I think is an opportunity that we should look to see if we can extract more information from the data that we do have to help us to inform our work on remand going forward. I want to address now support for families, which was raised in a speech by Ruth Maguire and others. The SPS family strategy puts families and family contact at the heart of supporting prisoners during their time in custody and recognises the positive contribution that that can have on supporting reintegration. The family strategy does not differentiate between convicted or remand prisoners and there are also family hubs in many prisons that hold remand prisoners. In those hubs, families can access information regarding social services and other services for their relatives in prison. I also note that the Scottish Government provides annual funding to each of the prisoner visitor centres. In conclusion, I thank everyone for taking part in the debate this afternoon for their contributions, which will inform our next steps. Our programme for government made a clear commitment on actions to help to reduce remand to make sure that it is only used where it is necessary and where it is appropriate, and we will continue to work with partners to support that. Rona Mackay to wind up on behalf of the Justice Committee and the deputy convener has until the top of the hour until decision time. I am really pleased to be closing this excellent debate on such an important subject. Ensuring that we find a balance between societies need to be protected and the rights of someone charged with an offence is considered for remand rather than bail is a central issue in our criminal justice system. The evidence that we took during our inquiry into remand was filled with personal stories, stories of women and families, of young people, of people struggling with mental health or homelessness or addiction. As the convener stated in our opening speech, during our work, we had the chance to visit Circle and national charities supporting families who face issues related to imprisonment, poverty and addiction. What we heard from them and from their partner organisations is a story of complex problems that lead to imprisonment and that can arise from a period of time on remand. Over and over, we heard the words unpredictable, chaotic addiction, children and health. Our report talks about the numbers being placed on remand, the problems that can cause beyond the criminal justice system, incorporating health, housing, education and more, all of which we have heard in the excellent contributions today. Speaking to Circle and their partners, we heard the voluntary and third sector organisations that support remand prisoners need more predictable, secure funding, and I totally agree with that. We called for that in our report, and I was pleased to see the cabinet secretary recognise the value of the third sector and alternatives to remand and welcome his commitment previously to provide increased financial support for those programmes. The issue of how we fund the voluntary and third sector is also a major focus of our pre-budget scrutiny this year. I am the co-convener, along with Mary Fee, of a cross-party group in Parliament focusing on women's justice. A wide and growing range of stakeholders are involved, and we all have the same belief that we must stop locking women up. Six years ago, Dame Elish Angiolini's report urged a reduction in the number of women behind bars. At that time, there were more than 400 women in jail. There is a slight reduction since then, but it is still far too high. Recent figures showed that 400 women in Scotland were in prison. 75 per cent of women in remand do not go on to be given a custodial sentence. That is simply unacceptable. Women placed in remand can lose contact with their children, causing an ace for them. They may lose their tenancy, facing homelessness unrelease, and we have heard about all that today. Surely we must now realise that remanding women is not working and is extremely damaging. Many women need holistic support for a huge variety of issues, and we must, as a humane society, be in a position to offer that. The committee also heard stories of the many people in prison who have addiction issues. In a Scottish prison service survey last year, around 40 per cent of prisoners reported illegal drug use, and around one-fifth of prisoners were prescribed methadone. Even a short period of remand may remove people from access to the local programmes that they had. That can be used to manage those addictions unless that can be quickly provided for in prisons, and a period in prison may reintroduce addictions that were previously under control. Those were the themes that we heard repeatedly when we visited Circle and were the themes that we have heard through evidence and, of course, they have come up in today's debate. Rather than go on with my speech in limited time, I would rather highlight a few of the stand-out bits from the thoughtful contributions from today's debate. I agree with the convener Margaret Mitchell's opening speech, all the points that she raised. I have to say that I do agree with the convener, with Liam Kerr, with Jenny Marra, that I take what the minister said and will think about it, but I do believe that consistent recorded data is essential for us to get to grips with why so many people have been remanded. One of the things that the minister said was that data capture was not a good idea because it could be used against the person in later convictions or hearings. Would you agree with me that the data does not need to be identifiable because it is about capturing data that allows us to make informed decisions about remand? If that is a concern, it is quite simple to make it unidentifiable and collected accordingly so that it can inform decision-making. I urge members to speak through the chair not to refer to members as you, but to refer to them as members. That may be a way of doing it. I am no expert in court procedure, that is for sure. I definitely think that there is a need for consistent data. Liam Kerr's contribution talked about the impact on families and that remand has to be a last resort and not taken lightly. He also talked about the cost savings that could be made by not remanding so many people. Daniel Johnson's contribution was pretty outstanding, to be honest. He raised the question, which is so pertinent. Is remand making the situation better or worse? He said that prison can compound chaotic living. He said that 80 per cent of women in prison are victims of trauma. I think that that speaks volumes. Liam McArthur said that the number of people being locked up is shameful. He also talked about the disruption to family life. He mentioned that imprisonment is an adverse childhood experience, which we are now aware of, and the need for community alternatives to be viable and certain. He also said that funding must be secure for the third sector. Shona Robison argued for a progressive approach to justice. He said that the number of people in remand is too high. He also talked about the impact on women and the fact that visits are significantly less than men. He is pleased that the revised guidance has been issued by the Scottish Government, and so am I. He also said that victims should also be supported. Maurice Corry said that we need to know the reasons for remand and that the lack of support in community can sometimes be a reason. Fulton MacGregor said that remand prisoners are restricted before they have even been convicted and that we must work together to reduce the need for remand. He also talked about the access to medication being delayed and the effect on mental health, the effect on children and families. Mary Fee, I join with Jenny Marra and congratulate Mary on her amazing commitment to the impact on women and families for such a long time. It is commendable. She said that further understanding must be needed as why women are at greater risk of re-offending. She said that exacerbates health issues and funding must be guaranteed and tailored, and I could not agree more. Ruth Maguire again made fantastic contributions speaking about families and children and her visit to Kilmarnock prison. The cost of the journey, the stigma for families of imprisoned people and praise the organisations working with families. Oliver Mundell said that people locked up have not been found guilty of any crime and that there was a lack of opportunity inside prison. Stuart Stevenson talked about different patterns throughout prisons and throughout the country. He talked about his experience at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Monday, when 59 cases were heard, and he asked how much time could then be given to considering remand.  David Stewart's contribution was amazing. He talked about the health implications on remand. The limited services available and information sharing is a must. It is a post-cote lottery for care. 70 per cent of prisoners have some form of mental health issues, and that has to be addressed. He has asked for a national screening for prisoners on remand at that point. Richard Lyle talked about remand being a last resort and recalled his experience as a GP. He said that women are suffering disproportionately and that the cost of prison is high and needless, and that remand is not effective. I do not know how much time I have got. I will probably bring your remarks to a conclusion now, Ms Mundell. Really, in conclusion, I am not sure that we have been able to give all the answers today, but I hope that the report raises the urgent issues that need to be addressed. It has been a very valuable debate. I thank all those who gave evidence to the committee and to the hard work of the clerks for supporting us, and I hope that we can write a new story for those in our criminal justice system on remand. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 14182, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the bureau sitting out of business programme. Does any member wish to contribute? No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question therefore is that motion 14182 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. Could I ask Graham Day again, on behalf of the bureau, to move motions 14183 on designation of a lead committee, and motions 14185 and 14187 on approval of two SSIs? Thank you very much. We come to the decision time. I propose to ask a single question on the three parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? No one does. The question therefore is that motions 14183, 14185 and 14187, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. There is no division on the committee report itself, so that concludes decision time. We will now move on to members' business in the name of Sandra White on the 75th anniversary of Age Scotland. We will just take a few moments for members and the minister to changes.