Seòmar agus comataidhean

I really appreciate that answer. For the record, I did not have a strong view for or against that proposal at the time, and I do not have a strong view now. I simply note that it was quite controversial, although I take your point that things have moved on. Thank you for your answer.

Good morning. I will start by asking Lynne Thornhill about the threshold. I am still trying to get my head round the test, so bear with me; I am not certain that I have understood it correctly. As other members have said, the committee has previously questioned the high levels of remand. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans said that one thing that the Government would do is introduce the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill to change the test and give sheriffs more scope to make decisions that do not involve remanding people in custody. We have received submissions, including from the Crown and the judiciary, who had serious concerns about the initial provisions. The Government therefore adjusted that threshold test. My understanding is that the concern that sheriffs and judges have is that the test has been changed from a public interest test to a public safety test, and the problem is about who defines “public safety”. That is the context for my questions.

I am having difficulty understanding the evidence that I have just heard, because it does not really fit with what I am trying to get my head round. For example, in answer to Jamie Greene, Lynne Thornhill said that there was one piece that is likely to open up, and I did not fully understand that. The provision is designed to give sheriffs some discretion, but their concern is about how they can use that discretion if they do not have a framework for making the decision about what public safety is. Is criminal justice social work’s information, which we have been talking about, integral to a sheriff using that threshold when they are making a judgment about what “public safety” means, as someone has suggested? However, if someone does not have a criminal record in the first place, how can that public safety test be used?

I will ask the others to answer that question in a moment. You have given the example of a repeat offender. Using the public safety test, how will third sector organisations or criminal justice social work help a sheriff or judge to make a better decision on someone? How will that work? What information would you provide for a judge?

Tracey, would you like to add anything?

Do Tracey McFall and Charlie Martin want to come in on that?

I want to ask Gillian a follow-up question. You highlighted that the bail supervision assessment is a potential weakness, because it looks at individual needs and not at wider risks to the public. I was really interested in that, because we have been asked to consider a new test.

Given what you said, does a change need to be made to the way in which things work? Who is best placed to advise the court on the wider risk to public safety? Perhaps that is a Risk Management Authority question. Do you have a view on whose job that would be? Would you have to change the kind of information that you process because of the new test?

I want to come back in on that to try to understand it. In a public safety test, where the question is whether someone poses a risk, are you suggesting that we need to add something into the bill about considering what risk the person poses to the community if they have a level of support? Those are two entirely different questions. That is not what is in the bill currently, although what you are saying makes sense. Of course, that is for repeat offenders, but the same test would apply for a first-time offender, would it not?

That is the bit that I understand. The bit that I wrestle with is that the general principle behind the commission is to get some of the stories and to get to the truth about what happened in Northern Ireland. In that framework, the commission would have the powers to invite people to come forward without prosecution or would, I suppose, indemnify them. That is the principle behind it, and the Lord Advocate would need to trust completely that the commission would do it in the right way and would not upset families or individuals who want justice for their family or for themselves but cannot get it because the commission is trying to do something else—namely, provide indemnity to get to some of what happened.

Finally, given that the issues are historical, are there likely to be many civil claims?

Good morning, cabinet secretary and everyone.

I must confess that I think that the committee was given quite a lot of information to consider on what seems to be a vital issue of principle on a number of matters and the highly sensitive issue around the commission. I want to take my time to decide whether I want to support the Government, which has set out some good reasons, and whether, in principle, what is intended by setting up the commission is perhaps a long-term objective.

Cabinet secretary, you have set out the Lord Advocate’s independence. I have questions around why civil issues, for example, would be included. If we were to support the LCM in the Parliament, criminal and civil jurisdictions would be severely restricted, so I have questions around that.

In a nutshell, is the Scottish Government fundamentally opposed to the principles behind the commission or to the principles within it? That is the bit that I have difficulty grappling with, as well as the human rights issues on which you replied to Jamie Greene. Would that mean, therefore, that the overall purpose of the commission could not really be achieved on any other basis?