Chamber and committees

I am sure that you look forward to it. I commend to you watching the video of that evidence session. I went into the meeting with a very open mind, but, having sat through the evidence from Social Work Scotland, COSLA, Unison and members of health and social care partnerships, it was difficult to come away with any sense of positivity about the potential inclusion of community justice in the proposed national care service. A number of criticisms were made about consultation prior to the publication of the bill, which I do not think have been addressed, and a number of valid concerns were raised about the structure of what any such integration might look like, particularly around people, funding, structures, leadership and so on. I appreciate that you have not watched that evidence session, but, without having seen it, I am sure that you will understand what some of those criticisms might be. Will you respond to them?

That is not the Scottish Government.

Good morning. Minister, did you follow the evidence session that the committee held on 23 November?

Before I comment, may I ask what we will be asked to do procedurally? That might affect what I say next, if that makes sense.

I thank members for their contributions. I feel like I am summing up a debate, when I am not, but I have spent some time on this issue.

First, I want to make clear that whatever I say next I do not say on behalf of the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Office or any other UK minister or secretary of state. These are purely my own views and those of the party in the Scottish Parliament. Generally, our party is supportive of the concept of the establishment of the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery. That is not to say that every aspect of the bill is perfect in its current state but, like all bills—as we know only too well—this one will go through an iterative process of scrutiny. The bill will go through the due process in Westminster, which, unlike the Scottish Parliament, also has the benefit of a second chamber.

The clue is in the name. The commission is one of reconciliation and information recovery, and I believe that those are important steps forward in the peace process. The argument that both sides of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland have some opposition to it, by its very nature, demonstrates the necessity of the bill, because truth and closure are key pillars of that process, and if the independent commission—if it is really independent—can continue some of that work, that is important.

It is a five-part bill with 58 clauses, so it is complex and, although there are some controversial elements—particularly on immunity and perhaps even the issue of prisoner release and so on—those issues have been controversial for many years, as part of the peace process.

There are positive aspects on investigation of deaths, fatal accident inquiries and so on. There are many aspects to the bill, and it is very easy to take a simplistic and one-sided view on it. I am open minded to what the bill is trying to achieve, and I feel that it is appropriate to let it make its progress.

On the specifics of what we are being asked to do in the context of legislative consent, I want to comment on three things. The Government gave three reasons for opposition rather than two, I think.

The first is around concerns that were raised by the Lord Advocate, which were duly and quite well stated. When we considered the issue previously, we did not have those concerns on paper. From looking at the correspondence from the Lord Advocate to the secretary of state in the UK Government, it is clear that those concerns are well laid out. Equally, the letter goes on to offer a pathway through the concerns.

The Lord Advocate talked about a memorandum of understanding with each of the United Kingdom prosecution authorities—in relation to referrals, for example. I do not want to put words into the Lord Advocate’s mouth, but it seems that there is a genuine and constructive willingness on her part to find a solution to any conflict that might arise between her independent role as head of public prosecutions in Scotland and interaction with the bill and the powers that Pauline McNeill spoke of.

It is not quite as simple as our handing over powers from Scotland to another jurisdiction, today. It sounds as if there is an on-going conversation to be had, and we should allow that to progress. I note that it is naturally disappointing that we have not had a response to those concerns, and I hope that we will have sight of that when it is made available.

The second point is about compliance with the European convention on human rights and the potential legal implications of the bill for human rights law. I questioned that in the evidence session with the cabinet secretary, and I felt like he gave more of an opinion than anything else. The cabinet secretary was unable to point us in the direction of any specific published reviews or advice on that. It seems to be something of a smokescreen.

The third point—this is probably the one that worries me most—is the political disagreement on the bill. The Government’s primary reason for not offering legislative consent is that it believes that, as drafted, the bill is incompatible with the Scottish Government’s view that those who suffered during the troubles should be able to obtain justice. That sounds more like a difference of opinion on policy rather than one based on legality.

That is, of course, based on the bill as drafted. The bill will go through a process and I expect all parties, including members who represent the Scottish Government’s party in the UK Parliament, to conduct that process properly. We put our trust in them to do that.

For that reason, our view is that we should offer legislative consent, let the bill run its course, and work through the many issues that I have mentioned. Holding it back at this stage would be unhelpful. We therefore do not agree with any recommendation to withhold consent.

I would like to make a small request of the clerks. These LCMs are often waved through quite easily. I presume that the issue will come to a vote in plenary at some point, and it would be nice to know when that is coming up so that we can keep an eye out for it.

I have only one question. If there is a move to release more people on bail, it is inevitable that many of them will come with bail conditions as part of that, as an extra safeguard. What role would you play in that? Would that generate any increased workload for you?

Does anyone on the panel have any comments to make on the use of alcohol tagging devices as part of any condition of either bail or deferred sentencing, or as a condition of early release, as a means of keeping somebody on the straight and narrow, if you like, and reducing the potential for reoffending, given the propensity for alcohol to be a substantial driver of some of the reoffending that we see on release? That is linked to the previous question about Friday release, but it is actually about how we help people.

I will ask Gillian Booth to start, as she might have more day-to-day interaction with people in that scenario.

On the face of it, that sounds like a sensible move. If that was all that the bill did, perhaps it would be less controversial. It does not do only that, though. The other side of the bill is the question that we have not got to the root of: why there is a need to raise the bar—the threshold—of what needs to be taken into account, based on that information?

It is good that there is a route by which to get the information in front of a sheriff’s nose on the day. It sounds like there will be a huge resource implication, for you and for others, off the back of that, which we have talked about at great length. However, that still does not answer the question of why, based on that information, there is a further need to redefine the parameters of how those decisions are made. I am not asking you to comment specifically on that.

I do not feel the need to ask others to comment, unless they want to. Wave at me, if you do. Otherwise, I am happy with that.

That is an interesting response, and you have almost identified the solution in your answer. First, there is a dearth of data. Let us fix that and fix the information that is available to the Crown Office to allow it to make a better decision about whether it is appropriate to oppose bail in the first place. It may take a different view if it has access to more or different types of information—more in real time, as you say.

Secondly, we do not need legislation in order to provide more information to sheriffs and judges at the time of making those decisions; we can do that already. Indeed, there have been some recent changes to the options available to them that may have a positive impact on remand numbers, but we have not really let that bed in or given any substantial time to get qualitative data out of it. Why do we need a bill to further restrict the parameters around how such decisions are made? That is what I want to get to the root of.

Thank you for your forbearance. I want to make this point while we are in public. We have a live panel and have had two other panels. Of the nine witnesses from whom we took evidence today—this is not a criticism, so please do not take it in that way—only one responded to the call for evidence from the Finance and Public Administration Committee when it was analysing the financial memorandum for the bill. That ran from July to September. I appreciate that some organisations may not have been aware of it, because it is often difficult to uncover calls for evidence.

Today, we heard evidence on some of the work that is on-going on the bill’s potential financial and resource effect on the witnesses’ organisations, but we can use only what is in front of us when we prepare our stage 1 report. I ask all nine organisations, with the exception of Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership, which responded to the consultation, to raise with the committee any financial analysis or concerns in writing at the earliest opportunity, so that we can include that in our stage 1 report. Without that information, we cannot comment.