Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks very much.

I will ask Wendy Sinclair-Gieben a more general or philosophical—whichever word we want to use—question. We heard quite a lot of evidence from the previous panel and from the academics who were with us last week. The committee generally shares the view, which, I think, you have hinted at, that, if we invest more in the community—the bail stage is one example of that—there might, ultimately, be a saving in prisons. Nobody expects that to happen overnight. There will need to be a long period while both are funded similarly, although community justice might need more. I will ask the cabinet secretary about that. In time, however, we should see that change. That is the hope and the desire. How would you, in your role, and prison services feel about that? Would you support it, or would you resist that change? Does that make sense?

That is my point. Do the other two panellists generally agree with that? If there is to be more supervised bail, that means that there will be more supervision of it, and sheriffs are expecting that. We could even see that on Monday. If supervised bail is in place, sheriffs are expecting that there will be almost a package of support for the person. That involves regular meetings. I cannot remember exactly what the protocol is, but I think that the social worker needs to meet the individual every second day or something like that. That could vary, but, on top of preparing the bail supervision reports, it is a lot of work. The point that I am trying to make is that, if we are to do it, it will take investment. Do Fred Mackintosh and Stuart Munro have any comments to make on what Joanne McMillan said?

I will try to be brief. I had three questions. I say “had” because my colleague Katy Clark picked up on the question that I was going to ask David Mackie. It was about the Crown’s processes, but we have had responses on that from you and the previous witnesses. Suffice it to say that you have given us some information that we can take into next week’s session. That has been very helpful.

My question to Nancy Loucks is about the input of criminal justice social work, as the bill proposes. You talked a wee bit about that. We heard from a previous panel—not the previous panel today but last week’s panel—that the process could involve the third sector more, including organisations such as yours and others that work in the community. Do you have any idea of how that might happen? Would you welcome approaches from criminal justice social workers to talk to you and seek advice and guidance on how families might be impacted by decisions?

Sorry, I should have clarified that my question was about whether you think that a report is always required in cases in which bail is sought. Whether it is obvious or not that bail supervision might not be suitable, the social worker still requires to meet the person, and we should say that to the court.

Convener, just to clarify, my question is not necessarily a supplementary. I just put my hand up to show that I wanted in. Is that all right? However, my question is in this area and follows on from that.

Can I check first with the clerk whether I can refer people to my entry in the register of members’ interests once, rather than doing so for each panel? If that is the case, I do so now. Thanks very much.

My question is on the discussion that we are having about bail supervision. Joanne McMillan was right to say that we were at the court the other day and saw it in action; it was really good to see. We saw that bail supervision assessments had been done a number of times but, of course, not all the time, although we do not know whether they were required. Does the panel think that the purpose of the bill is to ensure—perhaps going back to the old days, to which two of the panellists referred—that bail supervision assessments are done for every case, whether it is a thorough assessment of somebody with complex needs or simply a one-page assessment saying, “This person does not need bail supervision”? Should an assessment be done for everybody?

I do not disagree with any of that.

I have a couple of quick questions for the witness. This has been the shortest panel session so far—thanks very much for that.

One of the concerns that we heard was about non-appearance at court and the seriousness of that. However, we have to balance that concern against whether individuals should really be remanded just because they have not attended at court, if every other factor suggests that they do not need to be remanded. We heard about that from at least one if not both of our earlier panels today, and we have heard about it previously.

Would the police have some sort of role in the area? I do not think that it would be anything to do with the bill, but there might be police policy to explain the seriousness of attending at court. I know that the police do that anyway, but perhaps it needs to be looked at it in another way, if the bill is to have the effect on whether people receive remand for just not appearing at court.

It is a very broad question. What role do the police have to ensure that people attend at court and do not put themselves in the position where they do not appear five times, or whatever the case may be? It can even be more than that.

I want to ask about resources. I draw the attention of members and witnesses to my entry in the register of members’ interests as, like Fergus, I was previously a criminal justice social worker.

For me, resourcing is the crux of the question. Having previously worked in the area, I know that, as Fergus referred to, there are community justice teams, and sometimes, as I think Lesley McAra said, there are different forms of bail supervision teams in certain local authorities, but that each has a community justice team. There probably would not be anything about this in the legislation, because it would be for local authorities to decide, but I am not really clear about who would take on the work. Would it be bail supervision teams, and would they be enhanced? I think that that would be my personal preference. Alternatively, would the community justice teams have to pick it up and almost mirror what they are doing with people who are convicted and on community payback orders and so on?

I asked Social Work Scotland about that when it was before the committee, and I think that it said that we will just need to see where it goes and what sort of funding will be available. How do you see that working? What additional resources are we talking about? From an academic point of view, is that something that you have thought about?

I am okay with my question being answered in any order.

Good morning to Emma and Kate—it is good to see you both.

Kate, you mentioned the system that would need to be in place around bail if the legislation was going to work. That is probably the crux of the matter. If we are serious about reducing the numbers of those on remand, we do not—as you have both articulated—want to put people more at risk because there are no robust safeguards in place.

Can you tell us what that system might look like with regard to people who are on bail? Which bits of the bill are good in that regard? Do we need to go a bit further?

I will come to you in a wee minute, Emma. Kate, I wonder how we might achieve that. If we go back to the provisions in the bill around input from justice social work—which I know you will be aware of, and it is a big part of the bill—is there anything in there that would allow justice social workers at that stage to bring in agencies such as yours or Scottish Women’s Aid or other organisations that work with victims? Is that the way in? I do not think that that could be made a statutory duty, but could it be developed in practice? Is that how you think what you have just outlined could be achieved?