Chamber and committees

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?

Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, this might be another question that you cannot answer but, after the visit to the Glasgow sheriff court on Monday, the committee was interested in the profile of remand prisoners and the distinction between summary cases and petition cases. In Glasgow sheriff court on Monday, in summary court, most of the 13 cases that we saw were bail supervision cases. That was the trend for the day. I believe that those figures are available. Do you think that it is important for us to analyse the remand profile to try to understand it? It is still a bit mystifying why, as David Mackie mentioned, the overall remand population is around 29 per cent. It was only one day in Glasgow sheriff court, but, looking at summary justice, the sheriff was very particular about applying that principle of remanding only where there was no other way that the sheriff could go in respect of bail supervision. Will you comment or give us any information on that?

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?

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.

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?