³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I will try to keep this quick, then. I thank the witnesses for the session that we have had.

My first question follows on from the previous conversation. It is clear that a cohort of people are released from custody with no conviction after being on remand, that there are those who have been given a sentence but have been on remand for the duration of that sentence, and that there are those who are coming to the end of their sentence. Different cohorts of people are released.

It has become clear that there is a lack of joined-up co-ordination when many of those people are released. Lots of good work is happening; we have seen that at first hand and spoken to some of the protagonists. However, for a lot of people, the prison door is simply opened and that is it: they are homeless and have no access to funds, food, medication, mental health or addiction support, skills training or employment. Other than putting words on paper, I cannot see what will change as a result of the bill, because it is still unclear to me who owns the problem when a person is released. What are your thoughts on that?

Thank you. I am just waiting for the screen to change. It is hard to see who is waving at me to come in.

The money has to follow. I presume that what happens will have to be backed up by funding.

I should declare an interest as I met the Shine group last Friday. I am really impressed by the great work that it is doing. That is an excellent plug.

Tracey McFall, do you have anything to add?

You do not want to put a label on it, but is it the responsibility of a local authority, the SPS, a Government agency, social work or some other body? Somebody needs to take ownership; we cannot just leave it open to whomever the individual has a relationship with when they are in custody.

Let me pose a hypothetical question: what if a solution were to be found to those barriers, namely the interaction between the role of the Lord Advocate and the role of the independent commission? First, are you aware whether the Lord Advocate has made her views on the matter open to the Northern Ireland Office or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, if so, whether she has had any response and whether the Government has been privy to that correspondence? Has that approach been in any way helpful or constructive in, perhaps, finding a possible solution?

If a solution could be found through whatever means—I am sure that there are a number of means by which that could take place—would that make the bill as a whole more palatable to the Scottish Government? Even if the issue were addressed and further advice given on ECHR matters, would the Government still have a problem with the fundamental premise of the legislation?

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?