 We move on to group 13. Release planning and through-care support, access to prescription drugs. I call amendment 86. In the name of Pauline McNeill. Grupped with amendments 87 and 88. Pauline McNeill, to move amendment 86 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer and speaking to amendment 86, 87 and 88. The criminal justice committee pursued a visit to the wise group where one of the issues that was raised with the committee was about through care in relation to prisoners who were leaving prison but did not always have the prescriptions that they needed on leaving. It could be vitally important because we think of all the reasons why people might falter or get into more trouble on leaving prison. It is making sure that they have the necessary drugs and in many cases it was reported to us that that was not happening. The committee has been in exchange with the prison service and we have made some progress here but it seems to me to be an opportunity to be more specific in legislation that it should be a mandatory requirement. Amendment 86 in section 2, panagraff, the definition of relevant general service after service, would insert specifically prescription services. In section 10, the provision of facilities of access to prescription drugs and amendment 88 would insert, through care support, a duty to report on access to prescription drugs. The Scottish ministers must, as soon as practically possible, at the end of the reporting period, prepare a report on the operation of section 34C during the reporting period and the report miss in particular, must include information on whether the individuals' follow-ins in section 34B7 have access to prescription drugs that they require for their physical and mental health and whether medical and prison services have sufficient resources to meet that demand. That is the aim of those amendments. I do not think that it is enough to have a simple exchange and to have warm words that, yes, ideally everybody wants this. As far as I am concerned, this is an absolute necessity that prisoners—for the same reasons that we have had in earlier debates about not having Friday releases, but trying to set up a system that gives prisoners ordinary release the best chance to reconstruct their lives, they should not be leaving prison without the prescription drugs. If the minister can give me anything in response to this, I would indicate that the Scottish Government would take a really strong view of this. I will not move it, but I really think that, as a Parliament, it is not too much to ask that the prison service and the NHS ensure that prisoners who have served a sentence on release into the community have the necessary prescription drugs that they need in order to live their lives. Pauli McNeill's amendments in various ways look to highlight the issue of continued supply of prescribed medication to prison leavers. I thank Pauli McNeill for raising this issue, and I agree that continued access to prescription medications is an important and essential part of the transition between custody and the community for prison leavers. That is why the bill includes provision that health partners must be consulted in the preparation of the through-care support standards. Those bodies must also comply with those standards in exercise and functions in relation to the provision of through-care support. That is in recognition that continued healthcare support, including access to medications and addiction support, is an essential part of through-care and release planning. It is not optional. Amendment 86 seeks to add prescription services to the existing definition of relevant general services in section 2 of the Community Justice Scotland Act 2016. I appreciate the intention of Mr McNeill's amendment, but I consider that it is unnecessary, given that the Community Justice Scotland Act 2016 already includes physical and mental health services and support in the definition of relevant general services. That definition therefore enables bodies engaging in through-care and release planning duties referred to in the bill to consider the provision of medication and other prescription services as part of the wider physical and mental health services to be provided. As such, it is not necessary to add specific reference to prescription services to the definition of relevant general services. Amendment 87 seeks to add the provision of and facilitation of access to prescription drugs to the definition of through-care support services within the bill. Once again, that is unnecessary, since the definition of through-care support in section 10 includes help to access. Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for Given Way. Given what he has said about existing provisions, we are still finding that there are gaps in the delivery of the service. I acknowledge that simply passing this today might not necessarily fix that either, but surely we cannot simply rely on legislation in 2016, where it has shown to be that it is not happening in every case. There is one of what more could be done here. The point that Ms McNeill makes about practice is that I am responding to the specifics of her amendments and perhaps saying in a rather arcane manner that they are not required, because the provision already exists. What we are, of course, adding to the bill is that pre-release planning will not be optional. For the first time, pre-release planning duties are placed on other actors in the public sector. That is not just about justice social work in the Scottish Prison Service. It does include our health service, who have to be at the table, because they too, like the Scottish Prison Service and justice social work, have a duty of care. A duty of care means that people have a human right to their medication end of. I do not know how, more strongly and in an appropriate parliamentary fashion, I could actually put that fact in terms of how I certainly feel about it. I suppose that what I was saying to Ms McNeill is that her amendment 87, I consider unnecessary, and I am sorry to say this, since the definition of through-care support in section 10 includes help to access or make use of relevant general services as defined in the act, but carried forward into this legislation and that includes health services. Through-care support also includes help to access or make use of relevant specialist services, which provides further comfort that any necessary support can be provided under the existing drafting. Amendment 88 would require Scottish ministers to produce a report into the operation of section 34C, which requires various bodies to comply with the through-care standards. The report would have to include specific reference to whether individuals have access to prescriptions. I understand the intention of the amendment and I am bringing forward amendment 6061 and 64 today to require the Scottish ministers to report on the operation of part 2 of the act overall, therefore a requirement to report on the operation of this section in particular would create duplication. I do appreciate that Ms McNeill and the rest of the Justice Committee have taken a real strong interest in how individuals released from prison are supported to receive the prescription medication that they need. Members may be aware of the guidance that has been developed in recent months regarding the provision of medication and prescriptions to individuals at the point of their release from custody. That guidance has been developed by the prison healthcare network and circulated to prison healthcare providers. That guidance includes instructions on how individuals should be provided with a letter upon release, detailing their current medication, which can be presented to a community GP, and that on-release individuals are to be given medication or a suitable prescription for particular medications sufficient for 28 days after their release. On that basis, I would invite Ms McNeill not to move those amendments. I thank the cabinet secretary for the third answer, and what I felt was a strong statement that was made in relation to the fact that it is not optional and that it is a partnership arrangement on release. I hope that the cabinet secretary would not mind that. If I do not move, I will hold the cabinet secretary to that statement. The Justice Committee has been acknowledged really strongly about this. When we do visits, we do try to act on what we have heard. I know that other members feel strongly about that, too. On that basis, I am not going to move. Can I ask Polly McNeill to confirm that she seeks to withdraw amendment 86? I seek to withdraw amendment 86. Thank you, Ms McNeill. Does any member object? No member objects, and amendment 86 is withdrawn. We move to group 14, release planning. I call amendment 46 in the name of Audrey Nicholl, grouped with amendments 47, 48 and 49. Audrey Nicholl, to move amendment 46 and speak to all amendments in the group. The importance of well-planned support for people on release from prison was a theme that the Criminal Justice Committee heard about at length during our scrutiny of the bill. Indeed, in my constituency MSP role, I engaged with a number of stakeholders on release planning and on how provision around the process of release could be improved. That is why I welcome sections 9 and 10, which seek to start that release planning at an early point and will drive consistency in the provision of through-care support for people leaving prison. I am also clear that that will contribute towards keeping victims and people leaving prison safe. In our stage 1 report, the committee broadly welcomed those sections and we will be watching their implementation with great interest. Another theme that was raised during the scrutiny, in which I feel very strongly about, is the importance of supporting people who are released direct from court, usually following a period of remand. I understand in those circumstances release is difficult to anticipate and plan for and that makes accessing services extremely difficult for those individuals, rendering them on occasion extremely vulnerable. I recognise that section 9, as currently drafted, would cover the scenario, as it covers release planning for remand and sentenced prisoners. However, I want to make sure that the Scottish ministers and indeed Parliament have additional levers if further action is considered necessary to make improvements in this area. Therefore, I consider that the Scottish ministers should have the power to make further provision in this area if they need to, particularly in relation to supporting people released directly from court following a period of remand, given all that we now know about how challenging that is. That is why my amendments 46 and 47 provide ministers with a regulation making power to make further provision in this area should they need to, and why my amendments specifically reference the issue of release direct from court following time on remand. I believe that Parliament must have a role in scrutinising any future use of those powers, and that is why my amendment requires that those regulations making powers are subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope that those powers are not needed and that sections 9 and 10 work the way that they are intended. However, I feel that that additional power would be helpful to ensure that the outcomes that we all seek, reductions in re-offending and better outcomes for people who are leaving prison, are achieved. I move amendment 46 in my name. Presiding Officer, the importance of well-planned and holistic support for people who are leaving prison is a theme that has run through a lot of conversations that I have certainly had. In order to be successful, release planning must start from the beginning of a person's time in custody, regardless of the length of sentence or whether they are there or on remand. That is how we will help people to successfully resettle into their communities and their families, and that is how we will keep them and others safe, and that is what this bill aims to do. The release planning process introduced by this bill should lead to community-based services getting involved at an earlier point in a person's sentence and co-operating to the plan for a prisoner's release and support them through the prison gates and beyond. Section 9 of the bill intends to deliver all of those things. I believe that successful implementation of that section, along with through-care standards, will drive real and effective change. I welcome Audrey Nicholl's amendments 46 and 47, which provide Scottish ministers with regulation-making powers to make additional provision in this critical area with the approval of Parliament should we need it. I am particularly supportive of the specific reference in Ms Nicholl's amendment to those powers, providing the ability to make provision about the development, management and delivery of release plans for individuals released direct from court following remand. I am clear that the existing provision within section 9 would cover this group of people. However, recent discussions that I have had on the issue, including last week with leaders from the justice, health, local government, voluntary and housing sectors, have highlighted the challenges of providing effective support to people released in this way and the consequences when that support is not there. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sandra Geddes for meeting with me at the request of Douglas Lumsden MSP, who spoke to me about the issue at a meeting that Mr Lumsden, who was also present, supported Sandra. Sandra's brother, Alan, was tragically murdered by an individual who had been released directly from court with no support package. I would like to recognise Sandra's courage and determination and continue to push for improvements in the way that people release direct from court are supported. I hope that the changes that we are bringing forward in this bill will go some way to achieve that. As I said at stage 2, I think that much of the answer to this lies in non-legislative solutions, and that was certainly the tone of the round-table discussion that I had last week. However, this is a difficult and it is a long-standing issue. I therefore think that it is prudent for ministers to have the ability to make additional provision should we need it to ensure that the release plan and duty operates in the way that it is intended, so that everyone leaves in prison, whether following remand or sentence, has their release planned for as much as possible. I therefore support amendments 46 and 47 by Audrey Nicholl. I will now turn to the amendments lodged in my name. Amendment 48 responds to an amendment lodged by Kate Clark and Jamie Greene at stage 2. Those amendments called for the Scottish ministers to publish guidance and standards applicable to the development of release planning in Scotland and to publicly consult on those. As I highlighted at stage 2, I was not persuaded of the need for standards in this area, as I felt that that would duplicate the through-care standards that ministers are required to develop under section 10 of this bill. I did, however, agree with the principle that guidance to underpin the delivery of this release plan and duty to ensure consistency in its application would be valuable. Amendment 48 provides for that guidance and amendment 49 is an associated technical amendment. Amendment 48 would require Scottish ministers to publish guidance on the application of the duty to engage with the development, management and delivery of a prisoner's release plans within a year of the section coming into force and before the duty itself is enacted. That will provide partners with clarity on their roles and responsibilities from the outset. In developing that guidance, ministers are required to consult with a number of named partners. That list includes a wide range of expertise, as members will note, including the victim support organisations, to make sure that victim safety issues are taken account of and drafting of the guidance. The named partners who must comply with the release plan and duty as set out in section 9 of the bill must, when doing so, have regard to that guidance. Do not sound so enthusiastic, cabinet secretary. I will try to make it as interesting and relevant as possible in that respect. I think that there was an issue at stage 2, which was clearly that we felt that there was a need to include victims' organisations in the consultation, but in doing so did not want to unduly assign any statutory duties to them to deliver through care. I think that that is a fine balance. I am hoping that this amendment does actually deliver that. Cabinet secretary. Yes, I suppose that there are two points to raise. We have to consult with victim support organisations in and around the guidance that I have just talked about. We have committed to the public consultation of through care standards once that they are in draft condition. That will be a full public consultation. In fact, I think that I will go on to talk about that in the next group. I just want to speak briefly to amendment 48. I want to thank the cabinet secretary for the meeting with myself and Sandra Gettis. Although I was disappointed that my amendment at stage 2 was not accepted, I genuinely welcomed the engagement and the spirit of which the Government amendment 48 is made today. As Sandra said in her meeting, we will be watching carefully how the through care and release services develop so that the despicable crime that happened to her brother Alan Gettis does not happen to anyone else. For Sandra, the search for answers on why her brother was murdered goes on as she campaigns still for a fatal accident inquiry into her brother's death. Amendment 48 to the bill may bring improvements to the release process. I welcome it and I look forward to the changes and the guidance that it will bring. I will be happy to contribute further as it comes to it. First of all, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her support of my amendments 46 and 47. I welcome the additional amendments moved by the cabinet secretary that provide comprehensive detail around the guidance set out in relation to release planning. I do not have anything further to add beyond the points that I set out earlier, so I move amendment 46. Amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 47, in the name of Audrey Nicol, already debated with amendment 46. Audrey Nicol, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 48, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 46. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 49, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 46. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We move to group 15 through care support. I call amendment 50, in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 50 and speak to all amendments in the group. The amendments in this group are all in my name and relate to the creation of minimum statutory standards of through care support. Amendment 50 changes the timescale for the first set of through care support standards to be published from one year to within two years of section 10 coming into force. I want to be absolutely clear that the reason for extending the statutory time period for this work is to allow for a significant period of consultation and joint development of these standards. A consultation requirement was set out in the bill at introduction and supplemented at stage 2 by the addition of victim support organisations, families and organisations such as the risk management authority to the list of required consultees. My other amendments in this group will require an additional public consultation, which must be open for a minimum of 12 weeks. Publishing the standards within the original timeframe of one year would therefore not allow for this extensive consultation to be carried out to the highest possible standard and incorporated into the standards. I want to get these standards right. That involves allowing time to properly listen to the stakeholders and communities affected. I have made clear that this is a priority issue for me and I will ensure that the development of the standards maintains momentum and is completed as soon as reasonably practicable. Amendment 57 requires the Scottish ministers publicly consult on a draft of the initial set of through-care support standards. The draft will have been developed in consultation with the partners named in section 10. The initial engagement with named partners and in development of a draft will include a review of existing practice and will explore the potentially different needs of different groups of people, for example those released direct from court. That was once again raised by Douglas Lumsden MSP and others on the criminal justice committee at stage 2. I know that this is an issue that many are very concerned about and I thank all members for contributing to this very important issue. Following this initial engagement, an open consultation on a set of draft standards will be undertaken. As mentioned, this public consultation will last a minimum of 12 weeks. The addition of the further public consultation allows communities and individuals who have been affected by through-care standards to have an opportunity to shape what they look like. This has been informed by Katie Clark's amendment 42 at stage 2 and by engagement with victim support organisations. At the conclusion of the public consultation, Scottish ministers will be required to publish an assessment of the responses and how they have been taken into account. My other amendments in this group ensure that the requirement to publicly consult applies only to the first set of through-care support standards. Scottish ministers, however, will not be prevented from conducting further public consultations on significant revisions to the standards. However, a full public consultation will not be required every time changes are made, for example if the standards are updated to reflect a change in another policy area such as housing. Scottish ministers will, however, be required to consult the name bodies in section 34b4 in respect to any revisions to the standards. Those standards will be vital to ensuring that through-care support is consistent and reflects best practice across the country. Ensuring the availability of high-quality through-care support will help people to reintegrate and work towards more positive outcomes after a period in custody. That, in turn, will reduce re-offendant and keep our communities safe. That is why it is essential that communities are engaged in the development of those standards and have sufficient time to engage meaningfully. I urge members to support my amendments 50 to 59 today. No other members have requested to speak. Perhaps the cabinet secretary would like to wind up at this point. I would not. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendments 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move amendments 51 to 59 on block. Does any member object to a single question? I ask Ms Clark to which amendment, in particular, the objection is. That being the case, we are objecting to 54, 58 and 59. That being the case, we will put those amendments individually. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 55, in the name of Angela Constance, is yes, 90. No, 20. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Sorry, I agreed. That's my fault. My apologies. It clearly is agreed. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The point of order, Jamie Greene. I would have voted yes. I can confirm your vote was recorded, Mr Greene. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 58, in the name of Angela Constance, is yes, 93. No, 18. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 59, in the name of Angela Constance, is yes, 92. No, 18. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 87 in the name of Pauline McNeill. Already debated with amendment 86. Sorry, Ms McNeill. I call amendment 89 in the name of Russell Finlay. Already arguments on amendment 75 to move or not move? I called amendment 90 in the name of Pauline McNeal, which already debated with amendment 75. Pauline McNeal to move or not move? Not moved. We moved to group 16, reports on operation of part 2. I call amendment 60 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with amendments 61 and 64. 4 yn ysgolion, ddigon 500 gan ac yn ffordd biddy i'r ddedigon. Ysgolion wedi g Talentau Ysgolion ac ysgolion, mae broddai'r ddedigon Glock 94 sy'n gael eu ddysgu i'r ddd holistic arcaf fynd yn gyda'r arddod y ddedigon, pan mae gyd beithio i ddatgleu'r ddod amfodach, a ddod i'r ddod am ffodol i fynd i wneud i'r ddod y ddedigon. Mae gennych ffodol i gyd, oes mae'n ffordd prosecutors I agree that it will be important to review the impact of those provisions. That's why I committed to bringing forward a stage to the amendment to encompass all the various asks for reviews into different sections of part 2 to provide a more coherent picture. Amendment 60 delivers on that commitment. This amendment introduced a new section to the bill, which places a duty on Scottish ministers to report on the operation of part 2 of the act as a whole within a specified reporting period. That reporting period is five years after the bill receives royal assent and I would like to explain why that period has been specified. The provisions within part 2 will be commenced separately in an order and to a timescale agreed in discussion with our partners. We need time for these to be commenced and for resulting practice to bed in before the report can be meaningful. Amendment 64 in my name commences this new section on the day after royal assent. Amendment 60 has been drafted to be deliberately wide. Rather than listing every element that this report could cover, I wanted to have the flexibility so that we can cover as wide a range of issues as possible, not all of which may be clear until after implementation. I would intend that it would address the points covered in Katie Clark and Russell Finlay's stage 2 amendments and Pauline McNeill's amendment 8 to 8 debated today. That could, for example, include information on how the provisions in part 2 are operating for men and women leaving prison, information on release planning for relevant individuals and the provision of through-care support for remand and sentence prisoners. I would also like to highlight that my amendment requires Scottish ministers to consult with a range of partners in the development of this report. That was a priority for me and, in my view, it is a critical element of my amendment. As members will note, the list of consultees includes a range of expertise and perspectives. That includes bodies who have duties under part 2. It includes organisations such as the risk management authority for their expertise in relation to risk assessment and management. It includes third sector bodies providing through-care support and those who support families and children affected by imprisonment. Scottish ministers are also required to consult victim support organisations so that the perspective and views of victims are incorporated in the report. I am clear that we should be listening carefully to all those voices as part of this review. I turn now to amendment 61 lodged by Katie Clark. That amendment would require that the Scottish ministers review the impact of part 2 of the bill on the operation of multi-agency public protection arrangements within three years of royal assent and publish a report on that review. For a number of reasons I cannot support this amendment. Those are the same reasons why I couldn't support Katie Clark's almost identical amendment at stage 2. I am, of course, sympathetic to the broader public protection motivation here, if not the practical effect of this amendment. That amendment does not seem to take into account that the 2005 act already requires each map at area to carry out an annual review of the arrangements for that area and publish a report. The Scottish ministers can notify the MAPA partners of information which they wish them to include in their reports and the Scottish Government also produces an annual overview report of the arrangements. Those reports can at present make comment on relevant public protection matters and could provide a mechanism for reviewing the relevant impacts of the bill relevant to MAPA if necessary. Amendment 61 would require that our review considers changes to national guidance, ensuring a consistent approach across Scotland. Although consistency may be desirable in some areas of operation, MAPA regions can at present determine how they will operate at a local level so that amendment does not appear sufficiently nuanced in allowing such local difference. Consistency is driven currently through national guidance, which is regularly revised with partners to take account of new legislation, as well as changes in policy and effective practice. I therefore do not think that the reporting requirement that amendment 61 is workable or necessary, and I ask Ms Clark not to press it. I call Katie Clark to speak to amendment 61 and other amendments in the group. I will focus on amendment 61, which, as the cabinet secretary has indicated, relates to the multi-agency protection arrangements better known as MAPA. Those impose a duty on responsible authorities in a local authority area to establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks imposed by certain categories of offenders. I lodged the amendment after the campaigner Linda MacDonald got in touch with me several months ago. She was brutally assaulted by the convicted murderer Robbie McIntosh in 2017 while walking her dog. The attack took place while Mr McIntosh had been out of Castle Huntley prison for a week ahead of a parole board meeting. He pled guilty to assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement, permanent impairment and danger to life and attempted murder, and he received an order for lifelong restriction. Ms MacDonald must be commended for the grace and immense bravery that she has shown in light of the attack. She has been petitioning to drive change in the parole system to prevent dangerous offenders from being released without sufficient monitoring with her Justice for Linda campaign. Multi-agency meetings had begun taking place in relation to Mr McIntosh as early as 2016, but key management decisions were not recorded, nor no clear action plan was made. Despite eventually undergoing a risk of serious harm assessment, no risk management plan was put in place. In the period when Mr McIntosh was in home leave, the local policing team were not made aware that he was on home leave. Ms McIntosh has since received an apology from the Scottish Government and a review of the updated policy and guidance for risk management teams was completed in 2020. However, there is now scope to tighten legislation in this area. The amendment stipulates that level 3 mapper prisoners be monitored in the same way to equivalent offenders with regular chickens with police and justice social work. It requires ministers to review and report on the impact of part 2 of the act on mapper arrangements. That would require consideration as to whether changes on national guidance were required and on how mapper offenders were monitored after release from custody. As the cabinet secretary, that would ensure a consistent approach across Scotland. As the cabinet secretary, I moved the amendment at stage 2, and the cabinet secretary at that time argued that a timescale of one year, as initially suggested, would not be workable. I therefore amended the wording of the amendment to three years, and I am disappointed if the Scottish Government feels that they are not able to support the amendment this evening. I move stage 61, and I will press it to a vote. Briefly, I commend Ms Clark for bringing to the chamber the very powerful and personal testimony of her constituent. I did a layout earlier the reasons why we could not accept the amendment, and I am sorry that Ms Clark is disappointed. What she highlights is the importance of practice issues and accountability in the delivery of services. I am just very sorry that I do not think that her amendments add anything to that over and top of what already exists. However, I do very much take on board the issues that she raises and the importance of implementation practice and accountability at all levels of public services when it comes to public protection. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to or we all agreed. I call amendment 61 in the name of Katie Clark, already debated with amendment 60. Katie Clark, to move or not move, the question is that amendment 61 be agreed to or we all agreed. The Parliament is not agreed. We will move to vote, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 61 in the name of Katie Clark is, yes, 49, no, 61. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 62 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 26. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to or we all agreed. I call amendment 63 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 73. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are and I call amendment 64 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 60. Cabinet secretary, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to or we all agreed. We are agreed and I call amendment 65 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 42. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. I call amendment 66 in the name of Jamie Greene, already debated with amendment 42. Jamie Greene, to move or not move. That ends consideration of amendments. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. We have heard a number of amendments tonight which were considered at stage 2, which were debated but then not moved once they have been debated. We have also heard about a number of amendments which were debated at stage 2, which were defeated and yet have returned at stage 3. We heard one amendment which had it been approved and it wasn't. We would have cost £59 million per year plus several hundred million pounds to construct a new prison had it been passed. Is it possible that you could provide any clarity on the criteria that are used for bringing back amendments that have been considered at stage 2 to stage 3? Thank you, Mr Brown. As members will be aware, the presiding officers do not normally give reason for selection. The criteria that are carefully applied are set out in the guidance on public bills, which is published on the Scottish Parliament website. The key issue is that the interests of all parties and individual MSPs continue to be reflected at stage 3. All members must have the opportunity to input to and influence legislation and to fully scrutinise the laws passed by our national parliament. At this point in the proceedings, I am required understanding orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the bill, in my view, no provision of the bail and release from custody Scotland bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9622, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Do we have Mr Adam's microphone, please? I call on Alexander Burnett to speak to and move amendment 9622.1. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in my name. I do not wish to keep MSPs here any longer than necessary. Unfortunately, though, next week, the Scottish Government is insisting on spending parliamentary time debating a fantasy constitution in a made-up independent Scotland. I remind the benches to my right that Scotland voted no to independence, and the UK Supreme Court unanimously proved that the Scottish Government was wrong. The Scottish National Party has to move on. We know that the Government likes to sneak out embarrassing announcements. We know that the Government likes to sneak out embarrassing announcements in the dying hours before recess, with two statements scheduled for after FMQs next week. My business motion amendment replaces Tuesday's independence debate with those two statements. It also inserts two more statements, one on Circularity Scotland, which has gone into administration under the SNP in Greens, and the other is an update on the agricultural bill. Although I note that a GIQ is lodged on this topic while we have been in the chamber today. Also snuck out, while we have been considering these amendments this evening, was a press release that Azulox will not be permitted for use in Scotland. We should have a proper ministerial statement on this policy announcement tomorrow, and I note that the Presiding Officer has repeatedly stated that announcements such as those should be made to the Parliament in the first instance. All of these matters are matters of importance to the people of Scotland, something that cannot be said of a proposed debate on Tuesday. I urge members to back my amendment at decision time. Those of us on this side and the SNP benches respect this Parliament and this institution, which is entirely different from those in the Conservative benches as well. Sometimes listening to Mr Burnett is like watching the movie, everything, everywhere, all at once, because there are snippets of reality there, but it is not quite right. Part of that reason is that sometimes I feel that when we have these conversations, he does not actually listen to what is going on. As always, Presiding Officer, I will try to be helpful. On the agricultural bill, we have already said that there will be an agricultural bill. The cabinet secretary has committed to introducing an agricultural bill this year. The bill will seek powers to deliver the published vision for agriculture and the findings of the consultation will be published shortly. On Circularity Scotland, the Minister for Circular Economy has been given three statements to Parliament in Scotland's deposit return scheme in the past two months and appeared before the net zero committee last week and answered a topical question on this very issue this week. It is my belief that there is more than a whiff of misogyny here as the Tories can suddenly find themselves concerned about the catastrophic decision made by their colleagues in Westminster, then they should raise those concerns with them instead of their grandstanding and stunts here in our chamber. On independence, Presiding Officer, we are bringing our proposals for a modern constitution for an independent Scotland to this Parliament to be debated by politicians who have been elected to represent the people in Scotland. This is Scotland's Parliament and this paper sets out an ambitious proposal to protect and enhance the rights of the people of Scotland. The Tories feel to think that the right of the people in Scotland is not an important thing, but unfortunately that may be the way the Tories think that is not the way we think here. This is the place to discuss the rights of the people in Scotland and this time more than anything is the time to discuss them. The Opposition frequently reminds us rightly that the Government is accountable to Parliament, and that is why we are bringing forward the debate to enable the Parliament to scrutinise and discuss those prospective papers. The Tories are running scared of having a debate because our proposition is to enable human rights at the very heart of civic Scotland, while the Tories look to scrap human rights at the UK level. Thank you. The question is that amendment 9622.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, which seeks to amend business motion 9622, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Michael Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My device was not connected. We have voted yes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect, but I would have voted yes. Mr Briggs, can I ask you to repeat that? I am afraid that I did not catch that. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Mr Briggs. We will ensure that it is recorded. Colleagues, the result of the vote on amendment 9622.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, is yes, 48, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that business motion 9622, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. Members, I am going to take this vote on this occasion and this occasion only, and I am going to make it absolutely clear if we cannot hear here that members are objecting or agreeing to an amendment then. We will act accordingly. The question is that business motion 9622, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, it will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Stephanie Callaghan. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you, Ms Callaghan. We will ensure that it is recorded. Point of order, Marie McNair. My app would connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you. We will ensure that it is recorded. The result of the vote on motion 9622, in the name of George Adam, is yes, 81, no, 28. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions, and I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 9623, on approval of an SSI, and 9624, 9625, on designation of a lead committee. The question on those motions will be put at decision time and there is one question to be put as a result of today's business. I propose to ask a single question on three parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? No member objects, therefore the final question is that motions 9623, on approval of an SSI, and 9624, 9625, on designation of a lead committee, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, will be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motions are therefore agreed, and that concludes decision time, and I close this meeting.