���˿���

I am happy for the minister to respond to the question, but I am keen to keep questions on track. We were asking about the potential transfer of justice social work into the national care service.

Minister, I thank you and your officials for joining us. We will pause to allow you and your officials to leave.

Good morning, and welcome to the 33rd and final meeting in 2022 of the Criminal Justice Committee. There are no apologies this morning. Our final agenda item, under which the committee was due to consider its action plan, will be rescheduled to a future meeting.

Our first agenda item is an oral evidence session on the criminal justice provisions in the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill. Members will recall that, on 23 November, we heard from a panel of witnesses on the possible transfer of justice social work services from local government to the proposed national care service. Today, we will conclude our consideration by hearing from the Scottish Government.

I welcome Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care; Anna Kynaston, deputy director, national care service; and Catriona Dalrymple, deputy director, community justice.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow about 60 minutes for the evidence session. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement, then we will move straight on to questions.

We move to questions, and I will start. Minister, you acknowledged in your opening statement the specific role that justice social work has in our courts, among other settings. With that in mind, you will be aware of the forthcoming Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill, which the committee is beginning to consider. It includes a provision whereby justice social work would have a greater role in providing courts with information to inform decisions on bail. To date, the oral and written evidence that we have taken from witnesses suggests, perhaps not surprisingly, that that would potentially require greater resource for justice social work.

Will you outline your view on what the optimum model for justice social work would be, bearing in mind that we are at a very early stage? Would the best model be for it to remain within local authorities or to move to a care service setting?

Rona Mackay has just outlined part of this, but I remind members that there are two reasons why the Government does not recommend giving consent. First,

“The Government is of the view that the Bill, as currently drafted, is incompatible with the Scottish Government’s views that those who have suffered during the Troubles are able to obtain justice and that those who committed offences during that time are appropriately held to account/punished.”

Secondly,

“the Bill makes novel and unwelcome changes to the functions and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland”.

Those were the two key reasons. Does anyone else want to come in?

We heard from the cabinet secretary on the legislative consent memorandum, in which the Scottish Government recommends that the Scottish Parliament should not consent to the relevant provisions in the bill as set out in the draft motion. Our role today is to consider the content of the memorandum and to decide whether we agree to not consent or otherwise.

At this stage, I want to open things up to members for queries, comments or questions. I will then formally ask the question on the LCM.

That is fine.

Are members content to delegate to me the publication of the report that summarises the outcome of our deliberations on the LCM?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, members—that has been helpful.

I will add a few personal comments. Jamie Greene talked about the correspondence between the Lord Advocate and the secretary of state. The Lord Advocate’s most recent correspondence was on 10 October, when she wrote to the new Northern Ireland secretary and outlined suggestions on the bill. As far as I am aware, the Lord Advocate has not had any response to that. On that note, the bill is nearly complete and through its journey, so I am concerned that nothing has come back from the UK Government in response to the Lord Advocate’s correspondence.

Secondly, I want to point out some comments from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights that the bill runs the risk of being found to be non-compliant with human rights. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission also expressed grave concerns about the bill and its incompatibility with the Good Friday agreement. The cabinet secretary alluded to that in his statement when he joined us a couple of weeks ago.

Finally, I am uncomfortable with the notion that the ICRIR would have a role in Scotland that could impact on people’s access to justice, whatever that might be. I am also uncomfortable with the notion that the role and function of the Lord Advocate could be affected.

Does the committee agree with the Scottish Government that the Scottish Parliament should not consent to the relevant provisions in the bill as they have been set out in the Scottish Government’s draft motion?

It is probably best to go round the table and let members indicate their position.

For

Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)

Against

Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)

We are at 10 past 11, but I am happy to bring in Katy Clark if things are kept as succinct as possible.