 I welcome everyone to the Justice Committee's 24th meeting in 2015. Can I ask everyone to switch off mobile phones and other electronic devices? It's the interview with broadcasting, even when they're switched to silent. There are no apologies. Item 1, Declaration of Interest. First of all, I welcome Margaret MacDougall to the Justice Committee and ask her to declare any interests relevant to the committee. I have no interests to declare that I'm a hero. Good. I thought you could say I have no interests. We'd have challenged that. Roddie Campbell, you wish to make a declaration. Thank you, convener. I can remind the committee of my declaration of interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates. Thank you very much and we want item 2, Decision on Taking Business in Private. I'm asking you to agree to consider item 10 in relation to the Apology Scotland building private. Are you agreed? Thank you. Item 3, we want to consider one affirmative instrument, the draft courts reform, Scotland Act 2014. Consequential provisions number 2, order 2015. I welcome to meeting Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, and Scottish Government officials, Hazel Daggard, civil law and legal system division. Is it Greek or Greg Walker, director of legal services? The Zilegated Powers and Law Reform Committee agreed to make no observations to the Parliament on this instrument. I go straight to questions from members as the minister will have an opportunity to respond to them after this formal debate, which follows this item. This is an evidence session. Questions. There are no questions and we want item 3. We now move to the formal debate and the motion to approve the instrument considered under item 3. Invite the minister to move motion S4M14087 that the Justice Committee recommends that the draft courts reform Scotland Act 2014, consequential provisions number 2, order 2015 be approved. Does any member wish to speak in the debate in the motion? Nobody wishes to speak. I take the minister, you have nothing to add to that silence. The question is that motion S4M14087 be agreed to or we all agreed. Thank you very much. As members are aware, we require to report on all the formative instruments. Are you content to delegate responsibility for me to sign off the report? Thank you very much. Can I just to spend for a minute so that I have officials to swap over now? Item 5 consideration of a further formative instrument, the draft amendments on legal aid and advice and assistance, Ms Alayna's amendment Scotland regulations 2015. Minister, of course, is staying with us for this item, as is Hazel Del Gard. I welcome the meeting of Scottish Government officials Denise Swanson, head of the Access to Justice Unit and Alastair Smith, directorate for legal services. Katrina MacKenzie. Sorry, I did not see you there. It is blinded by the light. Katrina MacKenzie. I do not know what you are. What are you? I have a law and legal system division. Excellent. I could not do without you. There we are. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee agreed to make no observations to the Parliament on the instrument, but members will note that we have received representation of this instrument from some members of the legal profession. I will go straight to questions from members as the minister will have an opportunity to respond to any issues in the formal debate which follows this item. This is an evidence session to remind members questions. John Margaret Roddy. Thank you, minister. Minister, you will be aware of the representations that we have received. You might say that they are unsurprising. People want to be remunerated for a more enhanced rate than the Government is offering. We are told that the rate is the same as it was in 1992. Is that correct? I will ask my colleague Denise Swanson to answer that question. Yes, the rates are the same as the rates have been for nine since 1992. These are the existing rates and fees that are payable for other elements of work, similar work across the delayed system. Can you ask us any calculation that has been made on what that represents in real-cut terms? Clearly, with inflation, one thing and another, that is a significant erosion of what might be seen as terms and additions of a profession. I am not aware of any calculation. I will defer to colleagues in a second if that is okay with Mr Finnie, but I am sure that we are all aware of the difficulties that we face in managing public finances. If we were in a position to be able to afford to spend more, that would be something that we would take into consideration, but we are under real pressure, as I am sure that the member is aware of. I will ask Denise Swanson again to check whether there has been any particular calculation done of the real-term reduction in fees. No, it is not a calculation that we have done. The term access to justice is used a lot by the Scottish Government and we would all commend that, and I will commend any briefing that gives an example of Inverness or the Highlands in it. You may be aware of that example, and the example is that, for example, where a person in Inverness is unfairly convicted, he or she is unlikely to be able to find an Inverness-based solicitor willing to travel to Edinburgh to conduct a 30-minute summary appeal hearing for remuneration of £27.40 in limited travel fees, and you would probably have to allow an eight-hour travel period for that, three and a half hours, and a bit of latitude. Of course, that does not take in portraits, don't we, Kirkwall, Lerwick, Elgin, Ftwylliam, Oban, Cambleton, which all have more complex and many-occasion communication links with the nation's capital? That is not equal access to justice, surely. I would just address me. Certainly, this issue is clearly important to the convener's constituents, all members who have rural interests, to ensure that their clients are presented to local solicitors are entitled to be represented at the sheriff appeal court and to have their quality of arms also addressed as well. That is something that I know the committee will be interested in. What I would say is that, as my understanding, the travel arrangements are not significantly different under the proposed regulations as the current set-up. For example, cases will already be heard in Edinburgh, perhaps in the high court session, in terms of civil cases as well. They will have a situation already arising where solicitors would have to face a choice as to whether to travel to Edinburgh themselves to represent their clients or, as they often do, as I understand, appoint an agent, another local solicitor in Edinburgh to represent their client for that half-an-hour hearing in Edinburgh. My understanding is that the travel arrangements, the £27 figure that Mr Finlay has quoted, is not an accurate representation of the compensation for travel that would be available to solicitors. That was intended in relation to the fee plus limited travel. The figures that we are aware of and we have tried to summarise in terms of the Scottish legal aid board have provided a detailed breakdown of a case based on a Glasgow solicitor attending. I appreciate that it is not an Inverness solicitor, but a Glasgow solicitor attending the chef of appeal court in Edinburgh, a detailed breakdown that the fees are calculated on a detailed fees basis and the proposed regulations. The figure of £27 does not represent the totality of the fees that the solicitor would be entitled to represent their client at a case at the chef of appeal court. There are specific fees for producing letters, for producing and supporting documents to the court. Therefore, it is comparing apples and pears to some degree that Mr Finlay is relying on. There is a comparator and their fellow professionals are paid at a different rate. Can I ask Mr Finlay just to clarify the point, sir? The point is that solicitor advocates are being treated differently to advocates. Yes, indeed. Solicitor advocates are entitled under current legislation to a higher rate of support when they are appearing in the court session or the high court on behalf of the client. That is the chef of appeal court. Solicitor advocates would not, under the current regulations, be entitled to the same rate as counsel if they were sanctioned by the Scottish legal aid board. That is something that we are prepared to look at and review over the next six months to see what impact it has on solicitor advocates' business. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is nothing to prevent a solicitor advocate, as has been implied, in one phrase in the Law Society's letter, which was sent to me in a belief copy to the committee, to exclude solicitor advocates for represented clients. That is not accurate. Solicitor advocates may decide on their own part that they are getting insufficient fee, and therefore that is a commercial decision for them as to whether they represent a client. I appreciate that issue. We want to review over the next six months to what extent this impacts on business of solicitor advocates and, obviously, access to justice and the choice of who represents you in that chef appeal court. It is obviously important for the client. The financial restraints are acknowledged, but you are right. This is an opening shot. This is a new occasion. Surely we want to get it right straight away, not review. I think that the important point that I would focus on in relation to this is the degree to which the client who is needing representation in the chef appeal court is receiving a quality of arms in relation to the case. The Scottish legal aid board are putting in place a policy of flexibility recognised the novel nature of the new arrangements, the jurisdictional change, and they will ensure that they look sympathetically on any applications for sanction for counsel from those who are defending themselves in the appeal court in due course. Therefore, we would hope to be in a situation where, if there is an advocate deput representing the Crown, that those who are making appeal would be equally represented through sanction of counsel through the Scottish legal aid board. There is a particular gap. I appreciate the sense of position of solicited advocates and the fact that they may face some disadvantage based on the current fees that they currently get when they appear at a higher level. We are doing our best to ensure that we have regulations in place to allow the chef appeal court to be up and running for the 22nd of September, as was the will of the Scottish Parliament when it passed the act. Our regulations are best fit forward at this point in time with a view to having a review of the arrangements and their impact in due course and will reflect on any particular damage that is done to the business of solicited advocates, but the important thing is to protect the interests of the client. Can I just say something else? I have a queue. I have a fierce appetite. I will let Margaret Mitchell and follow by Roddy Carmel and Elaine Murray. You will appreciate that this has come to us very late in the day, minister, but the point that seems to be being made, and it is a valid one, is that the Scottish civil courts review and the Scottish Parliament's proceedings in relation to the courts reform act Scotland act should be considered in that there was no indication that it was intended to solicit advocates where to be placed in a disadvantageous position compared to members of the faculty of advocates or that leaders should be restricted to instructing members of the bar. Also, on the contrary, the act contains a section which sets out the circumstances in which the sheriff or the sheriff of appeal court consangium employment of council, including solicitor advocates. The point is also made that allowing solicitor advocates to be treated at council in criminal cases in the sheriff court would be entirely cost-neutral to SLAM, but what is not neutral is the fear that the society of solicitor advocates have in opposing the fee regulation that this is unrealistic and would have a significant impact upon the access to justice and the administration of justice and the choice of representation going back to John Finnie's point, it is essential that we get this right now and if there is some dubiety about it then I think that we should delay it. I may just add, and this is my last point, convener, that solicitors also contend that to provide advocacy in the sheriff appeal court the payment structures for preparation and conduct of an appeal under these regulations are wholly inadequate. It is not a good way to be beginning new court reforms. I recognise the arguments that Margaret Mitchell makes. These are similar points that have been made to us by the law society and by others. I would just point out a couple of things. Firstly, the Scottish legal aid board estimates that an appeal in conviction and sentence is a Glasgow solicitor. I appreciate that it does not address the Inverness point that Mr Finnie has raised. Cudarn fees and outlays of anything from £400 to £600 and more depending on the time spent preparing, travelling, waiting and conducting the appeal. If representing a client from the original defence of case to appeal at sheriff appeal court, a solicitor could easily be paid more than £900 per client. Solicitors are paid in the round for criminal legal aid work of which summary appeal certificates represent less than 1 per cent of criminal legal aid expenditure. Just 1 per cent. Summary appeals against sentence have averaged around 660 per year and against conviction around 160 per year over the last two years compared to 86,191 grants of legal aid and assistance by way of representation or ABWAR for summary criminal work in 2013-14. That puts it in perspective how small a proportion of cases we are talking about here. In terms of choice of representative or sanction for counsels granted, solicitor advocates will be able to access substantial detailed solicitor's fees for the preparation and conduct of summary criminal appeals. Unlike counsel, they can provide representation as solicitors in the lower courts without prior sanction. We have already begun a much wider discussion with both the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates and the Society of Solicitor Advocates clearly will be important to solicitor advocates who are treated and paid in comparison to counsel. I give the committee assurance that we will look closely at the impact of the regulations on solicitor advocates, but I make the point that we are talking about a very small proportion of cases. We are also talking about I challenged the assertion that those fees are untenable if we are talking about £400 to £600 or indeed up to £900 if a defence takes the original defence of a case through to appeal at Shereff Court. Those are reasonably substantial figures and in terms of the hourly rate for appearance at the Shereff appeal court we are talking about £54.80 per hour which compares very favourably to the minimum wage. I would just put that point to the committee. I don't know if those in the law professionally... I appreciate the skills of the legal... I used to do myself. I appreciate that comment. I appreciate, convener, that the skills are higher I think rather than the other way. Indeed, we all want to see it higher. Indeed, a living wage. I make the point that the valuable skills that solicitors are attributed to solicitors are well paid in the courts. I appreciate that private fees that solicitors may be more generous than the fees paid by legal aid but they are nonetheless reasonable rates of pay for the work that's involved. I'll leave that with you. Rodi Campbell Thank you, convener. Good morning, Minister. For fairly obvious personal reasons, I don't want to get involved in a debate about whether these regulations discriminate in the present time against solicitor advocates but I am obviously grateful to, for your comments that a dialogue about these issues will take place. I'm conscious there was one point in the President of the Law Society's letter from Thursday where she discussed other options leading to the savings of £260,000. Perhaps you would comment on that. Secondly, I'm also rather concerned about the speed at which things are happening. It would appear that you had a meeting with the Law Society last Thursday and obviously this letter is on Friday. I was wondering whether there was any mileage at all in continuing that dialogue for the present time. My understanding is that we don't require as a committee to report to Parliament until the 20th. Is there any mileage in discussions or shall we just bite the bullet today? I'd be certainly grateful for guidance from the committee. Clearly we're here to try and give you as much detail as we can on the facts and figures. I appreciate there may be some concern about the lack of clarity about the numbers and clearly the engagement I just had with Margaret Mitchell was trying to explain that we feel the figures that have been presented or perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of members as to the rates of pay that will be applicable here. A discussion that I had last week with the Law Society was helpful. It would be fair to say that the Law Society hadn't quite appreciated some of the steps that we were trying to take up to that point to address some of their principal concerns, such as the flexibility in terms of sanction for council, which we explained to Law Society last week. We had a discussion about the similar issue about how the changes between the previous regulations and the proposed regulations I'd be grateful for guidance from the committee as to whether they feel they have sufficient information. I would point out, though, that if the regulations were not to be moved by 22 September, solicitors would have been in a considerably worse position than if they were implemented by 22 September and I certainly reiterate my commitment that we will review the detail of the impact of those measures particularly on solicitor advocates but also other legal practices to see if there are any challenges in terms of access to justice along the lines that Mr Finlay has outlined or if, indeed, there are any concerns about particular disadvantages that places on solicitor advocates versus advocates. I'd be grateful for a feel from the committee but it's certainly an option that we should be able to secure a slot at a subsequent committee meeting. Will you allow another week for a dialogue on this issue before moving to the vote convener if that were possible on the timetable? Would that be something that the Government could do? I want to hear from other members first. I think that's a fair consideration. I want to hear from Elaine Muddy on how she feels about Alison. Minister, you made reference to a suggestion by the Scottish Legal Aid Board that the fee paid to a solicitor would be around £400 to £500. However, in the Law Society's letter to you of Thursday we state that we find it inconceivable that the rates provided in the regulations that the fee to the solicitor would amount to that suggested by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The bill seems to be a significant amount of disagreement and they are pointing out that under the current arrangements if it went to the High Court the rate for an hour's healing would be £292. Although £54.80 is considerably more than any of us per hour, that is a significant reduction in fees for and presumably that the solicitor or solicitor advocate would have done a considerable amount of additional work on top of the hour where it is actually in court. The Law Society reckons that the majority of appeal hearings would last no longer than an hour to this figure of £400 to £500 would appear to be a bit of a red herring. As I would agree with Roddie Campbell that probably we need a bit additional time to look into some of these figures so that we have a bit more clarity about what the actual remuneration will be after regulations go forward. I certainly recognise the concern that Elaine Murray has fairly set out about the drop in apparent fee rates and I don't want to make light of that issue. I suppose it's the nature in which the fees are calculated is different between the previous regime and the one that is proposed and that we are moving to a situation where perhaps there may have been more of a lump sum element to the previous arrangement which was assuming that preparation was included within that fee whereas we are now moving to a situation where we are specifying more detailed breakdown of individual items. I just wanted to check, convener, if I may that the committee has received an example based upon the sheriff appeal court. For example, I referred to earlier that the court is described as a kind of expense incurred by X, Y to the Scottish League of Aid Board. From your office? From the Scottish League of Aid Board, I believe it was a submission. Scottish League of Aid Board? We are all looking a bit. The answer is no. That would be helpful to be able to see this, convener. In terms of Mr Campbell's question earlier, it may be something that would be worth considering between now and the decision. I would like to outline just some example of how the fee is broken down. I will not go through the whole list. Can I just slow you down a minute, minister? I get the feeling that what we really require you asked first before we go in. Do you feel, Alison, as I think some others around the table, that we need to know more, we need more information than to go ahead with item 6 today when there are other questions that the minister may be able to answer and feel that that would be a better way forward? Can I say only if there is a genuine desire to meet with the Lost Society again and to try to explore some of that? Although the minister said that when he met with them last week he hadn't understood some of the things and it was good for them to see it, they still chose to write quite a strong letter of objection after that meeting where they say at the end we ask you to reconsider these regulations as a matter of urgency. So it's not a little bit of a tweak around the fee. I think there's an issue about access to justice. It seems at the moment there's a very real risk that we're being told of. How do you feel, Alison and the others, about we don't have the legal aid letter with so major questions about what the Lost Society is saying? Would the minister be available next week? That I have not checked, convener. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary is also due to appear for committee next week as well. That would be important for us to sort of know now because otherwise we will move on to item 6. Could I ask to adjourn for a couple of minutes to just check so you'd be available next week if the committee is content? We could continue this as the item 6 which would mean that the minister would be debating and answering these points and in the interim we would trust that you would have these meetings and take us a bit further. I'm not sure, convener, that we will get much further with the Lost Society and that they have already access to this information of yet chosen to take a contrary position. I would merely point out, as I said earlier on, that if we do not at some point move these regulations before 22 September solicitors will be in a greatly more disadvantaged position than they are. I hear you minister, but we can deal with this next week and we can take our vote on it next week. It's really up to yourself. With respect, my suggestion would be that we suspend for a couple of minutes and see if you could make yourself available next week when these issues can be properly and thoroughly further addressed in the debate. A short adjournment would be helpful, convener, so I could check. That would be great. Thank you very much. Yes, minister. Is there a Sir Humphrey in the house? Yes. I certainly have just checked that it will mean cancellation of something to do with new psychoactive substances, unfortunately, but if the committee does wish it may to be pure next week then I can. I think that the committee would be very I think that this would be a good way forward for the committee and for yourself, minister, with respect. In which case? Before you conclude, convener, can I just make a point which is important to me? For clarity's sake that the situation in regards to solicitor advocates position is created by the regulations themselves. It has already been set in stone by the creation of the Sheriff's Appeal Court in terms of the existing passage of legislation. So we're not asking the committee to agree to put solicitor advocates in a position that's disadvantageous today. It's merely these are regulations that are required to enable the Sheriff's Appeal Court to get up and running on 22 September. So just to give comfort to the committee they're not being asked to vote on something and create that position. That is already a position which is set in train by previous voter of the committee and indeed Parliament. That's now on the record. Yes, but I don't want to open it all up again. That can all be challenged next week at the debate that we will have fully on it. We can check what's being said on the record by you, minister. And we will endeavour to get a written submission to you before next week. And the letter for legal aid board which we've not seen I'm just stopping right there and that ends that item and we're not moving on to item 6 which will be continued till next week, minister. Thank you very much. I'm moving on to item 7 on the agenda. Consideration of an instrument not subject to any parliamentary procedure. Act of a general criminal procedure rules 1996 amendment number 4 Sheriff's Appeal Court 2015. The purpose of the instrument is to amend the act of a general criminal procedure rules 1996. In consequence of the establishment of the Sheriff's Appeal Court by the Courts Reform Scotland act 2014 the DPLR committee has drawn the Parliament's attention to the instruments as they contain minor drafting errors. Lord President's private office has undertaken to lay amending instruments to correct these errors. Members content to endorse the DPLR committee's comments on these instruments. Yes, thank you very much. I'm just again another suspension of suspending like mad today. Just a couple of minutes to let members get their papers organised for stage 2 of the criminal justice bill and also for the cabinet secretary to come in. Thank you very much. I now move on to item 8, stage 2 proceedings of the criminal justice Scotland bill. I welcome Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary of justice. I also welcome officials who are here to support the minister but are not permitted to participate in stage 2 proceedings. I understand that officials may change over as we progress through the bill and when this happens I'll briefly suspend the meeting. Members should have their copies of the bill, the martial list and groupings amendments for today's consideration. The committee agreed in 1 September to change the order of stage 2 consideration of the bill. We'll begin consideration at part 2 and go no further than part 6 today as I've indicated. We will consider part 1 a later date and we now move straight on to the martial list. We start with the group in corroboration for the consists of amendments 9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 66 and 68. Amendment 9 is the name of Graham Pearson who I know does not intend to move that amendment today. Do I take it no other member wishes to move that amendment? Thank you very much. I therefore move on and call amendment 1 which is in group with amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 66 and 68. I call Margaret Mitchell to move amendment 1 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Margaret, please. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 1 in my name. Section 57 of the bill provides for the abolition of the requirement for corroboration, a provision which triggered a storm of controversy aggravated by the intransigence of the then cabinet secretary for justice and the confused and at times contradictory responses from him to the concerns raised during its scrutiny and the debate which followed. It was frankly a travesty that the concerns raised by various stakeholders including High Court judges and Senators of the College of Justice, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the CPG on survivors of childhood adult sexual abuse and learned academics were consistently misrepresented by the former justice secretary as a polarized argument between the legal profession versus victims. For let's be quite clear, the attempt to trivialise this crucially important debate and to build those, the provision through the Parliament undermined the fundamental right to a fair trial which every individual who comes into contact with Scotland's criminal justice system has a right to expect. As the Lord Gill stated, the rule of corroboration is not some archaic legal relic from antiquity and it is in fact one of the finest features. Others went further pointing out that if corroboration was abolished without any additional safeguards being put in place then it would lead to many more wrongful convictions and create a new category of victims. It is totally unacceptable that the decision of this magnitude was crammed into the miscellaneous provisions of the criminal justice bill and the fully flawed recommendation of the Carlywy commission which failed to consider that rather than just two options being available, namely the retention or abolition of corroboration, there was a third way which would include looking at corroboration within a wider review of the law of evidence. I believe that it will remain a stain on this majority government's tenure in office that when in the face of opposition from all the other parties independent members and their four mentioned stakeholders it then whipped its members into supporting the abolition of corroboration at stage 1 and then later decided that whilst there would be a review under Lord Bonomy retention was not an option in the review's remit and abolition would still go ahead. A move which struck at the democratic competence of this devolved Parliament. So without doubt the new cabinet secretary's announcement earlier this year forling Lord Bonomy's review that a decision to abolish corroboration would be reversed was widely welcomed, not least by the majority of this committee as well as by therefore mentioned stakeholders. Today I am relieved and gratified that the Scottish Government has expressed a willingness to support my amendments 1 to 6 removing the relevant revisions, abolishing corroboration from the face of the bill. A move. You are just number one. Before I take anybody else I take the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 66 in the other amendments in the group. Good morning, I realise that it has not only been quite some time since the Justice Committee last considered this bill but there have been significant developments in the intervening period. It is not appropriate that this stage 2 session starts with the issue that has been the subject of much debate over the past few years the corroboration reforms. When I took up post as cabinet secretary for justice last November I said I would await the outcome of Lord Bonomy's review before reaching any decision on how to proceed. I was very aware at that time of concerns that had been raised by members of this committee that those reforms should proceed in this bill in advance of consideration of what other safeguards may be needed to our system. Equally, as a Government we continue to be concerned of the practical effect this rule can have on victims of crimes committed in private many of whom are some of the most vulnerable citizens in our society. I undertook to listen to views on the reform and take account of Lord Bonomy's recommendations before making any decision which is what I have done. As I said to Parliament on 21 April Lord Bonomy's recommendations are substantial and complex and taking all of them forward will have a major impact on the justice system. Given the timing for this bill's parliamentary consideration and the fact that we have not yet achieved a consensus in favour of this particular reform I took the view that this reform should no longer go forward in this legislation. On that basis I support Margaret Mitchell's amendments to remove those provisions from the bill. Whilst I understand why some may question why the Government had not reached this decision sooner I don't consider rushing to a judgment would have been appropriate without awaiting Lord Bonomy's report. As I've mentioned previously I'm grateful to him and his expert group for the considered and collaborative approach that they undertook for this review. I needed to await their recommendations in order to ascertain whether it would be feasible within this legislation and its timetable to take forward this reform alongside their proposals. As it's turned out that has not been possible but I hope that members understand why the Government considered Lord Bonomy's report to be the most appropriate course of action. I also want to pay tribute to this committee for its detailed scrutiny at stage 1 of this reform amongst the other provisions in the bill. The Government's decision to take forward the safeguards review was very much informed by the further evidence your committee elicited during the stage 1 committee sessions. So whilst this session may bring to an end to corroboration reform in this particular legislation I hope that a platform has been created on which to build future reforms to our evidence and procedures laws in Scotland. As I mentioned when I made my statement in Parliament in April this year, we will start work to consider Lord Bonomy's recommendations. The corroboration reform and any other relevant issues with the aim of creating a balanced and cohesive package of reforms in due course. Throughout the course of the debate on corroboration we have all heard powerful testimony from organisations which represent victims. Now may not be the time for this reform but I am sure none of us are complacent and that this means our system should stay the same forever. I will now move to amendment 66 in my name which proposes moving section 62 to the start of part 6 of the bill. This is a consequential and technical amendment prompted by the removal of all the other provisions in part 2. Section 62 is being moved to a better home in part 6 amongst the provisions found there. Finally, the Government's amendment 68 provides for the deletion of the duty majority provision from the bill. This reform is very much related to corroboration reform as it was intended to provide a further additional safeguard if the corroboration rule was abolished. Lord Bonnymie's review group as you will be aware has recommended that duty research should take place to ensure that decisions about what if any changes to duty size, majority and verdicts may be appropriate are made on an informed basis. I have decided it is appropriate for this recommendation to be taken forward which should provide a very important evidence base for any further changes to duty size and verdicts. The Scottish Government will now consider the exact remit for such research and methodology. In taking forward this work my officials will continue to engage with justice sector partners, organisations and academics on this issue. Lord Bonnymie's reference group specifically recommended research on the effects of duty sizes of 12 and 15 and the not-proven and not-guilty verdicts and the effect of requiring unanimity. I want consideration of the remit to start with these issues and add others as considered necessary. I would hope that such research would commence before the end of this parliamentary session and I will certainly keep this committee informed and therefore consider it is preferable to retain the current duty system until this duty research has been completed. Amendment 68 if passed will mean that Scotland will continue with the present system of a simple majority being required for a guilty verdict. Alongside the duty research we will consider all of Lord Bonnymie's proposed reforms. The corroboration rule and the other relevant reforms holistically and take our time in developing a future package of reforms which I hope can achieve a general consensus. Thank you, cabinet secretary. We have a list of members. Gil, Rodd and Alison. Christian. I intended to come here today and not say too much because I am a reluctant participant in this formal move minister but I am forced to speak. First of all I maybe need to make a a announcement to the board to the committee that I am a former member of rape crisis of 12 years and I want to speak on behalf of people that this decision today will have an impact on. I do not think that people should be crowing too loud today to be quite frank with you because people will definitely be affected by this. I suspect that women in particular and sometimes children were denied or are denied access to justice. They cannot even get past the fiscal because of the lack of corroboration because things happening in private and what happens to them in these circumstances that no one can come forward and stand up for them. But often people who work know when people are lying or not and how it affects them. For me corroboration the sooner it goes the better it will be for people. The idea that people who are treated so badly in the system has no answer for them is wrong. It is one of the in fact I believe it is the only justice system in the world where there is a barrier for people that are raped for instance or seriously sexually assaulted. Therefore I think we should be really silent and not make big statements as to how it affects the legal profession who have been guarding this as if it was something holy when no other due restriction in the world existed. I am hoping minister that at some point very soon that the government is in a position to present something back to this Parliament so that people women and children can get their day in court before their peers and be judged by them rather than the system of corroboration. Thank you. Rod Allison after that please. Thank you convener. Just a few brief points amongst the negativity of Margaret Mitchell's comments I think we ought to pay tribute to the sterling work that Lord Bonomy's reference group has carried out and also to recognise the swithway in which the cabinet secretary responded to that. So I think that's a positive and not a negative. Can I echo the kind of eloquent comments that Gil has made, Gil Passan has made on certain victims. I think there's clearly an access to justice issue which remains and will remain until we can advance this issue further. And finally in relation to jury research this is kind of novel in Scotland we'll wait the findings of that with great interest but I think the current secretary's amendments on that subject are sensible. Allison followed by Christian please. Thank you convener. I mean there's no doubt that the proposal to remove the requirement for corroboration was the most contentious element of this bill. And as it was drafted at the time and as it's still drafted this morning at risk of bringing our legal system I think into disrepute through miscarriages of justice and through wrongful conviction. Lord Bonomy's recommendations have made it very clear that there's no doubt that removing corroboration would have had profound implications for the system. As the cabinet secretary himself has said he proposes substantial and complex changes that are all interrelated. It's worth remembering that Kenny MacAskill, the previous cabinet secretary wanted to press ahead even after he recognised that he needed to ask Lord Bonomy to look at these issues and he asked us to somehow do that and deal with the issues afterwards. Michael Matheson's comments this morning around how substantial and complex the issues are and what a reckless plan that that would have been. I think we need to just reflect that it was only the unprecedented suspension of the bill for 18 months that has allowed us to get to the point where we can address this in a much more measured and sensible way and indeed in the way that the committee themselves recommended in their stage 1 report. That was secured following not least my suggestion that we do suspend that. I'm grateful that we got to the point where we are today. I think that we didn't need to be waiting 18 months to progress some of the other issues that are quite important within this bill and there would have been an easier way forward had it not been for the intransigence of Kenny MacAskill 18 months ago. Question followed by John Finnie. Fairly convener, I just want to put on the recalls first of all that it was a very good debate around the subject of collaboration but I want to make it clear that I've not changed my mind it's not only about collaboration but it's particularly for me the absolute requirement for collaboration which I want to see removed from the justice system and I want it to remove as soon as possible like Gil Paterson my colleague on my right I will I will want it to be really as soon as possible. John Finnie followed by Leane I will be supporting Margaret Mitchell's amendment I don't support many of her comments or the personal comments that have been made this is about process not about individuals as I see it I think this proves that our system works that there is scrutiny and I think that people listen and I think we should reflect positively on that I think there's been a lot of good debate about it I think there's been a lot of ill-informed and intemperate debate and certainly as someone who supports the notion that in so doing I have a disregard for victims I find deeply offensive I have to say thank you Leane? Yes I also will support Margaret Mitchell's amendment I think there were a lot of things said particularly in the stage 1 debate which would have been better not said and I was personally offended by some of the things that were said but that has to be forgiven I suppose because we've made progress and we look to the future I really wanted to welcome what was said about the jury research because that was a point made during the stage 1 consideration that we needed to have some way in doing during research that don't have difficulties with it but I think we welcome that because I think it's not without we need to understand the way in which juries come to decisions to understand how best to address some of the issues around victims of longstanding as you're aware, opposition and concern about the abolition of corroboration not easy to do in the face of my party and I continue to have these reservations about the abolition of corroborations I welcome these amendments of Margaret Mitchell this does not mean I say to Gil Paterson I have not anything I have the same concerns shared by John Finnie for those who are the victims of rape or sexual assault my concern is that it may be that people say they just want their day in court but actually they want their day in court and a conviction and my concern was that if we simply had the credibility of one witness against the accused that witness might be undergoing a more aggressive interrogation than if there were supporting evidence I think that would only be appropriate in the balance and the interests of justice and concern was it might have been counterproductive and of course while we've focused on sexual assaults and rape many many crimes take place with no eye witness because corroboration is not an eye witness it's another piece of evidence a burglary, a house theft the theft of a car an assault these will all not have eye witnesses and again there has to be some corroboration and one cannot in my view punish the need for corroboration for one particular crime sexual assault or rape and separate it from other crimes which may not have the so-called other piece of evidence so I'm afraid for me I still remain convinced that corroboration is one of the proud aspects of the Scottish criminal justice system and I remind members that the legal profession represent victims as well as they are accused and that throughout the profession there was concern even those who represent victims that abolition of corroboration would be counterproductive as I say I do not crow about this it's been a hard fight for many of us I'm glad we are now in the position of taking slow moves towards considering what progress can be made to bringing to court and to a successful prosecution those who ought to be in front of the court and successfully prosecuted separately I note in the review of the jury system it really was to do with numbers but Elaine Murray has raised the point that I would like to raise with you which is it would have to be discreet obviously but research into why juries come to decisions that they come to because I have had conversations with senior law officers who have advised that they have been in circumstances where a young man has raped a former partner they are convinced this has happened the evidence led it in that direction but the jury did not convict of rape because they did not want that young man on that occasion perhaps never to happen again to be labelled a rapist so there are difficulties with the way juries work through things in their head when they come to decisions and I think we need to look at why it seems sometimes to members of the public and to others that it is obvious that someone should have been convicted but they were not without intervening in the privacy of the jury deliberations that some research into why it is in certain cases people are not convicted I think that would be an additional assistance so I would ask the cabinet secretary in looking at the jury not just to look at numbers and majorities but perhaps why juries come to their decisions when we are looking at cases that is my bit said on that but again I welcome amendments and Margaret unless the cabinet secretary wishes to say something else I will take Margaret to wind up Can you be helpful to pass a comment on the point that you raised specifically around the jury research having announced today that we are going to take forward that jury research based on recommendation that came from Lord Bonamy's report as you have identified I should issue a note of caution and that this process will not be a quick one it will take a considerable period of time in order to carry out this research in a third and detailed way there are obviously some legal issues that we also have to navigate around in order to undertake this more fully my intentions are to have the research commissioned on the terms which have been set out by Lord Bonamy and his recommendations but as that progresses I'm content to look at whether there are further areas that it can then explore into and move into as it's progressing so my mind isn't closed to the possibility of further research into some of the reasoning aspects that go on within the juries in coming to their deliberations but its principal aim at the outset will be that to fulfil the recommendation of the independent review group chaired by Lord Bonamy Margaret, to wind up Can I say at the outset there was no intention in my opening comments to crow but I think it was important to set out the situation that brought us to the point where abolition of co-operation was almost de facto by default and being pushed through the Parliament and if we are to learn from these mistakes then I think it's important so I just reiterate convener that co-operation is far from archaic and I concur with the cabinet secretary that the rule of co-operation will continue to evolve in conjunction with the rule of law of evidence and other measures to ensure access to justice for all and that includes addressing the vexing problem that Paterson has rightly raised about the low conviction rates for rape and sexual assault and in fact I hope it will give him some comfort that another amendment tabled and hopefully will get to today helps or seeks to address that very issue and has the support of these organisations who deal with rape victims I move amendments the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to are we all agreed we're all agreed we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show abstains one that numbers please you should be writing them down 8 for one abstention can you write it down usually I move on to amendment 2 in the name of Margaret Mitchell ready to be aided Margaret move or not move questions amendment 2 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show abstentions 8 in favour one abstention we go straight to amendment 3 and I call it in the name of Margaret Mitchell ready to be aided Margaret move or not move questions amendment 3 be agreed to are we all agreed there'll be a division there's not agreement those in favour please show those against please show abstentions 8 in favour one abstention amendment 4 in the name of Margaret Mitchell ready to be aided Margaret move or not move questions amendment 4 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show abstentions 8 in favour one abstention amendment 5 in the name of Margaret Mitchell ready to be aided Margaret move or not move questions amendment 6 be agreed to are we all agreed we're not agreed there'll be a division those in favour please show those against please show abstentions 8 in favour one abstention amendment 6 in the name of Margaret Mitchell ready to be aided Margaret move or not move questions amendment 6 be agreed to are we all agreed there'll be a division there's disagreement those in favour please show abstentions amendment 6 be agreed to the question is that section 62 be agreed to are we all agreed are we all agreed there's a life out there yes amendment 66 in the name of the cabinet secretary ready to be aided cabinet secretary to move formally amendment 66 be agreed to are we all agreed amendment 64 in the name of Alice McInneson a group in its own Alice is pleased to move and speak to amendment 54 amendment 54 amendment 54 would raise the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12 and this would bring it in line with the age of criminal prosecution at the moment that was raised to 12 in 2010 to reflect the extensive body of evidence that children shouldn't come into contact with the justice system at young age but we're left with an anomaly in regard of criminal responsibility and I think the current law is out of touch with our understanding of children's maturity and their capacity to make decisions and understand the consequences of their actions. Statistics that I have secured through freedom of information legislation from the children's reporter show that approximately 1,500 children between the age of 8 and 11 were referred to the panels on offence grounds during the last four years and almost all of them automatically received a criminal record because they accepted those grounds of referral. The children's hearing system will no doubt subsequently help most of them to address their offending behaviour and they will mature into responsible adults. That's after all what we want to achieve. So surely it is perverse to subsequently further punish and disadvantage them as they move into adult life but branding them criminals. Their childhood convictions will need to be declared for decades or even for the rest of their life. How can that be right? How can we allow a child's opportunities to be curbed so severely at such a young age? Handing 8 or 9-year-olds criminal records is destructive in appropriate response to their offending and I want the law to change. When very young children display troubling or criminal behaviour it is most often because they themselves are deeply troubled or invulnerable and many of those children will have experienced trauma or neglect or have been victims of abuse. They are first and foremost also in need of protection. Scotland has a lower age of criminal responsibility in Europe and trails painfully behind international best practice. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated that 12 is the absolute minimum it expects and Tam Bailey, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, was right to say that criminalising children as young as 8 has long tarnished our international reputation. Members yesterday received a joint letter in support of my amendment from 17 organisations including Barnardo's, Aberlare childcare trust, the Together Alliance for Children's Rights and the Scottish Youth Parliament. The Law Society has also backed my amendment. I hope that all members will join me in ensuring that Scotland upholds the human rights of some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Thank you Elaine, please and follow by Jordan. Thank you, convener. I support Alison McInnes' amendment. I see no reason when we do not prosecute children under 12, we should be dishing out a criminal record to a child of under 12 and I think that Scotland is behind much of the rest of the world in this issue. I know that the letter to the convener I know that from the Scottish Government. I don't actually understand the argument against this amendment. It says that there will be a lot of underlying issues including disclosure of criminal records, forensic samples, police investigatory, powers of victims and community confidence are complex. I cannot understand why by increasing the age of criminal responsibility would create all these difficulties particularly since children under 12 are not being prosecuted anyway. I just don't understand that particular argument. I do appreciate at one time that this was a very controversial issue but I think that the times have moved on and I don't think that this change is as controversial as it was some years ago and it certainly is my intention to support the amendment. John, please. Sorry, we came in the wrong direction. Yes. Thank you, convener. I commend Alison for her speech there and her extensive work in it. I made four notes. The notes were extensive body of evidence and I think that's unequivocal. The term UN and we are out of culture. The Children's Commission are the very person that we charge with looking after the wellbeing and human rights. This to me seems to be a very fundamental broad for my Margaret Mitchell. Alison McKinnon has obviously referred to the 2010 act and said that no one under the age of 12 can be prosecuted. I'm very mindful indeed of a large number of children's organisations who basically suggest that it's unfinished business that the age of criminal responsibility has not been lowered. The question is, is this bill the right method of doing this? How complex is that? We've heard from an academic professor Leverick who thinks the bill is not the right place. There are clearly issues of disclosure and the issues of the need for a consultation. I know that when the previous cabinet secretary gave evidence in January 2014 he said at that time it's not possible to have too many consultations running at the same time. That may or may not have been a good argument but we clearly need a consultation. I would recognise that we do need to get on with this issue. It's not going to go away. I would look to the cabinet secretary for some reassurance as to a timetable for dealing with this issue. Margaret Mitchell, please. I have a huge amount of sympathy behind the intent in this amendment and what Alison McInnes has said. However, I suppose that I'm a little weary of the law of unintended consequences and the fact that we haven't actually taken detailed evidence on this issue. Therefore, I wait with interest to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the right place to properly scrutinise and debate this change. Question. I just wanted to add my sympathy as well for the intention of the amendment but the consultation, I think, will put it in one word. The consultation is what we need. That kind of debate has to happen and it's not to happen only at committee but out there we need to have very good consultation just to make sure that the people of Scotland give their views on what it should be. Margaret Mitchell, I agree with you again. I think that there is a huge sympathy for it but it's a major change in the law and that I would have great concern if we were to proceed with this without testing the evidence that's before us may very well in fact make it even more compelling but that would be a good thing but I think to make a major change in law without consultation by the Government without the committee even testing the evidence in front of us would be a mistake and might indeed as Margaret Mitchell says we have unintended consequences so for that reason though very sympathetic I am Alison I won't be supporting your amendment. Cabinet secretary. Thank you, convener. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is a substantial and complex issue and we do remain open to change being made in this particular area. However, we have serious concerns that amendment 54 does not address the policy, legislative and procedural implications of change or offer the requisite safeguards. There are significant underlying issues on the disclosure of criminal records, use of forensic samples, police investigator powers and the rights of victims. There is rightly particular sensitivity where serious violent or sexual behaviour is involved. We have a strong track record in promoting and safeguarding children's rights. In 2010 this Government changed the law so that no one under the age of 12 can be prosecuted in the criminal court. Children aged between 8 and 11 facing allegations of having committed an offence can be dealt with by the children's hearing system which takes an approach centred on the child's welfare and their best interests. On behalf of the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 we introduced a duty to our ministers to consider ways to give better effect to the UN convention on the rights of children in Scotland. The children's hearing system is internationally recognised for its child-centred needs-based approach to children in conflict with the law. The hearing system can be said to provide the special protection measures referred to in the UNCRC terms. We share concerns about young children potentially having a criminal record as a result of childhood behaviour which can impact on their life chances. I understand that this is one of the main reasons why Alison McInnes has brought forward this particular amendment. Offence grounds established through the children's hearing system have implications in terms of disclosure. The established policy is that serious violent and serious sexual offences should continue to be disclosed while reducing the impact on life chances of low-level offending in childhood. Although such cases are mercifully small in number, serious offending and real harm involving children under the age of 12 does occur. It is vital that police have appropriate powers to establish the facts including when there is no co-operation from parents. It is important that we have a clear way forward in addressing those issues. I can therefore advise a committee that an independent advisory group is being established. The group will address those underlying issues in respect of disclosure of criminal records, forensic samples, police investigatory powers, victims and community confidence taking account of the minimum age of prosecution, the role of the children's hearing system and UNCRC compliance. The group is expected to meet in the next six weeks and will bring forward recommendations for further consultation early in 2016. I believe that this approach provides a way which would allow us to deal with these complex legal issues and to do so in a considered way. Therefore, I ask Alison McInnes to withdraw amendment 54. Thank you very much, Alison, to wind up, please. I have listened to what the cabinet secretary explained today and what he said in his recent letter to the committee. We have been told over and over again that this is under act of consideration. I raised the issue with the former cabinet secretary at stage 1 when we were taking evidence and I was assured that it was yet again under act of consideration, but it seems to be continually put off. The convener said that this was a major change. I do not believe that it is a major change and a major change happened when the age of criminal prosecution was changed. It seems to me that we need to follow through and tidy up the anomaly that leaves children carrying a criminal record, which does not seem at all fair. If there are outstanding issues around disclosure of criminal records for forensic samples and police investigatory powers, I do not believe that you have adequately explained that to yourself or to the committee and I see no reason why those could not be resolved at stage 3 if we agree the principle today. We have an opportunity today to approve the principle once and for all. It seems to me disproportionate to say that we need to kick this into the long grass for another year or so before we can begin to consider it. I do not doubt that the Government could craft an amendment for stage 3 that could allow them to address some of the practicalities via secondary legislation and ensure that the implementation date perhaps of this provision was after those guidelines had been issued. I will press my amendment today and I urge the cabinet secretary and all the members of the committee to seize this opportunity. The question is, amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. Abstentions. So it is me. I keep to what I said before so I am voting against the amendment as I said, so I am casting my vote that way. Thank you. That amendment is disagreed. A call amendment 102 in the name of Michael McMahon. Michael, at last, group with amendments 103 and 104. Michael, please to move amendment 103 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to my amendments. It seems a long while ago but members will recall that I gave evidence during stage 1 of this bill in December 2013 in the context of my own criminal verdicts Scotland bill. That bill does two things that removes the not-proven verdict and increases the size of the majority to require for a jury to return a guilty verdict including in circumstances which a juror has died or where jurors are ill. Those proposals are inextricably linked. I introduced my bill because I have long been convinced that the three verdict system is no longer defensible in a modern system of justice. I believe it causes confusion and uncertainty for both victims of crime and for the accused persons and that the principle that all accused persons are innocent until proved guilty entitles them to a straightforward acquittal in every case where the prosecution case against them cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that this reform is necessary in order to maintain confidence in the judicial system as the not-proven verdict which effectively represents another form of acquittal continues to at best cause confusion if not bring it into complete disrepute. In addition, as the not-proven verdict does not convey the same clarity as a guilty or not guilty verdict it can leave an accused person stigmatised particularly as they have no right to a retrial or appeal in order to clear their name. Should the not-proven verdict be removed there is a small potential for the number of guilty verdicts to increase and so to ensure that these convictions are safe I propose to increase the majority required to convict. As it happens the Scottish Government made a similar proposal in the criminal justice bill but for different reasons. For the government an increased jury majority was a safeguard in the context of its proposal to remove the requirement for corroboration. So now it's no longer pursuing that proposal in this bill and no longer sees a need to increase the jury majority as you already heard from the minister in the debate on the first group. But if I can persuade the committee to remove that verdict I will also try to persuade you to retain section 70 with minor modifications rather than remove it as the Government proposes. My bill was referred to this committee and I look forward to giving evidence to the committee during stage one and I look forward to giving evidence on that. However, given the Government's proposed amendments to the criminal justice bill in relation to the jury majority I felt it was prudent to lodge my own amendments. Today's debate provides a useful opportunity for an initial discussion on these important issues. It's for those reasons that I move amendment 102. Thank you very much. Any other members? I've got some sympathy for Mr McMahon in the sense that I'm kind of thinking in the debate about so many other issues on this bill that his particular argument has not necessarily been addressed as fully as it might have been. But I am kind of conscious that we have kind of jury research which is about to be embarked on. I would have thought if we were going to take a proper view on the question of not proving it otherwise then we should do so after that kind of research is completed. Come back to this issue. Any other member? Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, convener. I'm grateful to Mr McMahon for setting out his reasons for wishing to see a change in the jury system. I know that this is an issue that we are doing for some time now in order to seek legislative change in this area. I'm also aware that there has been support for a change to the verdict system in particular at the abolition of the not proven verdict and I'm not sympathetic to the position taken by Mr McMahon but I think recent developments do have a significant impact on any reform in this particular area. The Government amendment 68 which we have already debated provides for the delusion of the provisions increasing the jury majority that Mr McMahon now seeks to amend. As I mentioned earlier, when moving amendment 68 I'm taking forward Lord Borrome's recommendation that jury research should take place although we are still considering the final remit I do agree with Lord Borrome's recommendation that it should include research on the verdicts available to the jury as well as jury majorities and size. In light of the work, I consider it preferable to retain the current jury system until this research has been completed so that we have a more detailed level of evidence on which to base any future reform. Therefore, at seek to I therefore still intend to move amendment 68 and on that basis I would ask Mr McMahon not to press his amendment. Michael, to wind up please. Thank you, convener. In response to Roger Campbell, my research is welcome. Of course we want to try and establish what people think when they are making these decisions but I would point out to the member that I have consulted on this bill on three occasions and taken on board the issues that have been brought to my attention by those who have responded to that. In all circumstances the link between the size of the jury and the majority making a decision was brought to my attention because of one major factor. In all cases the purpose of the trial is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the case brought by the prosecution has been proved that someone is either with confidence found guilty or not. If we have a situation in which, regardless of the level of severity of the crime that is being tested the changing of the mind of one individual can mean the difference between someone being found guilty or acquitted on either a not-throven or a not-guilty verdict. It hardly suggests that the case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Eight seven would mean that seven people had a serious doubt about the case by the prosecution. That, to me, suggests that we know and the legal profession knows that a simple majority from a jury of 15 is not sustainable. So no amount of kicking it into the long grass will change that principle. The evidence that I've received in the consultations that I've heard before make it absolutely clear that a simple majority is not sustainable. So while I respect Lord Bonomy I also recognise and have a huge regard for the legal profession. I also know that the legal profession has a tendency to look for the long grass wherever it's possible to find it. There are a number of areas in which this bill has already suggested we find the long grass for major issues that need to be addressed. I've consulted on this extensively. There is already a lot of work out there on two concerns around the size of a majority. Using my own analogy that case has already been proved. There is not a not proven around the size of a majority. The case has been established and I think beyond a reasonable doubt we need to move to two third majorities. Having heard the concerns of members on the committee I am minded to ask for permission to withdraw my amendments to debate further if possible with the minister so that we can examine those further with the committee's approval. I would like to withdraw the amendment for further discussion. Members sought to leave to withdraw. You are agreeable. Thank you very much, Michael. We then move on to the questions at section 63 to 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? A call amendment 67 in the name of the cabinet secretary and a group in its own cabinet secretary to move and speak to amendment 67. In line with Sheriff Principal Bowen's recommendations section 66 of the bill as introduced would have required the prosecutor in a case to lodge a written record covering both the crown state of preparation and that of the defence. In evidence given to this committee witnesses from the Crown Office, the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates all expressed a preference for having prosecution and defence lawyers lodging records of their own state of preparation. The previous cabinet secretary for justice undertook to review this matter and this committee welcomed that commitment to do so. Having spoken to those involved in Sheriff Court procedures amendment 67 will remove the obligation upon the prosecution to lodge the written record. Rules about how and when written records are to be lodged will be left to court rules. This is to allow the prosecution and the defence to lodge their respective parts of the joint written record separately. This will mirror current practice in the High Court and is supported by the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and therefore move amendment 67. Thank you very much. Any other members wishing to speak? Margaret, followed by Roddy. I think that you can just say clarification minister. Preparing a joint record suggests that there's been agreement by both parties if they're lodged separately. Is there any room for disagreement? Is there a way creating by having not a joint record being prepared but individually prepared and lodged? The possibility that there could be some disagreement or some point that isn't agreed, I ask this merely for information. Finally, when I take Roddy you've got the question as well. Can I just say, I think it's a sense of proposal to make each party responsible for providing the record and it will enable in my view the court to see if there are problems where the default lies. Cabinet Secretary. The principal change that this makes is that rather than actually being the prosecution responsible for submitting the final submission to the court both from the Procurator Fiscal, the Crown Office and from the defence agents point of view both of them will now be responsible for submitting them. It will then be one document for the court and obviously for the Presiding Sheriff of Judge to then consider but it's to facilitate flexibility to allow the defence to lodge theirs and to allow the prosecutor to lodge theirs but it will then become one particular report which will then be considered by the court. Right, thank you very much. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 66 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 60, 70, 69 be agreed to, are we all agreed? A call amendment 103 in the name of Michael McMahon already debated amendment 102 Michael Mover not moved. Thank you very much. A call amendment 104 in the name of Michael McMahon already debated with amendment 102 Mover not moved and that's fine Michael, that's where amendment's gone. A call amendment 68 in the name of the cabinet secretary already debated in the group in corroboration cabinet secretary to move formally. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 71 be agreed to, are we all agreed? A call amendment 106 in the name of Margaret Mitchell group with amendment 49, Margaret please to move amendment 106 and speak to. Officials for this part. Oh, right. I didn't look up. I need to be shouted at. Thank you. I'll pause for a minute. Thank you very much. Moving on, call amendment 106 in the name of Margaret Mitchell group with amendment 49. Margaret please to move amendment 106 and speak to the other amendment in the group. Thank you, convener. Automatic error in the leaks is a complex issue, a point which was highlighted by the individual evidence which this committee heard from various academics during the scrutiny of the Prisoners' Control of Release Scotland Bill. That significant body of evidence quite correctly identified the issue of cold release as problematic. It is essential to get the issue of release of offenders from prison absolutely right, which is why I will be seeking the committee's permission to withdraw amendment 49 in my name which was tabled last year before the issue of cold release had been raised. It is why I believe that the Scottish Government should be prepared to look again at the provisions within the Prisoner Control of Release Scotland act, which does not deal effectively with prisoner release and which does not end automatic error in release. Instead, it simply changes automatic error in release from the two thirds point to six months. Professor Cyrus Tata got to the nub of the problem when he pointed out at stage 2 that this bill would not end automatic error in release and that it is the short-term end where there is much more to criticise, where people are released nominally on supervision but do not get supervision or the kind of support that they need. The following shortcomings have also been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland regarding the procedure surrounding the bill, namely to propose such a radical change to penal policy as that contained within section 1 of the bill without the prior consideration of a large body of expert evidence and to amend proposal significantly when a bill is already before the Justice Committee is of significant concern. The Law Society went on further to suggest the creation of a body of experts with power to hear evidence from persons with professional knowledge in the field before this bill progresses. I regret that the Cabinet Secretary did not act on the advice of the Law Society and my amendment therefore seeks to establish a dedicated commission to examine the rules governing the release of offenders cross-a-board including both short-term and long-term prisoners which looks at the rules governing release and post-release supervision. I sincerely hope that the Cabinet Secretary will support this in an effort to get automatic early release absolutely right given its outlook and given that expertise of individuals would provide a unican and rivaled insight into our criminal justice system and this particular aspect of sentencing. I move amendment 1.6 in my name. Thank you. Any other members wishing to speak? Have Elaine Lamrodd please. Thank you, convener. I'm pleased that Margaret Mitchell has withdrawn 49 because I was a bit puzzled by it because it seemed to propose going back to a system of cold release. So I'm pleased that that is not in front of us now. With respect to amendment 106 it also seems to be slightly behind what's happening because the prisoner control of release bill has actually been passed and despite my reservations about some aspects of it, it has actually been passed. The other thing, I mean Margaret Mitchell cited Professor Tata but both Professor Tata and Professor McNeill and anything others had said that prisoner release should be considered in a wider context of sentencing policy. So just a commission to review prisoner release I don't think is actually sufficient to tackle the entire issue and I would prefer to see some sort of review in the context of sentencing alternatives to imprisonment and the rest rather than just a commission on prisoner release arrangements. Rodd, please. Very briefly, convener, because Elaine's made most of the points that I was going to make but it seemed a little bit like Margaret was rehearsing the arguments that we had in 2015 bill which we have just passed but one thing that was missing was the cost of this little exercise so I think we should just bear that in mind. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Thank you, convener. Amendment 106 proposes a commission to look at early release for prisoners. The committee will recall that this Government established exactly such a commission when we took office. It was called the McLeish commission that submitted an excellent report back in 2008 and we remain committed to the independent McLeish commission report. The report was clear that long-term reform to the system of early release was needed but such reform could only be taken forward when prisoner numbers were at a long-term, lower, sustainable level. I'm keen to progress policy to help meet the aspirations of the McLeish report on how we use our prisons. That is why I took through the reforms to automatically release that this committee scrutinised earlier this year and I will continue to seek to progress policies that will help achieve fundamental reform to our penal policy. I've listened to Margaret Mitchell's explanation with some interest although a large part of it appears to be based upon rehearsing arguments that were debated during the course of the Prison Act which has since been passed by Parliament. I'm aware that she's also stated that she no longer intends to move amendment 49. However, I think it is worth bearing in mind that if this amendment was passed by the committee it's likely to cost a region of £100 million per year to implement. We estimate that by ending all automatic early release and severely contrailing the possibility of discretionary early release in the manner provided for would result in an increase of the prison population of around 3100. That's approximately a 40 per cent increase in Scotland's already high prison population. If this approach is to be taken and it's Margaret Mitchell's view that this is the approach that should be taken it's unclear to me where the additional £100 million per year is to be found from and where the additional 3100 additional prisoners are to be placed. I believe that those amendments are unnecessary and this is an issue which was considered in great detail by the committee when we were considering the prisoner release bill earlier this year and on that basis I would ask the committee to reject them. Margaret Mitchell Yes, the main point is that the prisoner control release of Scotland has been passed but won't come into effect for a number of years now so there is room to look at this issue again given that it doesn't abolish automatic early release and clearly there are cost implications here which is why the commission should be set up to consider all these aspects in an effort to get automatic early release correct. I'll reflect on what has been said and come back again to withdraw from the committee not withdraw from the committee withdraw your amendments with Freudian slip certainly withdraw amendment 49 Well, you've not got to that you've moved amendment 106 to seek leave to withdraw 106 Yes, I seek withdraw to remove that in present Is the pity agreeable? Correct, thank you very much The question is that section 72 be agreed to or are we all agreed? Amendment 49 the amendment 106 move or not moved You're moving it That's the other way round It's all right We all knew what you meant Margaret Keep taking the pills That's not moved The question is that section 73 to 81 be agreed to or are we all agreed? This is where we really come on stitch because I'm calling my own amendment so you can laugh when I get this wrong Margaret, call amendment 77 in my name group with amendment 8 I'm moving amendment 7 and I'm going to speak to the other amendment This looks complicated but it's not really I'm going to take you back to CADER and the emergency legislation that was brought in under the criminal procedure legal assistance detention appeal Scotland bill if you remember that was brought in and we went through stages 1 2 and 3 all in the same day because there might have been a flood of applications as people have been interviewed without the option of legal representation but on that day we did something else we changed the power of the Scottish criminal cases review commission and we gave extra power to the high court I thought that came in by mistake and I hope it was so what I want to do is to take you back before the criminal procedure came in in 2010 to what the criminal procedure Scotland Act could do then under criminal cases review commission and to the high court and in those days prior to this 2010 emergency legislation if someone brought an application to the criminal SCCRC for review of their case to say that there had been a miscarriage of justice the criminal cases review commission had to look at all the aspects and the new evidence and say is this in the interests of justice this is referred to the high court that was the test and if it was in the interests of justice it was referred to the high court now the high court had to take that referral and hear that case that was then but what happened under this 2010 emergency legislation is we changed that and what happened then was we introduced new tests the test for the criminal cases review commission was that it had to the interests of justice was still there but we brought in a test of finality and certainty which seemed strange to me because it was in the interests of justice that a case is referred why are we talking about finality and certainty for whose finality and certainty are we speaking we're not speaking for the person who brought the application and the SCCRC says we think it's in the interests of justice but it got worse than that in my view because thereafter we also amended it and this is what my amendment 7 deals with amendment 8 is to do with the SCCRC we did worse than that let's say under the new regime that we have you go to the SCCRC we think it's in the interests of justice that this case goes to the high court and we've done the finality and certainty test and we're going to refer it to the high court but you see the high court now is in a position where it can say that's all very well but we don't think we should take this referral in the interests of finality and certainty now it seems to me that where we were before with the independence of the SCCRC away from politicians away from the high court remember the high court to get judges in it they're also in the appeal court you were able to say this case should have another crack of the whip just going to the high court and now what we say is it has to pass a test of finality and certainty here and then even if it does that it goes to the high court and it's now going to pass another test of finality and certainty and can be rejected and I don't think that's right and what I'm simply asking the committee to consider and the cabinet secretary is we go back to where we were before the criminal procedure legal assistance detention of Scotland built on that now I think the reason why the change was they thought there'd be a flood of applications to the appeal criminal cases appeal court following Canada but there weren't and there wasn't because I've got the figures here and if you look at between 1999 and 2014 the commission received a total of 1,844 cases completed the review of 1804 and referred 122 cases it's tough you make an application to the SCCRC and it's not an easy path to getting back to hear your case heard again it's quite tough and many of them are successful because the tests that the SCCRC do are very firm so what I'm asking the committee to do is ask yourself why did we change this we changed this for me for political experience in 2010 we should be back where we were in 1995 leaving the SCCRC to be powerful again to look at the cases and say in the interests of justice this should be referred to the High Court and the High Court cannot refuse to accept that case let's get rid of the test of finality and certainty it's unjust and certainly let's not have the High Court have the right to refuse a referral that's already been through these tests that's my move I've moved seven what else do we speak John Roddy I do support it and commend you on your explanation it is a complicated area but it is about the relationship between the various bodies and the gate keeping role for their own workload that the High Court has at the moment so I would lend my full support to your proposals Roddy I'm just checking I wasn't sure that I quite agreed with your definition of what the bill was but I think that we have moved on from the 2010 act whereas the High Court will no longer have a gate keeping role it still has the possibility of using an interest of justice tests and therefore having an ultimate review of things obviously on one side we have an array of people supporting the great work of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission not least of which the Royal Society and the Faculty of Advocates against that we have comments from the Crown and indeed from Lord Carlaway that to not have this provision would mean that if new evidence came to light there would be powerless to do things I'm conscious also that when we took evidence it came about that it was accepted that only these appeals have an interest of justice tests and normal appeals to the High Court don't so I think the arguments are very finely balanced I would hope and I will oppose Christine's amendment but I would hope that these finely balanced arguments will prove to be largely academic and that the situation which would arise where there had been a reference from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on an interest of justice test which subsequently was overturned because the High Court, the appeal court took the view that in their view the interest of justice should prevent the appeal proceeding I think that would cause public disquiet so whilst I accept the provisions I hope that this debate will prove to be more academic than anything else anyone else cabinet secretary the effects of amendment 7 and 8 would be to make changes to how the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decide whether to refer cases to the appeal court and how the appeal court considers such appeals the commission has an important part to play as one of the checks and balances in our system of justice it has a mix of one-third legal and two-thirds lay members with the experience of the criminal justice system to ensure that they apply a suitable balance of expertise and knowledge to the cases it considers it has special powers to refer cases to the appeal court when the normal appeal process has been exhausted where it considers a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and it is in the interests of justice to have the case considered by the appeal court however the final decision on whether or not a miscarriage of justice has occurred is made by the appeal court that is to ensure that the final decision on the rights on an individual in any case is decided by the independent and impartial tribunal which is required under ECHR given the role of the appeal court in these cases it would be inappropriate to remove the ability of the appeal court to consider the interests of justice when considering appeals based on a commission referral it is key to their role as final decision maker that they consider where the interests of justice lie in each and every case therefore I invite the committee to reject amendment 7 amendment 8 would seek to remove the requirement for the Scottish criminal cases review commission to consider the need for finality and certainty in criminal proceedings when deciding whether to refer a case to the appeal court the commission took the need for finality and certainty into account as part of the interests of justice test when before the criminal procedures act 2010 and when it came into force indeed it is another ECHR concept that requires to be taken account of when cases are dealt with in a justice system it has been noted that the commission does its job very well it allows it to continue to do its job well it's important that the commission continues to take the need of finality and certainty into account when deciding whether or not to refer a case to the appeal court and therefore invite the committee to reject amendment 8 I thank you for your comments cabinet secretary I wholly disagree with them and none of this was said in the debate and the emergency legislation which brought this in in fact there was scant nobody knew I was talking about at the time so I think it came in very quickly without very much consideration and to remind my colleague Campbell here that this is what was inserted the law enforced now under the 1995 act inserted by the 2010 act for the high court says where the commission has referred a case to the high court under section 194b of this act the high court may despite section 194b1 reject the reference if the court consider that it's not in the interest of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed so they're overturning an interest of justice test by the SCCRC then goes on to say in the subsection 2 in determining whether or not it's in the interest of justice that any appeal arising from the reference should proceed the high court must have regard to the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings judge and jury in their own case and gate keeping something that should have been for the SCCRC and as the cabinet secretary said in prior to this amendment going into the 1995 act for the SCCRC we did consider finality and certainty in the interest of justice this was put in as a more heavy handed way I think of simply saying we stop some cases going forward because of CADER and that's my concern we've already had legislate in haste and have unintended consequences I think there are unintended consequences here I know that the criminal cases review commission were very unhappy at the time that they were being hamstrung in this way and therefore I will continue to press my amendment You may, yes The response to some of the points that the convener just made there one of the changes which is contained within the criminal justice bill is based on the recommendation that was made by Lord Calaway and that is to change the provisions that were set out within the 2010 act and the gate keeping point which the convener referred to at the beginning of considering any appeal to push that to the end so now the appeal court are not in a position where they can refuse to accept a referral from the Scottish criminal cases review commission on the basis of an interest of justice until they have actually considered the appeal it will then be considered as a matter on the interest of justice after the appeal has been heard before the court so the gate keeping that the member has made reference to in the 2010 act in this act this bill is actually shifted from the beginning of the process to the end of the process and it is only right that the appeal court has the power to be able to consider matters in the interest of justice at that particular point having heard the matter that doesn't give me any comfort because that could mean that someone could succeed at appeal but the high court sitting in the appeal court could then say however we don't think is in the interest of justice and finality the appeal is granted so I think that's actually worse in some respect so I regret cabinet secretary remain as you know difficult customer this is another B in my bonnet and it's a big bonnet with lots of Bs in it so I continue to press I'm pressing my amendment and I'm going to ask that the questions amendment 7 be agreed to are we all agreed there will be a division those in favour please show five in favour those against please show three and abstentions one that amendment is agreed to I call amendment 8 in my name I'm moving that amendment the question is that amendment 8 be agreed to are we all agreed are we agreed all agreed that amendment is agreed to the question is that section 82 be agreed to are we all agreed I call amendment 107 in the name of Mary Fee group with ah I think we'll do Mary's because she's here yes Mary we'll just go on with yours then we'll stop after your amendments call amendment 107 in the name of Mary Fee group with amendments 108 and 109 Mary please to move amendment 107 and speak the other amendments in the group thank you convener the amendments in my name are designed to ensure that children and young people are provided with the necessary support and protection should their parent or carer be sent to prison evidence shows that children and young people affected by the imprisonment of a parent are particularly at risk of negative outcomes such as stigma, bullying, trauma and mental health problems and this is an issue which has been raised in previous parliaments and has received cross-party support there are an estimated 27,000 children in Scotland with a parent in prison and until we can accurately identify these children and the actual numbers of them affected their particular needs arising from parent imprisonment will not be taken into account by local authorities and other public bodies as part of their children's service planning process in short these children will continue to slip through the net and as such I've also included amendments on the development of a national strategy and reporting requirements on ministers amendment 107 will require Scottish ministers to introduce through subordinate legislation a national strategy on the impact of sentencing on children affected by parental imprisonment a robust system is needed which ensures stronger links between the justice system, statutory services and voluntary organisations working with children and families affected by imprisonment a national strategy is necessary to ensure that a more strategic co-ordinated multi-agency approach is taken by the COPFS the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Police Scotland SPS, local authorities NHS boards and the voluntary sector to identify the wellbeing needs of children affected by parental imprisonment and to provide support and assistance to meet these needs amendment 108 would require Scottish ministers to prepare an annual report on sentencing and the impact of parental imprisonment as I've stated previously the impact of sentencing and parental imprisonment on children is often overlooked these children are often unseen and their wellbeing needs created by the imprisonment of a parent are overlooked or simply not picked up as part of GERFEC an annual report would support the development of a national strategy as well as act as part of the monitoring of the effectiveness of child and family impact assessments which I'll come on to shortly the details to be provided would include the total number of people who have responsibility for a child who have been remanded in custody or sentenced to a term of imprisonment or other detention the total number of people who have responsibility for a child who have been convicted of an offence and sentenced the total number of child and family impacts undertaken where people who have responsibility for a child have been remanded in custody or sentenced to a term of imprisonment and confirmation of the total number of children who following an impact assessment unig ddaeth y cyd-deithaswn splan yn gyfbrodu 113 o'i wrth iddiwedd am y gyfכrwygaith ym Mhysel yng Nghaer tud. Dwy'r ddaeth sy'n f ganska iddyn nhw yng Nghaer a'i ddod yn gweithio'r cyd-deithaswn eich ddaeth yn cynnig, gyda ar y ddangedigiaeth gyda'r cyd-deithaswn sy'n ei ddweud penderfynol, felly dylai'r cyd-deithaswn y cyd-deithaswn eich ddedeithio ar y gwagfyrdd Alex Oliver-Shane will have to provide to Scottish ministers with a wide range of information. Amendment 109 would ensure that a child and family impact assessment is undertaken when a person is remanded in custody to a virus trial or sentencing or when the person is sentenced to a period of imprisonment. A child and family impact assessment is vital to ensure that processes are put in place to assess the likely impact on the wellbeing of the persons children or child in the family. Such assessments would help to identify support and assistance that could help to meet the dependant child's wellbeing needs thatOU form any circumstances and those of the remaining family. Children had a family impact assessment. It has been suggested by Scotland's commission for children and young people since 2007. It was limited by UN committees in 2011, by Barnardo Scotland and the NSPCC in their report on unfair sentence, All Babies Count. It's been endorsed by Together Scotland, SCCYP and Families Outside, and widely supported through the responses to my member's bill consultation, the support for children impact of parental imprisonment Scotland bill. My member's bill consultation highlighted that current procedures and processes are not currently working for those children, as key justice services are not under GERFAC duties, and therefore those children often remain hidden and unsupported. There is currently no robust form of identification or assessment in place for this group. Criminal justice social work reports are not always requested or conducted, and when they are, they do not touch on the child and family, their intention is to establish what the family can do for the offender in terms of reducing re-offending, not what statutory services can do to support the family. The voices of children are lost in the justice system. Child and family impact assessments are needed to trigger to ensure that children affected by parental imprisonment are recognised and supported through GERFAC. I move amendment 107. Thank you very much, Mary. Roddie, sorry, Alison, Margaret and John. My principal objection to those amendments is that the committee has simply not considered those matters in detail. I also think that there may be an overlap with the children and young people Scotland Act 2014. In opposition to some of the comments that we made from children's organisations, can I remind the committee of evidence that was given to us by Dame Eilish Angelini in June 2012, when she said that her commission on women offenders had received excellent evidence from Dr Nancy Lukes on the impact that family and child impact statements could have, but they gave careful consideration to the matter and did not believe at any judge who sentence without reference to the fact that someone had children and the impact that the imprisonment would have would be doing their job appropriately. Nevertheless, they took the view that we must move away from creating more bureaucracy, more reports and look at what would make a difference to the sentencing process. In her view, consideration of children should be critical to that process, but I believe that such issues should arise out of the professionals training. It should be their bread and butter. That is how social workers, defence solicitors and judges should approach the matter. That is the opposition to the pro-assessment lobby, but my main objection to this is simply that the committee has not considered that in detail, and I think that it would be inappropriate to therefore support those amendments at this stage. Rodd Campbell might well be right that that is how it should operate, but it is quite clear from what Mary Fee has said and many other agencies over the years that that is not what happens. There is clear evidence of the impact of parental imprisonment. As Mary said, we have got 27,000 children around the country with a parent in prison and they are currently being let down. There is no doubt that they have particular needs. I commend the enlightened approach that Mary Fee has and I will support her amendments. I should declare at this point that I am a member of the cross-party group on families affected by imprisonment. I will support Mary Fee's amendments because there is a lack of consistency on how children of parents taken into custody and imprisoned are dealt with across the country. I believe that impact assessments should be consistent across the country and that a national strategy should be put in place with regular reporting to the Government. Thank you, Margaret Mitchell. I am going to get my Margaret's muddled. I am new there at hand. I was somewhat surprised at Rodd's Campbell's comments there. I actually thought that, with what you did outline, you were making the case in support of Mary Fee's amendments. I mean, what I would say that is in relation to this slipping through the net was a phrase that Mary Fee used. Of course, the net catches some, and it is not to suggest that there is a complete disregard for the wellbeing of children. I know that, across many parts of the country, there is a lot of good work that takes place with active involvement and a lot of collaboration between the authorities on that. Clearly, as has been highlighted, the purpose of reports to the sheriff prior to sentencing is not picking up on aspects that are absolutely crucial. Although I am not enthusiastic about more annual reports, the principle of having the obvious gaps that have been highlighted is to enjoy my full support. I have a lot of sympathy with amendment 109. I see clarification that Mary Fee has given that that would kick in at the point of custody and after sentencing. Again, while the judge should have all the facts of the matter, we know that, in practice, they do not. I would be supportive of the amendment on that basis. I am sympathetic, but I would like to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say about what appears to be a gap in the way that families and children are taken into account when so much can impact on them and sometimes end up in a criminal path because of the parents, the way that parents are. I would like to hear what the cabinet secretary has to say first, and it is up to you now, cabinet secretary. The majority of those amendments in his group focus on the needs of children affected by parental imprisonment. I thank Mary Fee for raising those matters. However, we believe that a person-centred approach should be taken for all children and young people up to the age of 18, recognising their differing needs, so we do not believe that those amendments are necessary. The existing provisions contained in the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014 provide appropriate coverage for all the vulnerable children, and the law places a duty on—for all, I should start that again. Amendment 107, which seeks to put in place secondary legislation to create a national strategy on the impact of sentencing on children affected by parental imprisonment, is also not necessary. The Children and Young People Scotland Act 2018, which has already come to the end of the session, is to say that there is no need for children and young people to go to the prison. The Children and Young People Scotland Act 2018 contains provision to provide support as appropriate to meet a child's wellbeing needs. That includes a requirement on services and agencies to work together in a co-ordinated way. A child whose wellbeing is affected by parental imprisonment will receive the support that they need through the implementation of part 4 and 5 of the act. In addition, our national parenting strategy recognises the needs of those groups of vulnerable families. The strategy sets out a commitment to work with the Scottish Prison Service to encourage involvement between parents in custody and their children. We are also committed to providing targeted support for parents in prison to aid their reintegration and to help them to deter their own children from offending behaviour. In addition to this, the Scottish Prison Service has recently produced minimum standards for working with children and families of prisoners. The Scottish Government is also providing support via a number of public social partnerships in this area. Amendment 108 places a duty on Scottish ministers to provide an annual report to Parliament on the number of parents who have been remanded or sentenced, the number of convictions, the types of sentences and the number of impact assessments carried out. Part 3 of the Children and Young People's Scotland Act 2014 places a duty on each local authority and relevant health board to jointly prepare a children's service plan for the area of the local authority that is covered for a period of three years. Those plans will be required to provide for children's services, both universal and targeted, as well as taking into account relevant services of which the Scottish Prison Service are one. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service is currently examining options to gather information relating to parents in custody. Any formal recording of such will ensure that children's rights are also safeguarded whilst meeting the relevant and appropriate data collection processes. The amendment seeks confirmation of the total number of children affected by parental imprisonment, which requires a children's plan under section 33 of the act. I do not consider that collecting and reporting on the number of children's plans for these children will be useful or necessary. Rather, we would propose that local authorities and health boards should consider whether or not a child affected by a period of imprisonment requires a children's plan to be put in place. Amendment 109 specifically calls for the introduction of child impact assessments. However, the named person service is for every child to help to ensure that concerns are picked up early and no one, including the vulnerable, are left without support. As referred to by Rod Campbell, the 2012 commission on women's offenders, chaired by Dame Eilish Angelini, concluded that current arrangements for social work reports adequately cover any consideration of the impact of imprisonment on children. In addition, we would add to the many reports and papers that a court has to consider. Those existing arrangements already provide for the accused, parenting or the other care responsibilities to be brought to the attention of the court before they are sentenced, and the defendants can also explain their circumstances in mitigation. The introduction of such an assessment would have a considerable impact on the court and on criminal justice social work processes. Therefore, I ask the committee to reject amendment 107, 108 and 109. I note the comments of the cabinet secretary, and I am grateful for the supportive comments from the committee. Just to clarify the point that Margaret Mitchell raised about when the impact assessment would be done, amendment 109 would require a child and family impact assessment to be undertaken when a person is remandied in custody to a wait trial or sentencing, or when a person has been sentenced. It would take place after that point, not prior to that point. The point that John Finnie picked up, and to a degree Rod Campbell picked up as well, there is good practice, as John rightly said, but that good practice is not mirrored across the country. Key justice services are not under perfect duty, so children often remain hidden and unsupported, and too often the voices of children are not heard. In my amendments, we would allow their voices to be heard and the correct support to be given. My member's bill consultation highlighted significant gaps in current service provision and practice, and while there is, I repeat, good practice in working with children. There is not a consistent approach, and it depends on which part of the country you are in. So, bearing in mind what I have said, I am pressing my amendments. The question is that amendment 107 be agreed to, or we all agreed. Those in favour please show, those against please show, abstentions. I am back again to the position that I was in before, and as I feel that I hope that the cabinet secretary has taken on board as the expression is that everything that Mary Fee has brought, however I am not supporting her amendment, but I thought that she brought the essential points to the table, so that is not agreed to. A call amendment 108 in the name of Mary Fee is ready to be agreed to move or not move. The question is amendment 108 be agreed to, are we all agreed? We are not agreed, there will be a division in those in favour please show, those against please show, abstentions. The question is amendment 109 be agreed to, are we all agreed? There will be a disagreement. Those in favour please show, those against please show, abstentions. It is five in favour four against that amendment is agreed. That concludes stage two for today. Thank you Mary for your attendance, and I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials, and I am suspending until before we go on to the next item of business, which is stage one report. Now we move on to item nine, a declaration of interest. I welcome Gavin Brown, the Justice Committee, who is here as Bill substitute for Margaret Mitchell for the next item. I invite Gavin Brown to declare any interest relevant to the committee. I would just like to declare that I am retained on the role of solicitors in Scotland. Thank you very much Gavin, we now go in private session to discuss a draft report.