Chamber and committees

I have a quick question to help me understand a point about the case involving the 21-year-old that you mentioned, Joanne. You said that social work finished at 5.30; did that mean that that person was at a disadvantage?

Good morning. Thank you for the evidence so far, which has been really focused and has helped me to understand some key points. It strikes me that the system is not joined up; there is also an issue with resources.

Last year, the committee questioned the remand figures—those are of concern to the committee, and we raised that with ministers. The response was that the bill would go some way to reducing the remand population. I am sure that you what you are saying is correct, but—perhaps this is not clear in the bill—I always understood that to be what we are attempting to do.

You and others have raised a number of issues in which clarity is needed, including around what a public safety test is. We need to get into the detail of that. One of the issues that came up when we visited a court on Monday was whether there would be a public safety test for theft or housebreaking cases, so it is really helpful to hear your comments.

I have a couple of questions for you, Joanne. You mentioned 12-month sentencing, young people and the approach of the Crown. In addition, Fred said that the Crown no longer seems to have discretion. Does the centralised marking system have anything to do with that? I have had concerns about the system because marking is no longer done locally—as you know, it can end up anywhere. There is a real disconnect, with fiscals marking cases from, for example, Glasgow, which I represent, but who do not know the area. I wondered whether you thought that that might be one of the reasons for the decisions that are being made.

The committee noted that, in one case, where the witness had failed to appear on several occasions, the sheriff asked the Crown whether the witness had been prepared for the trial in the first place, which was obviously a determining factor in the sheriff's mind. I think that the fiscal said, “Well, there are no notes here to tell me one way or the other”. They only have the notes that are in front them. That is helpful to know.

Thank you. Stuart, do you want to add anything?

Thank you. Maybe you do not know the answer to this, but my understanding is that fiscals have an individual commission when they are appointed, which is meant to give them discretion, as a fiscal, on behalf of the Lord Advocate. Is that your understanding?

I was thinking more about looking at the profile of remand prisoners. What would it look like today for categories of offences? What would be the balance between petition cases and summary cases? I imagine that there are more petition cases. What would the balance be between High Court cases and crimes of theft or dishonesty? Are you aware of whether that information is available?

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.

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.

I agree with what has been said. There are two matters to consider. First, there is the substance of the bill itself, which does not seem to have widespread support even in Northern Ireland. I checked that after the last committee meeting. That gives me cause for concern that the subject matter is not really settled—that there is not really a consensus on it. Therefore, the undermining of the powers of this Parliament cannot really be justified, given that there is not a consensus on the essence of the bill among those who have an interest in it and who would be affected by it.

Having argued strongly for devolution even before I got here, I have always been strongly protective of the Parliament’s powers. If we were to hand over those powers for those purposes, I would want to be absolutely sure that we were doing that for reasons that I felt were correct and justified. In this case, I do not feel that way, so I will support the Government’s recommendation that we do not support the LCM.

Sorry.