³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I do not disagree with that. The reality, though, is that, as we heard in the first answer, it is all very well saying that someone has a designated mentor, but if that is not backed up by core services—if there are no houses, no skills and training provision and no mental health services—the relationship is helpful, but it is not enough in itself.

That is probably a question rather than an answer. It is a much wider point, and I hope that you will all be able to input into the solution. I really appreciate those responses.

Convener, can I make a comment?

Good morning, and thank you for joining us remotely.

I will start with a follow-up question to Russell Findlay’s opening question, and I will start with Lynne Thornhill, as she was the last to speak—apologies for that. You said that some people are being remanded who should not be. Will you elaborate on that a little? Are you talking about types of offences or types of people? Are you saying that sheriffs are working with the wrong criteria or that they are working with the right criteria but are making the wrong decisions?

Just for clarification, then, is it the Scottish Government’s position that any form of reconciliation that offered amnesty to individuals, irrespective of their background or circumstance, would be a matter subject to a more fundamental principle of disagreement? In short, is it the Government’s position that such a process should not take place? Moreover, is it the Government’s position, therefore, that the independent commission would not, in that sense, be truly independent?

I am not sure, convener, how much of that correspondence can be made available to the committee either privately or publicly or to the wider public with an interest in it, but that communication would certainly be helpful, as, indeed, would any response from the United Kingdom Government to the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Government, in so far as it is appropriate. I also note that a letter was sent by the Parliament’s Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to the UK Government in, I think, early November, but I am not sure whether that committee has had a response either. Certainly, all of that in the round would help committee members in future.

Cabinet secretary, I am pleased to hear you at least making it sound as if a constructive conversation could be had. However, as you have said, you can judge this only on the merits of what you have in front of you today, and I understand that. Thank you very much for your time.

I have a request for information. I wonder whether the clerks could perhaps assist us in liaising with the SPA or Police Scotland. In today’s press coverage pack, there were a few articles relating to statistical data around exit surveys. The figure that was quoted is that one in five officers have exited the force because of the effect of the job on their health, mental, physical or otherwise. Those articles point towards freedom of information data that had been requested and subsequently published. That sort of information would be helpful to the committee—20 per cent is quite a high statistic—rather than our just taking what we read in the newspapers at face value. The two stories in The Times and The Scotsman are clearly from the same source.

I wonder whether we could get that information, provided that it would not breach individuals’ confidentiality. If the numbers are low, for example, that would be difficult, but I would really like the police to be transparent about their exit surveys and their findings when people leave the force, retire early or leave for health reasons and have not just come to the natural end of their career. That information might help to back up all the points that have been made today about the scale of the problem. One in five officers is a huge number. It should be a concern if the statistics that we read in the newspapers are true. I wonder whether we can ask for more information about that.

Thank you, convener. First of all, I welcome Collette Stevenson back to proceedings. Are you okay, Collette?

We will just call you Popeye. Do not put that in the Official Report.

Thank you for your opening remarks, cabinet secretary, and for bringing the Scottish Government’s position on the bill to our attention. However, I seek clarification on what seem to be two different strands to the Government’s position.

I will start with the latter strand, which is the perceived technical issues, notably around the bill’s compatibility with rights and legislation associated with the ECHR and the interaction with the role of the Lord Advocate in instigating criminal prosecutions in Scotland. The first of those issues is perhaps more political or policy led, and you have gone into some detail about incompatibility with the Scottish Government’s view that those who suffered during the troubles should be able to obtain justice. I will start with that and then move on to some more technical aspects.

First, you have gone to great lengths to explain the perceived view of the bill in Northern Ireland. I have to wonder, though, about the relevance of that to the Scottish Parliament and to the question of the Scottish Government’s consent. After all, this is a bill with five parts and 58 clauses that address a number of wide areas, not just the issue of immunity and prosecutions. Other things in it—for example, the extension of the prisoner release agreement—have been in place for a number of years, and I would just point out that it also establishes and instigates the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery, about which many positive things have been said. Being a big bill, it will perhaps have some controversial aspects, and it addresses a number of issues on which there will be a range of views. Can you start by explaining the policy or political problems that you have with the bill, cabinet secretary, before we talk about the technicalities?

I apologise for having instigated the conversation about the correspondence, but LCMs are important.

The convener’s suggestion is very helpful, and I appreciate it. Whatever our views on the substantive elements of the bill, such as the commission and other aspects, that would give us the opportunity to seek more information.

Specifically, it would be helpful if the Northern Ireland Office was pressed to respond to the DPLR Committee on its feedback. There was a very late submission to members of that committee last night from the Law Society of Scotland, which raised a number of valid points.

The DPLR Committee will also need the opportunity to respond to the Lord Advocate’s letter. We have not seen that letter and do not know its content, but it sounds like it could be a productive and helpful piece of communication. There might be a question as to whether we could get sight of that letter and of any response in due course, or whether we could at least get confirmation about whether any impasse is insurmountable or whether there could be a positive way forward that would alleviate some of the Lord Advocate’s potential concerns. We have not heard directly from the Lord Advocate, and I do not want to put words into her mouth, but, from what the cabinet secretary said, it seems that she has some concerns that have led, in due course, to the Government’s position. The Lord Advocate might wish to write to that committee or to the Government and then to us; I am not that fussed which it is. However, if we could look at all that correspondence, that would help us to make a better-informed decision about whether to agree with the Government’s position.

The passage of the bill through Westminster—I am not sure of the timeline for that—might present an issue, given that recess is nearly upon both Parliaments. We would not want to stand in the way or affect that.

That is certainly a middle ground, if nothing else, given that this is quite a big and, as members have pointed out, sensitive issue. We all want to do the right thing.