³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I wish Collette Stevenson the very best. I am very disappointed that I will not be sitting next to John Swinney on committee for the next two and a half years. Members might be aware that I will no longer be sitting on the Criminal Justice Committee after this committee session closes. By the way, I forewarn you that, if an alarm goes off in the building, it is entirely unrelated to what I am about to say. [Laughter.]

I thank the convener, deputy convener, colleagues, the clerking team, SPICe and everyone who has supported the Criminal Justice Committee over the past two and a bit years for their patience and, on occasion, forbearance, as well as for their support to me personally as I have worked on the committee.

I have worked on a number of committees since I got elected and on a number of bills, and I have to say that this is one of the best functioning, most cohesive, constructive and positive environments to work in. The committees in this Parliament do a tremendous job. It not said often enough how important committee work is in our unicameral existence, and I have always tried to approach that with a constructive and positive outlook, which I hope has been welcomed by members.

I also thank my colleague Russell Findlay, who will do a great job in his work on the Criminal Justice Committee as you approach a very challenging legislative environment over the next two years. I know from the committee’s work programme that you will face tremendous challenges, given the major reforms that are to be made to Scotland’s justice system. I wish the committee all the very best in its work.

With that, I make a plea that the committee, notwithstanding its potential changes in membership, continues in the same vein—that it approaches its work in a positive manner, with the good accord and rapport that we have enjoyed over the past two years. I hope that that continues for members, and I will continue to play my part in the Parliament as best I can in that vein, which I think is sorely lacking in politics these days. I wish the members of the committee the very best over the next two and a half years.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. I have a few questions that follow on from the cabinet secretary’s opening remarks, the first of which is an overarching question on the Scottish Government’s position on the concept of the bill and what it is trying to achieve.

I appreciate that the Scottish Government has questions on technical issues with regard to the role of the Lord Advocate, and perhaps it has further questions on the potential implications of the human rights aspects of granting immunity. However, fundamentally, from a policy point of view, what problem does the Scottish Government have with the concept of immunity from prosecution in return for information, for example, or with the concept of amnesty in general in Northern Ireland? What is its major substantive problem with that?

Thank you.

Obviously, that is at a fairly high level. I imagine that those prosecutions would be quite well publicised and would attract huge media interest, particularly when they relate to well-known online platforms.

The bill creates a specific new offence of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of another person. Although the offence itself is narrow, that could be interpreted quite widely. The idea of encouraging someone to self-harm strays from one territory. We commonly associate online encouragement of self-harm almost with online hate crime, in which the encouragement of self-harm is used perhaps more as an attack or an insult, rather than with something that might be perceived to be of assistance. That means that it could be quite widespread. We are all on social media and we all read those kinds of comments.

What are the implications for policing? We have heard concerns in the past that legislation is sometimes passed without a wide-ranging conversation with, for example, Police Scotland, which ultimately picks up the calls when people phone in to complain or to make allegations. What conversations have you had with cabinet secretary colleagues in other directorates about the resource implications, the scale and volume, or the public awareness raising that might go with this so that we do not suddenly and overnight create the perception of a new offence that the public will respond to?

No problem—thank you.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Do you mean secondary legislation in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster?

Your point was about scrutiny of secondary legislation. Do you mean secondary legislation that is passed here or that is passed at Westminster with relevance to devolved competences?

That sounds very wise. Assuming that this committee would be the lead committee on any such scrutiny, that would be entirely appropriate.

Irrespective of what the committee discusses, the issue will probably come back to the Parliament—I believe that a debate on it is scheduled for next week. Perhaps it would be helpful if the Lord Advocate were to write to the committee or the cabinet secretary on her current position, given that any previous correspondence that is in the public domain will be from before the UK Government’s amendments were tabled. I would be keen to see whether it remains the Lord Advocate’s position that she has a problem with the bill. That might make it easier for the Parliament to make a decision on the LCM. At the moment, we are hearing third-hand information through the Government rather than information directly from the Lord Advocate.

The Scottish Government has been frank and open about its position on the bill—whether or not one agrees is a different matter. For the purpose of whether the committee, or indeed the Parliament, agrees or disagrees with the Government’s position on the legislative consent motion, one thing that has been sorely lacking is communication from any other party, other than the conversations that we have had in evidence sessions with the cabinet secretary. If the committee had been given sight of any correspondence or communication between civil servants, Governments, ministers, the Lord Advocate, the Northern Ireland Office, secretaries of state and so on, that might have been helpful. I am not saying that I do not trust the cabinet secretary’s word on the matter, but what we have heard is very much the opinion of the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government on many of the matters before us, and it would have been helpful if some of that communication had been in the public domain—where it was not breaching any privacy or individual cases. I understand the sensitivities around that. Having sight of such communication may have helped the committee, and it could help members in the chamber next week.