Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not have any specific questions that have not already been addressed by the cabinet secretary. I have a thought, rather than a question. It is obviously not ideal to be in a situation where we are looking to extend these things but I think that we are all in the same boat there. We are living in difficult times and, as was highlighted at the start, the pandemic is still with us, so, in certain areas where people are living closer together, such as prisons, we still need to err on the side of caution.

Yes—just briefly, convener.

I think that we are all a bit worried about the backlog and what it might mean. I hear that from you, and it was really good to hear at the start that you think that we are on track to have the backlog cleared.

I want to ask about other possible solutions or options that you might have in relation to minor offences. How would cases be identified and prioritised if prosecutions of such offences were no longer taken forward?

Given the time period, how will you take into account changes in people’s circumstances? I will give two examples. You have said that those on remand are a priority, but somebody could have already been on remand for longer than the maximum disposal. We would imagine that that would be taken into account.

There are also more minor situations in communities in which people are not remanded. Would there be scope to look at situations that have almost resolved themselves? We know that it happens quite a lot that the accused and the victim repair the situation themselves. Are such circumstances taken into account when you prioritise cases?

Thank you. You have addressed the issue that I was getting at, which was about the public interest in such cases. If people are spending significant periods of time on remand, their situation can change significantly, particularly in cases involving more minor offences.

There is probably more public interest in continuing with more serious cases, because they can involve psychological and emotional abuse, too. That is not the case in more minor cases. I had in mind the example of youth offending. A kid could have been 16 at the time of an offence. If the case has been going on for a long time, they might be 20, by which time they might have repaired some of the issues with their community. I will not labour the point.

Convener, I have a question as well.

I will let Jamie Greene go first.

I apologise, too, convener. When I indicated earlier, I was not sure whether you thought that I wanted to come in or did not want to come in. It was also my fault.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that, before I became an MSP in 2016, this is exactly the sort of work that I did. I am well aware of the LS/CMI system, having used it several times a week or, more likely, several times a day. I did the initial training in 2012, when the system changed. For what it is worth, I think that it is a very good system. Therefore, I might be able to ask some helpful questions on it.

Cabinet secretary, you have spoken a wee bit about this, but do you accept that it is not just the LS/CMI system that is used and that there are a range of risk assessment tools? Perhaps to put members at ease, I point out that you would not just use the LS/CMI system and say, “Computer says yes.” Has that point been made to you when you have been speaking to people?

I agree that the override function is an important part of the LS/CMI. Do the cabinet secretary and his officials accept that the process for using the override is robust? I do not want anybody to think that it is a case of an individual social worker or other worker applying an override and that is it. In most cases, the matter needs to go through several levels of management. The higher-up management will have a higher level of experience. You will have seen from the forms that are completed that a narrative around the justification for the decision in either direction is needed. Will the cabinet secretary join me in offering that reassurance?

I hope that I have been able to use my experience on the matter to ask the cabinet secretary some questions that would be helpful in reassuring the public. I will now ask my most challenging question.

I return to the issue of training. There have been question marks over people’s confidence in using the override and their professional judgment. That is why it has that level of management experience around it that I mentioned. Having spoken to former colleagues, I am aware that it is likely that people’s confidence has been impacted by what has happened. What steps is the Government likely to take to support people in the profession to bounce back from the situation, feel confident and not end up having more work to do as they try to make risk assessment decisions? Are there funding and resource issues to consider, too? There will be a confidence issue now.

Have all the cases that you identified and have been working through been subject to the professional override that you talked about in the chamber last week? I will come back to that issue. Was the level of risk lowered from what the LS/CMI said in all of those cases? Do you have that information?

Yes.