Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

I thank Lesley McAra for her response. She has articulated my thoughts on the matter pretty well. Although social work services were not able to commit to it when the various organisations met us recently, it would make sense for there to be a separate team. Therefore, we are talking about significant resource implications and the committee will need to take that into account when it speaks to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I would be happy to take that forward.

The convener said to be brief. My final question has the same basis but the witnesses might not be able to answer it. In work that the committee is doing separately, there is also discussion about the possibility of criminal justice social work going over to the national care service—I can see by some nods that the witnesses are aware of that. What impact might that have on the discussion that we have just had?

In light of what the convener said, I ask the witnesses to be as brief as possible.

That reflects other evidence that we have heard in that area, because the proposals are at a very early stage.

I am happy for the other witnesses to answer, convener, or to leave it at that, at your discretion.

Similar to the question that I asked Kate Wallace, and to dig a bit more, do you think that part of the provisions around the powers for justice social work should be that, if there is a specific victim or victims—which might not always be the case—the assessment must include a plan for how that person or persons can be kept safe? This is obviously an area that you deal with.