Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is helpful. Thank you.

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.