Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, minister. I thank you for your answers so far—I hear clearly what you are saying: this is work in progress, there is consultation and you are treading carefully and working on the basis of recommendations. That is very welcome.

I want to follow up on a question from Katy Clark, which is quite important—in my view, anyway. At some point, we will decide on the general principles of the bill and the framework that you have outlined, with a duty to consult. If we vote in favour of the general principles of the bill, what are we voting for? We are voting simply so that the Government can consult, but ultimately we could be voting for the principle of including the proposed national social work agency in the national care service. That would be my worry about voting for the general principles, although I support the ideas behind the bill.

You said in answer to Jamie Greene that some front-line social workers were in favour of the bill. It is important to note that, and I will certainly be looking at it from that point of view.

You might not be able to answer this question now, but I wonder if you might write to the committee on it. I remember that there was a proposal under the previous Labour Administration that looked a bit similar to the one that we are discussing. I mention that because, at the time, there was uproar from the criminal justice and social work sectors, and the proposal never got off the ground because of the deep opposition to the centralisation that would have been involved.

I acknowledge that there might be a different context for this proposal, because it is in the context of the national care service. However, for accuracy, I would like to know whether there are any similarities. Perhaps your officials could dig into that a wee bit.

The other reason that I ask that question relates to your answer to Katy Clark’s question about where the proposal came from. I would have thought that, although it was a recommendation, your natural instincts might have been not to go with it, because it is controversial, even though you might work it out at the end of the day.

I am not expecting an answer on that now, but I wonder whether you might give me an answer at some point.

Sorry.

I really appreciate that answer. For the record, I did not have a strong view for or against that proposal at the time, and I do not have a strong view now. I simply note that it was quite controversial, although I take your point that things have moved on. Thank you for your answer.

Good morning. I will start by asking Lynne Thornhill about the threshold. I am still trying to get my head round the test, so bear with me; I am not certain that I have understood it correctly. As other members have said, the committee has previously questioned the high levels of remand. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans said that one thing that the Government would do is introduce the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill to change the test and give sheriffs more scope to make decisions that do not involve remanding people in custody. We have received submissions, including from the Crown and the judiciary, who had serious concerns about the initial provisions. The Government therefore adjusted that threshold test. My understanding is that the concern that sheriffs and judges have is that the test has been changed from a public interest test to a public safety test, and the problem is about who defines “public safety”. That is the context for my questions.

I am having difficulty understanding the evidence that I have just heard, because it does not really fit with what I am trying to get my head round. For example, in answer to Jamie Greene, Lynne Thornhill said that there was one piece that is likely to open up, and I did not fully understand that. The provision is designed to give sheriffs some discretion, but their concern is about how they can use that discretion if they do not have a framework for making the decision about what public safety is. Is criminal justice social work’s information, which we have been talking about, integral to a sheriff using that threshold when they are making a judgment about what “public safety” means, as someone has suggested? However, if someone does not have a criminal record in the first place, how can that public safety test be used?

I will ask the others to answer that question in a moment. You have given the example of a repeat offender. Using the public safety test, how will third sector organisations or criminal justice social work help a sheriff or judge to make a better decision on someone? How will that work? What information would you provide for a judge?

Tracey, would you like to add anything?

Do Tracey McFall and Charlie Martin want to come in on that?

I want to ask Gillian a follow-up question. You highlighted that the bail supervision assessment is a potential weakness, because it looks at individual needs and not at wider risks to the public. I was really interested in that, because we have been asked to consider a new test.

Given what you said, does a change need to be made to the way in which things work? Who is best placed to advise the court on the wider risk to public safety? Perhaps that is a Risk Management Authority question. Do you have a view on whose job that would be? Would you have to change the kind of information that you process because of the new test?

I want to come back in on that to try to understand it. In a public safety test, where the question is whether someone poses a risk, are you suggesting that we need to add something into the bill about considering what risk the person poses to the community if they have a level of support? Those are two entirely different questions. That is not what is in the bill currently, although what you are saying makes sense. Of course, that is for repeat offenders, but the same test would apply for a first-time offender, would it not?