Seòmar agus comataidhean

I accept that. I just wanted to get your thoughts on the record.

Thanks. That is really useful.

I thank the panel for giving us their views—you have covered quite a bit. I have a short question about the emergency budget review, which some of you touched on. Do you feel that equalities and human rights concerns have risen specifically out of the emergency budget review? How do you think that the budget might have addressed those concerns? I do not have a particular preference for the order that people answer in—if you want me to choose, I will ask Alison first.

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 do not disagree with any of that.

That was eloquently put, as ever. Thank you.

If the suggestions that have been put forward for inclusion in the bill are realised, will that increase the opportunity for joined-up working before a decision on bail is made?

Thanks for that. From what we saw in Glasgow, it seems that there is a good connection between the courts and the criminal justice social work team there, but we have also heard that that connection might not be as good everywhere across the country. I refer the committee to my entry in the register of members’ interests, because I worked in the area, previously.

My second question is about how the legislation might be implemented. The criminal justice social work teams that produce the criminal justice social work reports on sentencing and the community payback orders when people are sentenced are generally separate—certainly in Glasgow and where I worked previously, in Lanarkshire—from the community justice teams. Bail supervision teams are also a separate entity. I do not know the numbers in Glasgow, but those teams are usually pretty small. In Lanarkshire, there are perhaps two folk.

How do you see that working? It is probably not for this panel of witnesses to answer, but do you see the provisions working through a specific bail supervision team rather than with the rest of the community justice team? People on bail have not yet been sentenced, which is a very important distinction to make. Carrying out bail supervision as well as doing the assessments is a lot of work. If the provisions are to work, where do you see the resources coming from?

That is my point. Do the other two panellists generally agree with that? If there is to be more supervised bail, that means that there will be more supervision of it, and sheriffs are expecting that. We could even see that on Monday. If supervised bail is in place, sheriffs are expecting that there will be almost a package of support for the person. That involves regular meetings. I cannot remember exactly what the protocol is, but I think that the social worker needs to meet the individual every second day or something like that. That could vary, but, on top of preparing the bail supervision reports, it is a lot of work. The point that I am trying to make is that, if we are to do it, it will take investment. Do Fred Mackintosh and Stuart Munro have any comments to make on what Joanne McMillan said?

Thanks very much.

I will ask Wendy Sinclair-Gieben a more general or philosophical—whichever word we want to use—question. We heard quite a lot of evidence from the previous panel and from the academics who were with us last week. The committee generally shares the view, which, I think, you have hinted at, that, if we invest more in the community—the bail stage is one example of that—there might, ultimately, be a saving in prisons. Nobody expects that to happen overnight. There will need to be a long period while both are funded similarly, although community justice might need more. I will ask the cabinet secretary about that. In time, however, we should see that change. That is the hope and the desire. How would you, in your role, and prison services feel about that? Would you support it, or would you resist that change? Does that make sense?