Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a quick question on information for victim support organisations. We have heard concerns about information being shared without the consent of the victim, which falls under section 11 of the bill. Will you talk about that, cabinet secretary?

Yes, that is okay.

I do not think that your commitment in this area could ever be doubted, if you do not mind my saying so. I was on the committee with you when you were its convener, and I know that the subject is one that you have always been very passionate about.

I will move on from that to address participation. I want to touch on a point that Pam Duncan-Glancy made. Last week, Angela O’Hagan told the committee:

“both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government could do a lot more to raise public awareness of Scotland’s finances.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 24 January 2023; c 10.]

That issue has been on my mind and I want to ask about it. It also came out a wee bit in the exchange between you and Pam Duncan-Glancy.

When you are involved in politics, what you think about the state of finances in Scotland or the UK depends on what political party you follow, but many people do not follow politics. They might vote, but they do not follow politicians or political parties on social media and so on, so how can we work together to raise people’s awareness of our finances? You can express figures either way and turn them around—there is always an element of that. How can we all work together, not just in the Scottish Government, but with political parties across the Parliament, to make sure that the public understand the current situation, how that affects the decisions that are made about the budget and how it impacts on people’s lives? Do you understand what I am saying?

We need to work together and almost have a collective responsibility to do that. Sometimes in the chamber, a particular narrative is given—I suppose that we are all guilty of that.

Good morning. It is good to have you here, and I have appreciated your responses so far.

You have covered participation in your opening statement and in your answers to other questions, so there will be quite a lot of overlap here. What is the Government doing to improve capacity around participation? What I mean by that is helping people to understand exactly what impact spending decisions will have on their lives.

I understand what you said about risk assessments, as I have a background in that area. Those risk assessments are generally well recognised as being about the risk of offending. However, given that the purpose of the bill is to tackle the issues of remand, which Jim Kerr has spoken eloquently about and on which we have heard from other witnesses, could the risk assessment also include assessing the risk that remand poses for the person?

It is clear that this provision in the bill is all about giving sheriffs more information to make decisions and more leeway to steer people away from remand. I understand that no risk assessments are carried out specifically on those areas. The risk of future offending is crucial and key, and there would be no change in that respect. What do you think about my suggestion?

I think that a temporary moment of confusion came over the whole committee, so apologies for that.

I want to ask about the provision in the bill that gives powers to social work. I was thinking about what I might ask, given each of your positions in the criminal justice system, and I have decided that I would like to focus on the area that Jim Kerr spoke about. He said something that we have heard before: that most people who are held on remand do not go on to serve a custodial sentence, which is a hugely important point.

Is there any part of the system in which an assessment could be done of the likelihood of a custodial sentence? It is hard to say, because obviously people have to defend themselves and they are innocent until proven guilty, but I think that it could be done through the social work input that the bill provides for, in which social workers provide assessments on bail. As part of that assessment, could there also be an assessment of the likelihood of custody should the person be found guilty, or am I making this too confusing?

I think that Katy Clark wanted to ask a question, convener.

Thank you for that clarity, Mr Donnelly.

I have a question on the provision in section 1, on the input of justice social work. My colleagues Russell Findlay and Audrey Nicoll have already picked up on that issue, so I will keep it brief. You have talked a wee bit about the resource implications of the bill. Presumably, however, if the bill has the desired effect, more sheriffs would take up the option of supervised bail or other disposals.

I know that you cannot speak for the social work department. Nevertheless, do you see how those procedures could be managed if there was more bail supervision? What sort of resources might be required for that?