 Yr unrhyw busnes g seasoning bucket y byddai mewn omholder yn F1-5, 735 rydych chi fod yngynnod u ein r numerous SS- 재� van seision 8.17.1 o'r dystydd cl claps. I wish to challenge the prysygu officers ruling on the non-selection of the Labour amendment for the debate this afternoon. I think that this is a regrettable decision that restricts debate on the important matter of protecting public services. It follows on from yesterday's decision from the Prysygu officer not to select any of the amendments y blynydd hynny. Lil, yn ei fidedr bodnw gwKEs enable gyflym Paurent roedd y môr euOUGHt yn eisiau bod ddigon硬 i這種 hyn yn meddwl i rymian yw i gaf i'w chaKeannide o'r nel yn rhoi seeing yw. That is disappointing and also lacks transparency. I await is that the discussion of the following they would be reconsiderated even on this iau llawer o'r dystydigau, dwi'n gwybod ei wneud, ac rwy'n gwaith o phwy o'r prysigio o'r amgylcheddau o'r kench pa fwy o fawr cwiriad o'r llog oesau'n cyffredinol gennym. Rwy'n cael eu cychydigau i ddymarch a'r eich ddydigau ni fel ychydigau, chi eisno i ddod i ddod yn i ni. Rwy'n cael eu cychydigau i ddydigau i ddydigau o'r cychydigau sgwet cryf i'r prysgafodd yr ydych chi gafoddu hynny i hyfforddiadau. Rwy'n ddim ni'n edrych i'r prysgafodd yr ydych chi'n gwneud f地 o'r mae'r rai i'r pleiddiadau. Made immediate resultau ac yn angen i gafoddu hyfforddiadau yn gwneud y prysgafodd yr ond wedi cynhyrchu. a'w ddweud â ni'n mod i ddechrau'r gymhwyru. Diolch i'n dda'r ddatblygu i ddweud am gyllidegol a'u ddweud am gyhoeddfaan ar gyhoeddfaan i ddweud? Mae ddweud â Gweinidol Llyfrgell, ddechrau'r peidwag i ddechrau'r ffordd yng ngeniamau sylfaenol, a ddweud â Gweinidol o'r ddweud i ddweud a ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud a'i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud of Scotland depend and value. It also seeks agreement to the allocation of additional funding for 2015-16 that had been identified since the 2015 orders were discussed and approved at this stage last year. The 2016-17 local government finance settlement that we are providing to local government has to be set against the backdrop of the continuing austerity programme of the United Kingdom Government and the real-terms reduction in the Scottish budget. This is in line with the challenging settlement being provided to other public bodies with the exception of the health service that the Government is committed to protecting. In 2016-17, the Scottish Government will provide councils directly with a total funding package worth over £10.3 billion. That includes revenue funding of almost £9.7 billion and support for capital expenditure of almost £607 million. However, that is only part of the picture. In addition to the settlement allocations that we are debating in today's order, local government also benefits from the attainment Scotland fund, which provides support to schools in our poorest neighbourhoods to raise attainment. As I confirmed to Parliament yesterday in the budget bill debate, I will double the amount of funding that we had planned to allocate to the attainment Scotland fund over the next three years from £80 million to a total of £160 million. The substantial additional investment will support local authorities in their quest to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap and ensure that every child has the opportunity to realise their potential. Today's order seeks a Parliament's approval for the distribution and payment of over £9.5 billion out of the revenue total of almost £9.7 billion. The remainder will be paid out of specific grant funding or other funding, which will be distributed later, as agreed with local government. I would now like to provide a bit of background to the overall 2016-17 settlement funding package, which is firmly focused on the delivery of joint priorities to deliver sustainable economic growth, protect front-line services and support the most vulnerable in our society. My priority has been to deliver a financial settlement that councils can accept in order that we can pursue those shared priorities, which will improve outcomes for local people through health and social care integration and improving educational attainment. To this end, the accepted funding package for 2016-17 will protect the council tax freeze for a ninth year. We have once again committed £70 million to fully fund the council tax freeze to provide protection for household incomes in what has been a very financially challenging period for many. We will invest £250 million in integrating health and social care services. This funding will support additional spend on expanding social care to support the objectives of integration, including through making progress and charging thresholds for all non-residential services to address poverty. That will also help to deliver the living wage for all social care workers and help to meet a range of existing costs faced by local authorities in the delivery of effective and high-quality health and social care services. Thirdly, we will maintain the pupil-teacher ratio in Scotland's schools. The Scottish Government has been consistent that the protection of teacher numbers is a central part of our priority to raise attainment. £88 million is included in the settlement to ensure that school children continue to receive the same amount of teacher time by ensuring that councils maintain the number of teachers to pupils at current levels and include the induction of new teaching staff to replace those leaving the profession. Taking account of the addition of the £250 million to support the integration of health and social care, the overall reduction in funding equates to less than 1 per cent of local government's estimated total expenditure in 2016-17. I welcome the agreement of Scotland's local authorities to this financial settlement, which, when taken together as a package of funding, will enable them to increase the pace of reform and improve essential public services to communities all over the country. I am pleased to note to date that 16 councils have now formally set their budgets for the coming year, which includes plans to deliver on a package of measures. The figures for 2016-17, presented for approval today, include two significant additions from the provisional distributed figures issued on 16 December. Those include almost £54 million to deliver free school meals to all children in primary 1 to 3, and more than £26 million has been the initial 80 per cent instalment of the money set aside for discretionary housing payments, which will enable councils to fully mitigate the impact of the UK Government's discredited bedroom tax. The 2016 order also seeks approval for changes to the increase in funding allocations for 2015-16, amounting to a total of £72.8 million, which was held back from the 2015 order, or has been added to fund a number of agreed spending commitments, which have arisen since the 2015 order was approved. Those include £27.5 million being the previously held-back balance of the teachers' induction scheme funding, £10 million for maintaining teacher numbers and pupil-teacher ratios in 2015-16, £9.7 million funding assistance to enable local authorities to provide support and assistance to their communities impacted severely by the emergency weather situations experienced at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. £7.2 million to support implementation of the 1 plus 2 languages policy, £5.8 million to support local government contribute to the developing the young workforce programme resulting from the children and young people act 2014, and £5 million for kinship care allowances. I should also explain that the total revenue funding to be paid out to councils in 2016-17, but not covered by this order, which will be distributed later, includes £86.5 million paid directly to criminal justice authorities, £37.5 million for the teachers' induction scheme and £9 million being the balance of funding for discretionary housing payments. Although not part of today's order, the overall package for local authorities includes support for capital funding in 2016-17 of almost £607 million. Allowing for the reprofiling of £150 million from 2016-17 to 2017-20, that meets our commitment to maintain local government's share at 26 per cent of the Scottish Government's capital budget. I turn now to business rates, a key issue for local services and economic growth. Yesterday, at stage 3 of the budget, I confirmed that we would moderate the proposed adjustment to rates relief for empty industrial properties and extend the fresh start and new start release for the duration of 2016-17. Other proposals that I can now confirm are setting the standard poundage rate at £48.4 and the large business supplement at £2.6 for 2016-17. Our renewable relief scheme will be refocused to support schemes with community involvement and new developments coming on stream in 2016-17. The small business bonus scheme will continue unchanged for 2016-17, benefiting around 100,000 business properties. We are extending for a further four years to 2019-20, the current business rates incentives for enterprise areas and creating new life sciences enterprise areas at Biocity in North Lanarkshire. The closure of the two Tata Steel sites is a national concern, and our task force has been interrogating ways to provide support to encourage reoccupation. One measure that we are putting in place is a new rates relief scheme for steel production on those sites. Given the importance of rural digital connectivity, we are piloting a new rates relief scheme in Arran and in the Cairngorms to incentivise new mobile mass construction, which could subsequently be rolled out more widely. Legislation was laid yesterday for all those changes to come into force on 1 April. It underlined the Government's commitment to maintain Scotland's position as the best place in the UK to do business with a rates relief package that is estimated at over £550 million for 2016-17. We continue to listen to the views of business and will shortly announce details of the review of business rates as committed to at the draft budget. In summary, the total funding from the Scottish Government to local government next year amounts to more than £10.3 billion. I invite the Parliament to support the order, which will make provision for the funding by supporting the local government for Scotland order 2016. It was only yesterday that workers from councils across Scotland assembled in front of this Parliament to protest at the cuts that were visited on local government by John Swinney. They stood shoulder to shoulder with councillors and council leaders, and they did so because they knew that those cuts are not council cuts, they are SNP cuts and they are John Swinney's cuts. The SNP Government had a choice, but they decided yesterday that they would continue Tory austerity and cut hundreds of millions of pounds from essential public services rather than raise a penny on income tax, so those cuts are entirely theirs. Mr Swinney had the barefates cheek to try and tell us that the impact of the cuts was minimal and we were somehow utterly exaggerating the scale of the job losses. The SNP has form on this. Unions estimate that there have been 40,000 job losses in local government since the SNP came to power. As a result of this budget, COSLA has said that there will be 15,000 job losses and the GMB estimates that there will be 8,000. Whichever figure it is, the scale of jobs cut from local government is not minimal, is not exaggerated. SNP-controlled clack manager is a very small authority. Let me repeat that they are cutting 350 jobs. They are doing so over the next three years, but, of course, the First Minister did not want to go into that much detail. She gave you the first-year figures, but that is 15 per cent of the whole workforce at that local authority. What about the cuts that that local authority is making to the third sector? Cups to women's aid, to rape crisis? Will there be no job losses as a consequence of that? And what about other areas? I understand—I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will correct me if I am wrong—170 jobs were lost in Angus last week. 282 posts might well go in Highland. Unison tells us that almost 2,000 jobs were lost in Edinburgh where the SNP is in coalition with Labour. That is seven times the number at Tata Steel. If the SNP is so sure of their ground, let us have an impact assessment of the underfunding of local government and the cuts to services and the loss of jobs because it is not minimal, it is not exaggerated. In Mr Swinney's own backyard, person can Ross is cutting learning materials and support staff. They are increasing class sizes in English and maths. I do not think that he believes that that is good for the children in his area. I know that local councils are struggling with the cuts. Jobs are not being replaced when they become vacant. Staff are being asked to do more with less. In some areas, absence rates have gone up, indicating that stressed staff, like teachers and care workers, are under. People are losing their jobs and people are under increasing stress. Are they collateral damage for the cabinet secretary? Is the impact on them and their families minimal or in some way exaggerated? Let me repeat a point that we have made consistently. If this was the private sector, there would be MSPs across the chamber clamouring for a task force to alleviate the impact. When is the cabinet secretary going to do something to help those who are now out of work? Of course, the cabinet secretary says that he has agreement from all 32 local authorities and, yes, he does have letters accepting the budget allocation made to them because they had no choice. They did so under duress. They were facing draconian sanctions, which would have stripped even more money from their budget than was already the case. How could they not accept that when, effectively, you had a gun to their head? I am old enough, Presiding Officer. I know that you might doubt this, but I remember the days of the Concordat with local government. John Swinney is the architect of that. The cabinet secretary is talking about mutual respect, parity of esteem, handshakes, back slapping and smiles all round. Although those uplands are but a distant memory, relations, frankly, are now in deep freeze. No respect, not valued by a centralising Government. Meetings declined, budgets slashed. Do you know that it is even so bad that SNP councillors, including the SNP's lead member in Edinburgh and council leader in North Esher, are complaining too. Those cuts are brutal. According to SPICE, they are in the order of £600 million. The budget was £10,756.7 million for last year. It is £10,152 million for this year coming, although I acknowledge that the cabinet secretary has added some in. However, I am sure that it will now be treated to an explanation of capital re-profiling, but in my book, £600 million is £600 million. The local government's share of the Scottish budget is now even lower at 30 per cent. I know that John Swinney likes to claim it is higher. He always says it to me, but he is engaged in nothing more than smoke and mirrors. He is adding in contributions for fire and police, which he stripped out years ago. Do you know that local government is not some abstract thing? It is all about services, services that civilise our society, home care for older people, adaptations for disabled people, support for children with special needs, education, care services, emptying our bins, cleaning our roads, libraries housing and so much more. Those are services for everyone. The SNP has decided that those local services are not important. In each and every local authority are John Swinney's cuts and the SNP's cuts. I have always regarded the finance secretary as a reasonable man, and he is sometimes mild-mannered. I am surprised to see the level of probium that has been directed towards him over the past few weeks from local government. We have been described as Don Corleone Swinney, the mafia boss, as the Jack Pallant character in the 1950s western shame, gunning down the innocent farmer, and it is imposing a totally unacceptable settlement that is an attack on the democratic mandate of local government. It is impossible not to have some sympathy for the views of those in local government as to the cabinet secretary's negotiating tactics. I can only imagine the outrage from the SNP if the Westminster Government treated the Scottish Government in the same way that the Scottish Government is treating local councils. That is undoubtedly a difficult settlement for councils, and it means that tough decisions are having to be taken. As we know from budget debates in this Parliament, the Scottish Government, as Jackie Baillie said, did have other choices that it could have made in relation to taxation. I agree with the stance that it took on opposing a rise in income tax, but it can hardly blame Westminster or anyone else for the choices that they have now made. In the area that I represent, I am well aware of the concerns raised by Fife Council about what this level of cuts will mean for public services, but elsewhere, the position is a happier one. In Stirling Council, where the Conservatives share the administration and we have a Conservative finance convener and councillor Neil Benny, the council is today delivering a robust, innovative and responsible budget that protects front-line services and finds savings through making the council more efficient. There is no cut in Stirling, in music provision, in nursery care, in adult learning, in rural services or in services for older people. New money has been found to invest in economic growth in Stirling, including investment in schools, roads, funding schemes and rural broadband, and new efficiencies have been found in the back office. Where there are Conservatives involved in running local government, this shows what can be done. Other councils have to take responsibility for some of the choices that they have made. In Perth and Kinross, the SNP-run council has chosen to spend nearly £1 million on a relocation of the council chambers from the top floor to the ground floor of the council headquarters. While I am sure that this is a desirable project, one has to ask whether, in these straight-in times, it is a priority. Those costs include £150,000 being spent on new chairs and desks for the councillors. While those in the voluntary sector will look on and wonder if they are facing potential cuts in funding, how that can be justified. Today's order is about the allocation of funding to councils, and we will be supporting it. We have one reservation, which I mentioned in the budget debate yesterday, and I make no apology for raising it again today. It is not since 2009, I believe, that we have had a proper look at the funding allocation mechanism between councils. We have had persistent claims from councils in the north-east of Scotland, particularly Aberdeen City, where the current funding mechanism disadvantages them. Although the economy in Aberdeen and the north-east was booming in relation to the rest of Scotland, there might have been a case for ignoring those claims. However, now, with a rapid downturn in oil and gas, the situation has become more acute, and there is undoubtedly a greater demand on council services in Aberdeen than there has been before. For those reasons, we believe that it is time to look again at the funding allocation settlement. It would be useful to the cabinet secretary when he is winding up to indicate whether that is something that the Scottish Government has prepared to do so in the near future. With that one reservation, I am conscious of the difficult circumstances in which local government has been put. As a result of the Scottish Government's choices, we will be supporting this order decision-type. I thank the cabinet secretary for his short open debate. Speeches of four minutes maximum, please, and I call Willie Rennie to be followed by Kevin Stewart. I start, as I finished off yesterday, with a special play around the local alcohol and drug partnerships. The reduction from the main budget from around about £69.2 million to £53.8 million is supposed to be made up from local health boards, but I appreciate whether the Deputy First Minister could explain whether that money will be forthcoming, because there is great anxiety amongst the alcohol and drug partnerships that they will see a significant drop in their funding of something in the order of 23 per cent at a time when they are requiring additional support to deal with the required treatment requirements of certain communities. From those of us who have witnessed some of the projects that that money funds, it would be a detrimental step to see that funding reduced. I appreciate if we could have an answer from the Deputy First Minister as to whether he is going to reconsider that allocation or provide the guarantees from the local health boards. Secondly, to follow up on the point that Murdo Fraser has just raised about Aberdeen City Council funding, Mr Swinney and I have an annual discussion about this issue, but he refuses to budge every single year. Murdo Fraser makes a fair point that this year is even more important than ever that he promised that the 85 per cent threshold, the floor that was set by the S&P Government all those years ago and has hardly been ever met since, should be met this year. It accounts for something like £18 million of a shortfall in the funding for Aberdeen City Council at a time when funding is tight. That is quite a significant sum of money. I would appreciate if the Deputy First Minister will at last change the policy and agree to meet the 85 per cent threshold so that Aberdeen City Council can receive the money that they are due. The context for that, of course, is the £500 million cuts to local government as a whole, as we have been debating for what seems like quite a number of weeks now. We know to rehearse the argument that the S&P Government has greater flexibility, more flexibility than ever before, but at that time they are imposing even greater strictures on local government with their triple lock arrangement, where if they raise the council tax just by £1 they lose all of the money for social care in terms of teacher numbers but also the funding for the council tax freeze, which seems overly draconian, as far as I am concerned, and certainly removes an element of local democracy and certain decision making. As a result, the cuts that are coming local governments where John Swinney's cuts. Every single one of them is at his behest, so he needs to accept the responsibility for the effects of those cuts as they come in the coming year. I think that Gavin Brown set it out very well yesterday when he explained that when the cuts come from Westminster, the draconian, but when they are dealt out to local authorities they are somehow very generous. I do not know where the magic money tree comes from in between. I know it was referred to yesterday that John Swinney is some kind of wizard, but I am not really sure that he is able to magic up that amount of money in between it coming from London and being passed on to local authorities. However, as is usually the case, every single cut is the responsibility of Westminster and every single investment is the responsibility of John Swinney. The two are not the same, and we need to have a bit more frankness about the flexibility that we have, the ability to do things differently if we choose in this Parliament. I would encourage at this last moment to John Swinney to change his mind, give local authorities the flexibility, look at the alcohol and drug partnerships and also Aberdeen City Council funding. Over the past few days, we have had the discussion over the budget and now over the local government finance order. There is one thing that is very clear to me and one thing that I certainly do not want to do. I do not want to have low-paid workers in Scotland and their families having to pay for George Osborne's austerity, no matter what the Labour Party may think. It was very interesting today because Jackie Baillie wanted to talk about detail, but she and her colleagues have not talked about detail in terms of the rebate scheme that they were offering in terms of their tax raid on the lowest paid in our society. It is very interesting that she and her colleagues have avoided that, and it quite clearly shows that, in all that they do in this regard, we have a situation in which they have written a policy on the back of a fag packet, and everybody out there knows that that is the case. I will give way to Mr McDonald. I am very grateful, and we are talking about policies that are written on the back of a fag packet. Mr Stewart will remember standing at the last election on a promise that no council in Scotland would receive less than 85 per cent of the Scottish average revenue funding. How will he explain to his constituents and mine why this budget provides Aberdeen with 77.3 per cent of the Scottish average? Kevin Stewart will say to Mr McDonald that I am very grateful to the late Brian Adam, who got this Government to introduce the funding floor, which means that this year Aberdeen will get an extra £13.9 million, which is not to be sniffed at in my book. No, I have had enough of Mr McDonald, that has to be said, and so did the people of Aberdeen Central at the last election. Can I just say that what we have is a situation where this Government is continuing to live up to its pledges to the people? We are seeing a council tax freeze to help families across Scotland where some £1,500. We have seen advances in health and social care integration and an investment this year, which I think is to be celebrated and which will ensure that care workers get the living wage, and that is something that I think we should all applaud. Yesterday, we saw the announcement from the cabinet secretary to see the attainment fund rise to £160 million, a doubling of that fund, which is extremely important. During the course of his speech today, the cabinet secretary managed to talk about discretionary housing payments to cover the bedroom tax, the Tory's awful tax, again on the poorest in our society, and we heard him talk of funding for kinship carers, which I think is extremely important indeed. What I want to see and what my colleagues want to see and what the budget yesterday and this announcement today will deliver is a pay rise for people on low wages and not a tax rise on our lowest paid workers. What I would ask of the Labour Party, if it has any credibility whatsoever, is to spell out your policy in full so that the public out there actually know what it's about. As it stands, what you have proposed would see a raid on the pockets of the lowest paid workers in Scotland. We now come to closing speeches before I call the closing speakers. Can I just remind members respectfully that everyone in the chamber is required to conduct business with courtesy, please? I'm glad that this afternoon's debate has given us a chance to elaborate on the challenges and decisions that are facing funding of local government, because it's so important that we get this right. To do that, we need to be clear on what the difficulties are and what has caused them and also needs to be done and who has the power to make the difference. It is clear that this settlement represents a financial challenge for local authorities, as we've all heard, but we must keep an eye, I think, on the bigger picture of keeping local government sustainable in the long term. To achieve this, councils across the country need to take the right decisions to deliver the service that is as efficient as possible. This is the least the taxpayers deserve, and yes, there remains significant scope to make savings in local government. It is important to get the balance right when funding for local government is allocated, because each commitment inevitably comes with a cost in the form of alternative spending foregone or taxes raised. These trade-offs are essential and essential to responsible government. I'm pleased to see that the Scottish Government has agreed with the Scottish Conservatives that it would not be right to inflict hard taxes on the people of Scotland. Taking more money from the people's pay packets may seem like an easier solution to financial challenges, but it's certainly not the right one. I would like to emphasise that the decision to raise taxes and transfer funding to the Government was in the Scottish Government's power, and they took the same position that we did to protect taxpayers. It is therefore not good enough to pass the buck yet again and blame the changes on the financial settlement of the UK Government. This admission of responsibility is particularly important, because the funding for the Scottish Government makes up a huge part of local authorities' budgets, and is therefore central to their financial planning. When local authorities are so dependent on local central government funding, as well as being subject to centralised targets, they need a Government that can accept the accountability for the decisions that they make. Having said that, the councils themselves are responsible for the long-term sustainability of local services, and at the moment it's clear that there is room to streamline these operations. The City of Edinburgh Council, for example, is spending millions on an unwanted scheme to enforce a 20-mile-long limit across most of the city without any compelling reason to do so, and yet I cannot see what this achieves for my constituents, let alone why it should happen, why we should spend the council tax on it. We all know that the council's track record on fiscal constraint isn't that great when it comes to transport schemes. This is just one example of the many across Scotland, as we've just heard from Murdo Fraser, my colleague, about Kinross. If councils are to serve the public, they must respond to the financial pressures by avoiding unnecessary expenditure and making efficiencies in essential services, rather than seeking to take more from local residents through crude measures like increasing parking fees. It is only correct that we then respectfully listen to all points of view and consider varied options if we are to get the system of local government funding and the delivery right for the people we represent. Again, to do this requires open, honest admissions of where the responsibility lies. It's not good enough that our constituents, if central and local government, just claim impotence in the face of someone else's decisions. Yes, we must make proper, well-rounded assessments to arrive at the fairest deal for all involved. Every participant must be open about what they contribute to meet the need of the challenges faced. After all, it is the responsibility of the elected representatives to tackle the challenges facing public services, rather than passing the buck, and we should certainly not pass the burden on to hard-working members of the public. Yesterday's debate on stage 3 of the budget was a pretty depressing affair, and I had very little expectation that today's discussion would be any more edifying. For the most part, the SNP is simply refusing to engage with the argument around raising taxes versus cutting spending, and they are either trying to demonise or falsely portray what is on offer or pretending that they have no real choice. The cabinet secretary, who murdered Fraser, I think correctly identified, we normally find to be an eminently reasonable and personable parliamentary colleague, presented two arguments that were simply contradictory. He described the settlement, and this is the point that Willie Rennie made, too. He described the settlement passed on to him from the UK Government as unacceptable and potentially devastating, but said that his proportionately larger cuts to local authorities would have minimal impact. I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but to say that defies logic does not quite do justice to Mr Swinney's attempts to face two ways at the same time. In particular—and I wonder if he regrets this already—the cabinet secretary tried to downplay the effect of his £500 million cuts on jobs and the number of layoffs that we might expect. Given that the majority of local government spend is accounted for by the workforce, it is difficult to see how large-scale job losses can be avoided. Local authorities themselves are certainly, in little doubt of the pain, John Swinney's cuts will bring with them. Unison are worried about 2,000 job losses in Edinburgh. In Fife, we heard this week that, as many as a further 2,000 jobs could go. Given that, and because I have estimated that, up to 15,000 are at risk, given that the cabinet secretary has already presided over at least 40,000 job losses in local government, his attempts to minimise the effects of those huge SNP cuts will be seen as offensive to those directly affected and to many in our trade unions. That is the point that my colleague Jackie Baillie put to him earlier. If he disagrees with our figures, or he believes that COSLA and the unions are utterly exaggerating them, could I ask him once more to produce his own figures, his own estimates? I will work from those. The other oxymoronic or contradictory statement that Mr Swinney came out with yesterday was when he said that he was entitled to impose conditions and limits on local government decision making, but that it was entirely up, and I quote, up to individual local authorities to take the decisions that they want to about their budget choices. Is the cabinet secretary not aware that it was his centralising and dictatorial attitude to our local authorities, which has so angered many of our locally elected representatives? We know that the SNP has already centralised our police service, our fire service and our colleges, but Mr Swinney's interventions in supposedly local decision making is every bit as authoritarian. Yesterday, he claimed that all 32 councils had agreed with him because all had signed his letter, conveniently forgetting that he had given them no choice. It was signed up or faced penalties of hundreds of millions of pounds. Can I ask again, did Mr Swinney read any of those letters? I've got a couple here, Fife Council. It was with the greatest reluctance, I see no alternative, given the extreme punitive sanctions that you would otherwise impose on Fife Council. Or Edinburgh, in agreeing with this package of measures, I need to make it crystal clear that I'm doing so under duress. In all my years in local government, I cannot recall such a dracorian settlement both financially and in terms of the penalties that are threatened. I find it totally baffling that a Government that betrays itself at every turn as being anti-austerity would support a settlement that will undoubtedly have a devastating impact on local communities, services and jobs in the years to come when it had other levers at its disposal to avoid such an outcome. I don't know about you, Presiding Officer, but that does not sound like agreement to me. We know that this is bad news for jobs and for local democracy, but what does it mean for services? Well, as many will have feared, the act will fall most heavily on the third sector and non-staterary services, such as Women's Aid or rape crisis centres. One of the groups through the Parliament to make their voice heard yesterday was Watch Us Grow from Cumbernauld. Watch Us Grow is just a small local charity working with adults with a range of support needs and volunteers recovering from mental health challenges. It is basically the gardens at Palace Road Country Park. It could not help but be inspired by the difference that it makes to so many lives. It gives people a sense of purpose, fulfilment, achievement and belonging. Those are not statutory-funded services, but they are essential to the wellbeing of every one of us, and they are under threat because of John Swinney's cuts. Everyone who uses or relies on locally delivered public services is now under threat. I now call on John Swinney to wind up the debate, Deputy First Minister, seven minutes. Let me begin with one of the remarks that Ken Macintosh made, which was about the allegedly centralising and dictatorial policies that I preside over. Anyone looking at, I think that Jackie Baillie just muttered that you do, which of course is just the familiar mutterings that we get from the left-hand side of Parliament on a daily basis. Let's look at some of the background to all of this. One of my first acts as finance secretary was to liberate local authorities from £2 billion worth of dictatorial budget control that Jackie Baillie and her ministerial colleagues exerted from St Andrew's House. Local government had asked to be liberated from the dictatorship of ring fencing, and it took the election of a liberating SNP Government to come to office and to remove that constraint from local government in Scotland. Jackie Baillie knows that I am very generous in accepting interventions. If she wants to make an intervention rather than mutter, I will take an intervention. I do not recall muttering, cabinet secretary, but let me put it to you that what you are doing just now is ring fencing. That is exactly what you claim not to be doing any more. I will come on to that in a second. The ring fencing liberated local authorities in Scotland and gave them much more financial flexibility. Then Ken Macintosh attacked us for creating a single police force. A single police force was in the Labour manifesto in 2011. Did they not know what they were agreeing to when they were offering that to the people of Scotland? Had they not perhaps looked at the detail of what a single police force might actually look like once it was in fact constructed? If I come on to the nature of the agreement that I have sought with local government, I do not know where Jackie Baillie has gone on about meetings with local government being declined. I have had endless meetings with local government about the issues in... Sorry? Ken Macintosh came out of the Parliament yesterday to meet representatives from local government. I hope that he can understand, perhaps, that on budget day, when I have also appeared in front of the French Committee, Mr Macintosh. It is quite difficult for me to find the time to do everything, but on Monday morning, I spent over an hour with representatives of unison from every part of the country in a perfectly considered and courteous discussion in St Andrew's house listening to the concerns of workers. Do not dare to come here and make baseless suggestions that I do not engage with working people in this country, because it is absolutely... Well, there is one SNP MSP that was doing it. It was me in St Andrew's house on Monday, so do not give me the baseless rubbish that you come out with in this Parliament. If we then look at the substance of the offer that I have made to local government, what are the issues that are at stake? 250 million pounds worth of investment in health and social care integration, including the investment to pay for the living wage for social care workers, what could local authorities and the Labour Party possibly disagree with about that proposition? Secondly, we have argued for a settlement that will protect teacher numbers in our schools so that we do not have any further erosion of the numbers of teachers in our schools, so we have preserved the pupil-teacher ratio. What could Labour and the local authorities object to about that? Finally, we come to the council tax freeze. I simply remind the Labour Party that many of the authorities that they now control were elected in 2012 on a commitment to a five-year freeze of the council tax, so what on earth is there to object to about all of that? What we have put in place, Presiding Officer, is a set of arrangements with local government over the course of our term of government, which began with the removal of ring fencing to give local authorities much more freedom to act, to then protect local government over many years in budget settlements from the reductions in public expenditure that we were facing as a government, and the baseline position of local government therefore starts this difficult period at a much higher level than local government could have anticipated and a significantly higher baseline than local government south of the border, which has been absolutely decimated by reductions in public expenditure. I encourage members to think about the point that I made in my opening remarks that when we take into account the investment that the Government is making in integrating health and social care, the reduction in the budget and resource terms amounts to less than 1 per cent of local authority expenditure. That is why I think that the claims that are being put around by the Labour Party are exaggerated. If we go back to the—I am very surprised that Jackie Baillie was returning to this territory, which was so comprehensively debunked by the First Minister at question time just a couple of hours ago, where the accusations and the suggestions that were made by the Labour Party were exposed for what they are. Let me just make a couple of concluding specific remarks to address points that members have made in the debate. First of all, Mr Fraser asked about the distribution formula. The distribution formula is kept under constant review by the settlement and distribution group. If there is a particular more fundamental review of distribution, we would have to have local government's agreement to do so, and local government has not signalled its willingness to do that. I am familiar with the issues about Aberdeen, because I am, of course, the First Minister who has given a specific additional funding settlement to the city of Aberdeen. If it had not been for my actions, the city of Aberdeen council today would be getting £14 million less in its settlement than it is actually getting. That is what we have delivered. I am sorry, Mr Macdonald. The cabinet secretary is in his last four to five seconds. The city of Aberdeen has been given a settlement. My colleague, Mr Stewart, referred to the work of Brian Adam to bring this about. It was a persuasive argument that the Government has faithfully put in place. Of course, we were the first Government to tackle the Aberdeen funding issue. It was not tackled by the Liberal Democrats when they were in office. It was not tackled by the Labour Party when they were in office, so we are the Government that is delivered for the people of the city of Aberdeen. I encourage the Parliament to support that provision as part of the wider local government settlement that is in front of the Parliament today. Thank you. We now move on to the next item of business, which is a statement by Angela Constance on the programme of child protection work. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. Members who wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary should press the request speak button now. I think that it might be helpful out of the outset if I say that we are extremely tight for time all afternoon, so I will expect the questions to be brief indeed. The cabinet secretary should start now. I commend her, Constance. 10 minutes please. Last September, I committed to announcing a programme of action on child protection and to do so in this Parliament. I want to start my statement today by thanking those who work day in and day out to protect Scotland's children, whether they be social workers, police officers or members of the wider children services workforce. The Government can be proud of our achievements to promote and support children's wellbeing. We have embedded a universalist preventative approach to getting it right for every child and its working. For example, we achieved our aim of reducing stillbirths by 15 per cent by 2015, a year early. Growing up in Scotland's latest report shows progress in narrowing the attainment gap and reducing health inequalities in children's early years. Also, the number of referrals of children to hearings on offence grounds has reduced by 82 per cent between 2006-07 and 2014-15. We know that intervening early improves outcomes, and this approach will be strengthened by the introduction of the named person and increased number of health visitors. They will be at the heart of a system better able to spot vulnerability and heightened risk of harm. They will be able to take early preventative action and, where necessary, flag concerns to specialist services and social work, health and elsewhere. Despite all that we do to prevent harm, we know that for a small number of our most vulnerable children we still require a system that acts when harm has occurred. We need a system that acts to protect children effectively, efficiently and always with their best interest at the centre. The fundamental elements of that system are already in place. A small but still increasing number of children are placed on the child protection register to better coordinate how they are supported and protected. We have child protection committees in every local authority area enabling professionals and agencies to work together strategically. When issues arise with tragic consequences, initial and significant case reviews following voluntary guidance are commissioned. We have also modernised our unique children's hearing system through legislation passed in 2011. We have invested in professional development for social workers and all those working with vulnerable children and families. We have focused in recent years on the risks posed by particular harms, including domestic abuse, parental substance misuse and child sexual abuse and exploitation. There are many positives in our child protection system, evidence and all those elements that I have highlighted. However, the Care Inspectorate's triennial review and the Brock report highlighted weaknesses that we must address, not least an underlying competence and confidence in assessing and responding to risks. Our approach to Government is founded on protecting public services and where appropriate reforming them. We must ask ourselves the tough questions now to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable children by ensuring that they receive the right help at the right time within a system that is capable of responding effectively to the changing nature of risk. I am today outlining the actions that this Government will take to strengthen how we protect children. First, we will commission a comprehensive review of the elements that I have outlined above to consider what we might need to change or improve in the underpinning processes and structures. The review will make its recommendations by the end of 2016. It is also timely to consider the impact of the 2011 changes to the children's hearing system and will therefore ask the children's hearing improvement partnership to scrutinise practice in and around the hearing system and report its findings later in this year. Protecting children depends significantly on leadership. That in turn depends on professionals feeling that they are supported and valued and confident about taking on the most challenging and often harrowing but most vital of roles in our society. In recent reports, I have highlighted the effect of poor leadership. Driving improvement amid a sea of competing priorities is undoubtedly complex and demanding, but it is essential that child protection has leaders with a clear vision of the challenges faced and how best to respond. Therefore, the second strand of my improvement programme will focus on leadership. We will invest in activities to empower and support senior leaders, encourage and support leadership across the whole system and support staff through implementation of change and beyond. Specifically, we will host a national leadership summit in the summer to reaffirm our collective aspiration and commitment. We will provide additional funding to the Centre for Excellence for looked-after children in Scotland to extend its improvement work into child protection. We will also introduce a degree qualification for residential childcare workers so that all practitioners have the skills and support that they need. The third strand of my reform programme will focus on the issues of scrutiny, accountability, transparency and assurances. We need to know that the system is working and that it is continuously improving. Therefore, I have asked the Care Inspectorate to move from publishing triennial reviews of key inspection findings to annual ones. Wherever at the end of its current inspection programme in 2017, the Care Inspectorate will introduce an approach that focuses inspection on services for the most vulnerable children. We will also work with Education Scotland to build on its inspection approach to strengthen its focus on promoting children's welfare. Alongside more robust scrutiny, we must develop our knowledge and our understanding of what works in child protection practice. We will therefore work with the sector to establish a data and evidence programme so that we use all available information to drive effective practice, focus improvement and measure impact. Professionals tell us that neglect is the primary maltreatment issue that children in Scotland currently face. We have a clear understanding of the devastating long-term effects of neglect on children. We must support practitioners to recognise and respond to neglect appropriately and dynamically if we are to break what is often an intergenerational cycle. The fourth strand will focus on neglect and will review current legislation to ensure that we have appropriate and effective measures in place to protect children from actual or risk of harm. We must also develop a holistic picture of neglect across Scotland and test existing models and implement the best-to-effect practice improvements. We will ensure that the work links with existing activity in the area, such as the equally safe strategy. We have much to be proud of in the way that we champion and care for Scotland's children, but our ambition to make Scotland the best place in the world to grow up is not just for some children, but for all of our children. That means having a child protection system that we are confident delivers the right support at the right time for children and families with the greatest need. My statement today is the next phase of our journey towards that goal. This is a decisive moment. We have an opportunity to honestly, thoughtfully and critically examine what needs to improve and, most importantly, effect the changes that are necessary. There really is no more important matter than the protection of our children. We address the issue always in the knowledge that, when we fail, that failure too often results in tragedy. The current process of which the cabinet secretary says today's statement is the next stage, for example, leads back directly to the case of Declan Haney and the warnings also arising from the J report into the Rotterham scandal, warnings that such abuse could well happen here in Scotland too. We will always support the Government in acting on child protection. The Brock report was published in November 2014 and, by January 2015, its author was complaining of a lack of progress. In response, in February 2015, a summit was held. Now, a full year later and just in under the wire of Perda, the cabinet secretary has announced a comprehensive review of underlying processes and structures, another summit in the summer, and, if I understood it correctly, another review of legislation in the area. If the Brock report recommended anything, it recommended urgency, knowing what the consequences of inertia could be. After two years yielding two summits and two new reviews, does the cabinet secretary really feel that the journey that she describes is anything like fast enough? I think that what might be helpful to Mr Gray and other members, and I do appreciate that it has brought up the Brock report, because the Brock report was very important in terms of some of the issues and weaknesses that it highlighted in and around the more formal aspects of our child protection system. I will put on spice, as we have done previously, the progress that we have made in implementing the Brock report. I know that the time is tight. Many of the recommendations of Brock at the time were accepted quickly in terms of the family's directorate of the Scottish Government assuming overall leadership and securing progress on the improvement programme. We are currently lasing with both the Improvement Service and Audit Scotland in relation to commissioning some further work on the costs and savings that are attached to early intervention. We did have the national leadership summit on child wellbeing held last year. Other recommendations of the Brock report are addressed by the implementation of the Children and Young People's Act in particular part 3. Education Scotland and the Care Inspectorate are working together to strengthen the quality assurance process. There is another important progress in relation to the ministerial working group on child sexual exploitation. Members will have seen the national campaign to raise awareness on child sexual exploitation. That was very much in the response to important research that showed how many parents had heard of child sexual exploitation but did not think that it would affect their family or indeed know how to deal with it. I will put on spice that comprehensive information that will show the linkage between Brock, the Care Inspectorate triennial review and the work that we have continued to do since 2007 and how the child protection improvement plan is about taking us forward. I have come here to this Parliament of my own volition. I have come here on willing, I have not been dragged here and I want us all together to honestly look and appraise at our strengths and weaknesses and to build on what is good but address where we need to improve. I thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of the statement. I would like to put on record at the Conservative Party's commitment to the programme of action on child protection. We have some empathy with Labour's concerns. We would like to see more action as soon as possible, but we do appreciate that it can take time to determine precisely what is working, where the problems are and identifying the best and most appropriate solution for every child. In that sense, we would welcome updates towards the end of the year and after the election. In the meantime, I ask the cabinet secretary, given the excellent work of organisations such as the Aberlour Trust, to support families with their very preventive approach, which is always better than responding to a crisis. Will that be rolled out across Scotland? I am aware that it is very successful in Dundee. Will she look again at introducing a pilot for councillors in Scottish schools? There is an evidence base that this is highly successful in supporting vulnerable children. I ask if the programme of action will be targeted at the most vulnerable children to ensure that resources are used on those who deserve it the most and need it the most. Of course, Mrs Scanlon will know that I do not get into the issues of children that are deserving and undeserving of support, but what Mrs Scanlon meant is that there is a need to build on that strong platform of universal services, which all speakers have made reference to today. However, that improvement work is taking a very specific look at the more formal aspects of our child protection system. There are some fundamental questions that we need to address in and around the role of child protection committees. There is an interesting debate about who should chair local child protection committees, should it be a senior officer or should it be an independent chair? We have significant case reviews in this country that are compiled in accordance with voluntary guidance, but there is no requirement in terms of timescale or in the circumstances when those significant case reviews should be done. There are also issues about ensuring that we have a self-learning system so that all of our practitioners have their finger on the pulse and are able to prevent tragedies happening or act swiftly and efficiently when our child protection system needs to intervene to protect our most vulnerable. That is very much about our most vulnerable children and about the staff, services and structures at the sharper end of the child protection service. I know that many schools in terms of mental health issues for pupils will have a key link in NHS in terms of accessing advice and support, but Mrs Scanlon raises an important issue about mental health and prevention of that work. There are two aspects of that. We are trying to build on what we have started—that solid foundation of a universal preventative approach—and look to where we need to improve the sharper, more responsive end of our child protection service. I recognise the importance of the subject, but I have also got a duty to protect the business for the rest of the day, so can I please appeal to members to make your question brief and the answer brief from the cabinet secretary and I will make as much progress as is possible? Will the coffee fall by Kara Hilton? I welcome the introduction of the new degree level qualification for residential childcare workers that the cabinet secretary announced. Can she advise when and how that might be introduced? We very much want to take the workforce with us and to support the workforce in this endeavour. It is very important that residential childcare staff have the qualifications that they have the parity of esteem with, for example, social work staff, but we will look to implement it over a period of a number of years. We will look at methods of work-based learning and ways to acknowledge prior learning, so it will be over a number of years to be phased in. What reassurances can the cabinet secretary give that the £500 million cut to local authority budgets will not impact on the ability of social work and other services to effectively carry out the child protection functions and deliver on the objective set-out in the programme of action? I do not want to, in the interests of brevity, rehash some of the debates that we have been having all week. My intention of coming to Parliament of my own volition on this area that is vitally important to us all is to move the debate forward about what we need to do to ensure that the wider architecture of our child protection services are indeed fit for the future and will indeed tackle the issues in and around neglect. I know from my experience that local government take their statutory responsibilities and child protection very seriously. I am not aware of any issues in terms of recruiting social workers. That is very different from when I was a social worker under the last Labour Government, but there will indeed be statistics out next week that will reveal things such as the spend in social work. I am sure that we will all want to scrutinise those figures. I also thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement and certainly welcome elements of all four strands of activity outlined by Ms Constance, including the specific focus on neglect. Ian Gray was right to highlight some of the concerns around the timeframe that he particularly given Jackie Brock's frustration expressed over 12 months ago. Given that social work Scotland identifies substance misuse as one of the key underlying causes of child neglect, will the cabinet secretary think that it is sensible for the Scottish Government to be cutting funding to alcohol and drug partnerships by £15 million? As I say, our local services have statutory responsibilities to child protection. There are many issues that underlie child protection, whether it is domestic violence, which we have a good record of tackling in this Parliament. Substance misuse of parents is a huge issue in terms of child neglect. In this Parliament, many members in this Parliament have championed issues in and around child sexual exploitation, domestic violence and parental substance misuse. We now need to identify who will be the champion to tackle neglect in all its form. It is the biggest single issue of mal-treatment of children in Scotland. I absolutely welcome and endorse the briefing from social work Scotland that is calling on addressing neglect to be a national priority. I hope that my statement today gives a message out to members of the wider workforce and to social work Scotland that this Government is taking its responsibilities very seriously and that it is a national priority to tackle the neglect that is experienced by Scotland's children today. I very much welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on the children's hearing system. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the 2,500 volunteers for their work. We modernise the framework around children's hearings to give us a strong understanding system. Can the cabinet secretary explain how the review will keep children's needs at the centre of this? We often debate and discuss in this Parliament the need for post-legislative scrutiny in terms of our children's hearing system, which is so precious and valued to us all that it is right—the time is now right—since the implementation of the act that we review. I want to ensure that practice, the length and breadth of Scotland, is consistent and within the spirit of that legislation. The cabinet secretary just said that she fully endorses the briefing from social work Scotland. She has a particular section in that briefing in which she expresses concern about the reduction to local authority budgets and the impact that will have on her ability to carry out the services of child protection. Does she agree with that particular section while she asks for the reversal of those budget cuts so that child protection services are protected? I already, in answer to the question by Kara Hilton, addressed the issue that we are moving the debate on. Of course resources are important, but if it was as simple as increasing resources across the board to address the issue, it is not that simple. Some of that is about legislation, some of that is about accountability and some of it is about leadership. The guarantee that I will give to Mr Griffin is that there are a number of issues in the social work Scotland briefing that identify where we could take action now. I give an undertaking to look at those before Parliament rises and to identify actually the things that we could be doing now. Finally, Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, one of the biggest current harms to children is the impact of domestic violence in a household. What more do you think could be done to protect those children in those households? I know that this is an issue that is important to the member and many other members across the chamber. We of course recognise that violence against women and girls has a significant consequence on the lives of children and young people. Again, it is identified in the social work Scotland brief. Through our children's services fund, we are supporting specialist services, often direct support to children and young people experiencing domestic abuse and we have invested £3.4 million from that fund in 2015-16. My apologies to those members that I could not call. We move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15709. In the name of Dolfitt's Patrick on the Scottish elections date bill, members who wish to take part in this debate should press their request button now. I call on Dolfitt's Patrick to speak to move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, three minutes. I am pleased to open the debate this afternoon on the stage 3 consideration of the Scottish elections dates bill. I would like to start by thanking the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its scrutiny of and support of the bill. I emphasised throughout the passage of the bill that it is a very short and straightforward bill. Nonetheless, it is an important one, and Parliament has rightly subjected it to the same level of scrutiny as all other bills. From a Government perspective, it has gone through the same processes to ensure its robustness. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my bill team for its efforts and diligence. The fact that the bill has got to this stage without any amendments being lodged speaks for itself. I will take this opportunity to briefly recap what the bill does. As things stand, there will be an election to both the Scottish and UK parliaments on 7 May 2020. The bill therefore proposes moving our elections currently scheduled for 7 May 2020 to 6 May 2021. That will mean a five-year term for the next Parliament and will mirror the one-year extension to that current term. Moving the Parliament elections to May 2021 will mean that it will clash with the local government elections scheduled for the same day. The bill therefore also proposes moving those elections scheduled for 6 May 2021 to 5 May 2022. Again, that will mean a five-year term and will replicate the one-year extension to the current local government term. I set out during the stage 1 debate the reasons why I consider the clash of election dates to be undesirable and why the bill is therefore necessary. I won't repeat those now. However, it is worth noting that the tenor of the debate at stage 1 indicated a consensus in support for the arguments underpinning the bill. Where there is clearly less, unanimity, however, is on the issue of what the longer-term solution to the clash of election dates should be. There was a very interesting debate about future term lengths during stage 1 debate and members expressed a range of views. It is important to reiterate that decisions on permanent changes to the time of elections will be for members of the next session of Parliament to take. However, I restate my party's commitment to publicly consult on the issue should we be returned to government. That consultation would be wide-ranging and I hope to prove useful to those making the decision. The contributions made by members during the passage of this bill will undoubtedly help to inform future decisions. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that the short bill presents a straightforward and pragmatic solution to the issues of a clash of election dates. I move that the Parliament agrees that the Scottish election dates bill be passed. Opening the debate for Scottish Labour, I say at the outset that we will be supporting the bill at decision time tonight. The Scottish election dates bill is a concise and effective piece of legislation that aims to make the next term of the Scottish Parliament a five-year term Parliament, meaning that the next elections to the Scottish Parliament after May will be held on May 6, 2021. As a consequence of that, the Scottish local government elections will also be delayed by a year, meaning that after 2017, the next Scottish local government election will take place on May 5, 2022. Thereafter, elections to Scottish local government will return to taking place every fourth year. That change to the law will ensure that we do not see a repeat of 2007, when Scottish Parliamentary and Scottish local government elections were held on the same day, resulting in mass voter confusion and a record number of spoiled ballot papers. In the aftermath of the 2007 election, the Gould report was published, which recommended a complete separation of local government and Scottish parliamentary elections. That is exactly what the bill in front of this chamber does today. That change to the law will avoid any potential clashes that may arise with general elections to Westminster following the introduction of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2010. The next UK general election is scheduled for May 7, 2020, so moving the Scottish Parliament elections to the following year avoids a clash with those two very important elections. As I already mentioned, holding multiple elections on one polling day causes problems, such as an increase in spoiled ballot papers, and that is exactly what we saw in May 3, 2007, when the Scottish local government elections and parliamentary elections were held on the same day. That resulted in a record number of 142,000 spoiled ballot papers. I am sure that, across the chamber, we would all agree that we should do everything within our powers to ensure that this situation never occurs again. Having a five-year term for the Scottish Parliament will maintain the stability, scrutiny and performance of this Parliament. As Jo Fitzpatrick pointed out, it is up to the next parliamentary government, the next Government, to determine the length of elections following that. An alternative three-year term for the Scottish Parliament bringing the Scottish Parliament elections forward to 2019 would also have avoided potential clashes with the UK general election. However, the main problem with a three-year term would be running the risk of the Scottish Government implementing poor and rushed legislation in an effort to simply introduce new laws within their short term. The other devolved institutions, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales, also have five-year parliamentary terms, as does the UK Parliament. The Scottish Parliament should also have five-year parliamentary terms and remain in line with other UK Government institutions. This is a short but nevertheless important to be and in closing can I confirm our support. In this Parliament we debate many highly charged and contentious issues, robustly discussed. This is not one of them. As has been said, this is a short and straightforward bill. The twin proposals to shift the Scottish Parliament and local government election dates to 2021 and 2022 respectively are both sensible and necessary, and they will receive the support of the Conservatives today. Indeed, it seems clear that the bill has received wide support both within the chamber and outside it. According to the policy memorandum, the Scottish Government consulted several organisations regarding the proposed date changes, including COSLA, the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Management Board, the Electoral Form Society, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Exhaustive and Impressively Authoritative Compendium of Electoral Expertise. I am glad that all are said to be supportive of the bill. That consensus is encouraging. It is important to reflect on how we have got here. It was the Gould report in 2007 that pointed out the undesirable aspects of twinning local government and Scottish Parliament elections. A cross-party agreement has now emerged in the principle that that is indeed an unwise course of action. It should not fall on the same day as general elections in the House of Commons or any other significant elections. That, of course, is a principle that is recognised in the present Scotland bill, which declares that UK legislation should prevent a Scottish Parliament election being held on the same day as a UK general election, local election or an election to the European Parliament. That is a good practice that we should adhere to. It is worth noting that the powers that we are exercising today are yet another example of further devolution in practice because the responsibility for changing the date of the next Scottish Parliament election currently sits with the UK Parliament, but the Smith commission, which I served, recommended that the Scottish Parliament will itself have all powers in relation to elections in the Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland. However, of course, the Scotland bill currently before Westminster would not be enacted in sufficient time for that to resolve the issue immediately before us. It is important that, before people go to the polling station, they know the length of the next parliamentary session and they can make a decision with that knowledge. I am very glad that the specific issue is being addressed in the current Scotland bill, but, as I said, that will not be passed in time. Therefore, that bill is necessary. It is a productive co-operation between our two Governments. I want to see that continue. It is another example of the spirit of the Smith commission working in practice to a very good effect for the people of Scotland. I am very pleased to say that my party will support the bill at decision time. I thank you. We now move the open debate. I call Stuart Stevenson. Up to three minutes, Mr Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The bill, 200 words of it, as it is, was intensively looked at by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and we reported in a mere thousand words our conclusions and support for this bill. It is, of course, part of the continuing of reform. Over a very long period of time, there has been a process of representative democracy, starting perhaps with the 1832 Great Reform Act, which took the vote away from women who, if they had been head of the household and met the property qualification, had the vote up to that point. The 1868 Act, the Ballots Act, which quadrupled the size of the electorate, caused its own problems. In 1872, we had to introduce the first secret ballots, which took place at Pontifract on 15 August of that year. Of course, the minister should be aware that, at that period, if appointed to office as a minister, one had to resign one seat and fight a by-election before being permitted to take up ministerial office, which led in the 1880s in Scotland to the situation in which a member had been elected to the Westminster Parliament. In a by-election, he was appointed a minister, he immediately had to resign and fight another by-election. There were only eight days apart. We think that we have too many elections, perhaps even then even more. Of course, when Winston Churchill lost his seat in 1922 in Dundee, we had a first and second past the post system. We had a single vote, but we elected two members. In 1945, the university seats, where we elected three members using a single transferable vote system, the third member, a Conservative—no, not in three minutes, sorry—was successfully elected on the seventh round of redistribution of votes, having also lost their deposit. I wish for many of my Conservative friends in the forthcoming election an outcome. It is said that, in political debate, the debate is not always over when everything is being said, but merely when everyone has finally said it. I think that everything that can be said about this bill has probably now been said. Excellent. Thank you for your brevity. As we now move to closing speeches, I call an animal goldie up to three minutes. Less would be more. Goodness, it just seems seconds. I was here before, but here we go. I could say that this has been a very profound and extensive examination of the bill before us, but I think that what is clear, Deputy Presiding Officer, and not for the first time, this may be a short and straightforward bill, but it is a very important one. What is interesting to me is that it has been a pragmatic response to an issue of timescales. I think that that was necessary and I think that it was sensible. It is also true to say that I am not perhaps alone in believing that constitutional matters such as this should not be driven purely by practicalities. It is clear that many members across the Parliament feel that there needs to be a more established convention to regulate the length of parliamentary sessions for the Scottish Parliament and to provide a more permanent approach to avoiding potential clashes with other elections. I think that that needs to be based on a broad debate and a proper examination of the different options available to us. It will be a question for the next parliamentary session, but it is worth signalling in this debate that it is something that we really need to be applying our minds to. It will not affect me, I shall not be here, but I hope still to be alive to exercise my vote, Mr Stevenson, to support my party in its enhanced and I predict increased presence in this Parliament post May. I think that some good work has already been done in the Parliament, not least from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. It came up with an option of three years, but I think that the consensus is that it is just too short for a parliamentary session. Dr Richard Simpson had concerns. He thought that maybe we should ally the Scottish elections with the European cycle and with voting for local and Scottish Parliament at the same day. I certainly would not support that. I do not think that that is the best solution. The Smith commission, as I referred to my opening speech, looked at the issue briefly, and it certainly felt that there should not be an election at the same day as the UK Parliament or the European Parliament or any nationwide local government election. I think that there is scope, Deputy Presiding Officer, for investigating this further and perhaps looking at what Wales and Northern Ireland have decided to do. They have both taken the step to legislate to regulate the position. I am not advocating any one position at this stage, but I am merely pointing out that it is important for the future that we do not just on an issue-by-issue basis react to what we need to do to get the matter through. We actually come up with some enduring solution. There is a myriad of possibilities, and I think that those issues are significant. They affect us not just as members of this Parliament, but they affect not just candidates who want to come to this Parliament, but they also affect every voter in Scotland every three minutes, Deputy Presiding Officer, on my intent of every last second of it. In conclusion, this is a worthwhile bill, and an important one, and my party will support it. Now, Colin James Kelly, up to three minutes, less would be more for you too, Mr Kelly. I am not even getting started yet. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This debate has been a quick run round the park for everyone. I want to indicate the support from my party for the bill at stage 3. I think that both the Minister and Annabelle Goldie use the term pragmatic in terms of the solution that has been brought forward here. I think that that is correct. I think that nobody wants a situation where the general election and the Scottish elections clashed. I think that that is very important because each election has its own distinct issues and distinct set of candidates. If the elections were to clash, it would not only lead to confusion among the voters, but it would also lead to a situation in which it is more difficult and challenging for the political parties and individual candidates in order to get their distinct messages across. From that point of view, it is the right thing to do. Of course, we have a repeat of the situation from 2010 where we extended the current session for two or five years. I think that there is an important job to be done going forward for the next session of the Parliament in ensuring that this does not occur again. We do not want to avoid clashes in elections, but we need to be very clear about what is the ideal length of parliamentary and local government terms. One of the regrettable aspects of the necessary legislation is that the local government terms will also be extended five years when, in recent times, they have been used to four-year terms. There is an argument that it is a more democratic system where politicians and administrations are up for election every four years and make some more responsive to the needs of the people. That is an important issue that has to be addressed going forward by the next session of the Parliament. In the meantime, as others have said, this is a pragmatic solution and it is the right thing to do. That is why you have seen the Parliament and the parties come together to support this bill today. I appreciate your brevity. I now call on Joe Fitzpatrick to wind up Minister up to two minutes. I thank all members who took part in the debate for their contributions. It is clear from members' contributions that there is consensus on changing the dates of the next Parliament and local government election dates. That consensus is welcome, and I believe that it is important that there is agreement across the chamber on the significant issue of changing election dates. As I said in my opening remarks, there is no less consensus about what permanent solution should be implemented when this Parliament gets the powers to make longer-term changes. When the power comes to this Parliament, it will be important for us to consider the issues carefully and to undertake the widest possible contributions. I am sure that the suggestions that have been raised through this bill's process will be taken on board. It is imperative that a solution to the 2020 clash of election dates is implemented before voters go to the polls in May. The Scottish Election Dates Bill offers a solution, and I welcome the agreement across the chamber for this relatively short yet important bill. I again thank members for their contributions and invite them to support the motion to approve the Scottish elections dates bill at decision time. That concludes the debate in the Scottish Election Dates Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 15429 in the name of Michael McMahon on the criminal verdict Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak at the date to please press the request to speak buttons now as soon as possible. I call on Michael McMahon to speak to and move the motion. Mr McMahon, you have 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to open today's debate on the criminal verdict Scotland Bill. Today we debate and vote on whether we, as a Parliament, agree to the general principles of a bill, which aims to remove one of the most controversial and illogical elements of the Scottish judicial system. The not-proven verdict has been much criticised with Sir Walter Scott most famously referring to it as that bastard verdict. It is true that it also has its defenders, but I would argue that, as my consultations on the issue show, they are in the minority. The arguments about it have rumbled on over the years among lawyers and academics, but I have long been convinced that a three-verbic system is no longer defensible in a modern system of justice. I believe that it causes confusion and uncertainty both for victims of crime and for the accused persons. It is my view 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 first consulted on a similar member's bill proposal to abolish the not-proven verdict at the end of the Parliament's second session. Although the level of responses was disappointing, that consultation yielded some useful information, which has subsequently been upheld by the greater level of evidence found in my second consultation on this bill proposal and in the responses to the Justice Committee's call for evidence at stage 1. That is why I genuinely do not believe that any further consultation or review of the jury system as recommended by Lord Bonomy will produce anything that we do not already know. My bill would replace the current system of three-verbics and the same two-verbic system used in all other comparable jurisdictions and raised the majority required for a verdict to be raised from a simple majority to one of two thirds. Having considered the case for other options such as proven and not proven, I have taken on board the results of my consultation and proposed that the verdicts in Scottish courts should be labelled guilty and not guilty. That is what the weight of opinion expressed in my consultation suggests that we do. This is an important topic that lies at the heart of Scotland's criminal justice system. It has the potential to affect every person in Scotland, and I believe that the bill could help to make justice simpler, clearer and fairer. The origins of the three-verbic system are to some extent obscure and disputed. According to some, it is a matter of pure historical accident. Before the 17th century, there was a choice of only two verdicts, but the terminology used varied widely. During the 17th century, the practice developed of having longer indictments listing specific charges, with the jury inviting to decide in relation to each whether it was proven or not proven. That approach was encouraged when in the 1680s there were a number of cases in which juries refused to convict those charged under statutes introduced for the suppression of the covenanters, reflecting public support for their cause. That led the Lord Advocate to make it a rule that the jury's role was to be limited solely to deciding whether the facts liable in the indictment had been proven or not proven. That left it to the judge to make the final decision on guilt, as a result the guilty and not guilty verdicts fell into abeyance. That continued until the trials of Samuel Hale in 1726 and Carnegie of Fenty Haven in 1728. In the former case, the jury was satisfied by Hale's defence and returned a verdict of not guilty to the charge of homicide. In the latter case, the evidence left no doubt that the accused had indeed killed the Earl of Strathmore during a drunken brawl, but he plausibly denied any prior intention. As the verdict of proven on the facts alone could have led to the conviction and hanging of a man that the jury regarded as innocent of murder, the jury was persuaded by Carnegie's advocate to reassert its traditional right to judge the whole case and find the accused not guilty. The re-emergence of the not guilty verdict did not displace not proven, which continued to be used as an alternative verdict of acquittal, but with a different inference. In the 19th century, it also came to be used by juries unwilling to convict someone of a capital offence because of sympathy for their circumstances. For example, in the trial of Isabella Rae, who was accused of the murder of her two-year-old son after she jumped into a canal clutching the child to her chest, the jury seemed to have been convinced that she had been rendered suicidal by a life of abject poverty. By this time, commentators had already recognised that a not proven verdict carried a stigma as a form of second-class acquittal, although it had already been established that its effects in law are identical to that of not guilty. In law, an acquittal, whether not guilty or not proven, has the same effect. However, it is a commonly held view that the person who receives a verdict of not proven is unfairly stigmatised, particularly as they do not have the right to a retrial or appeal in order to clear their name. The verdict is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence, according to which accused persons should be entitled to an unqualified acquittal if the prosecution cannot convince the jury of their guilt. As I have said, not only can the current three-verdict system cause confusion, it can also lead to the accused being stigmatised. That can arise because the not proven verdict is often thought as the jury's way of saying, we know you are guilty but we cannot prove it, or as the old joke goes, not guilty but don't do it again. Where the not proven verdict is used, the accused is left in an unsatisfactory position of limbo, formally acquitted but with a reputation tainted as a result of not being found not guilty. Surely, if we all agree with the principle that accused persons are innocent until proved guilty, I defend that they should be entitled to a straightforward and unreserved acquittal where the prosecution case against them cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. In response to my consultation, I learned of cases where people who had been acquitted on a not proven verdict felt compelled to move away from their home because they believed that the local community thought that they were guilty of the offence but had just got away with it. That cannot be right and it's surely not fair or just. The first major government sponsored review of the third verdict system in modern times was undertaken by the Thomson committee on criminal procedure, which reported in 1975. That committee, although argued by a majority for its retention, concluded that the three verdict system was illogical. In 1994, the Scottish Office issued a consultation paper on juries and verdicts, which sought views on whether the three verdict system should be retained or amended. The conclusion of the topic in the consultation is believed to have been prompted in part by the reaction to the 1992 trial of Francis Old for the murder of Amanda Duffie. Evidence-led at that trial strongly suggested that the accused had indeed committed a crime and the return of a not proven verdict was greeted with surprise and consternation. In particular, the victims' parents were instrumental in establishing a campaign against the not proven verdict. The outcome of that trial led in 1993 to the Duffie's MP, George Robertson, introducing a private member's bill seeking to remove the not proven verdict. That followed a similar attempt in 1969 by Donald Dweyer. In 1994, Lord Macaulay of Braga tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill seeking the same outcome. He argued that, in the modern criminal justice system, it is for the crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the not proven verdict makes no sense. If the juries are masters of the facts, as they are told, they must not be allowed to be the fudgers of the verdict. That is what happens in some circumstances and we should have no such get-outs in the law and we must therefore get rid of this antiquated verdict. I could not agree more with Lord Macaulay and that is why I asked Parliament to concur that reform of the criminal verdicts available in Scotland's courts is both important and overdue. I would like to thank Elaine Murray for trying to highlight the fact that a clear majority of members of the Justice Committee agreed to that proposal by submitting an amendment to that effect. I welcome that conclusion of the committee and I am disappointed that Elaine Murray's reasoned amendment was not taken. It is essential that our justice system in the 21st century is transparent and fully understood by all members of society, and I believe that my bill will help with that. In moving my motion, I urge members to vote to make that happen. Thank you very much. I now call on Christine Grahame to speak on behalf of the Justice Committee. As you say, I am speaking on behalf of the Justice Committee and not in a personal capacity, but in a personal capacity I commend the member for his tenacity and informed pursuit of the bill up and down Dale. I know what it is like. I have done it myself and I know that you become really committed to it, as you have shown. It has been very useful because it has brought forward those proposals. You have reunited the debate surrounding the not-proven verdict and I welcome that opportunity to speak on our consideration of it. As Mr McMahon has already outlined, the bill consists of two distinct sections. The first seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995 by removing the not-proven verdict and retaining the guilty and not-guilty verdicts. The second would introduce a qualified majority of at least two thirds required in jury trials to secure a conviction. Members will be aware that the Justice Committee agreed to postpone consideration of the bill, while the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill progressed through Parliament. The decision was made in the light of the fact that both bills contained similar provisions relating to jury majorities. Following amendments agreed at stage 2, the Criminal Justice Bill no longer made provision to abolish the general requirement for corroboration, and the provision of jury majorities, which was seen as incidental to the removal of corroboration, was removed. After the Criminal Justice Bill was passed, we returned to Mr McMahon's bill, issuing a call for written views in November last year, receiving submissions from a variety of stakeholders, including lawyers, academics, police Scotland, victim support groups and several justices of the peace. We took oral evidence in the bill during a single evidence session on 19 January 2016, hearing from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and then from Mr McMahon. It is not my intention to discuss all the issues that are discussed in our stage 1 report, but I want to highlight some of the more pertinent topics that I identified during our consideration. The need for legal proceedings to have a clear outcome led to some questioning the merits of a system that, in legal terms, does the same thing, namely a quit. We received evidence that the not-proven verdict is often not well understood, as Mr McMahon has said, and it often carries with it the degree of stigma, the suggestion being that the accused was indeed probably guilty, but on this occasion there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict the no-slope-without-fire theory. Clearly this is unhelpful not only for the accused but also for the victims of crime. The perception that a judgment carries with it's finality is important, and it helps victims to move on with their lives, and so many support groups were in favour of the abolition of the not-proven verdict on those grounds. There was also some discussion in evidence as to whether, if a two-verdict system were to be adopted, it should be not guilty that it is abolished, excuse me, rather than the not-proven verdict. It was argued, for example, that proven and not proven better reflects the role of the judge or jury at the conclusion of a trial, as their deliberations are based on proof of evidence rather than taking a view on whether or not the accused is innocent. Of course it's Scottish, the not-proven and proven verdict. Arguments advanced in favour of a choice between guilty and not guilty highlighted the greater public familiarity with such verdicts, as well as the fact that the key question to be resolved in any criminal trial is whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and therefore otherwise should be deemed innocent until proved otherwise. Moving to section 2 of the bill, which seeks to introduce a system under which a guilty verdict requires the support of at least two thirds of the jury, the committee appreciates that those proposals were advanced as a way of ensuring that the abolition of the not-proven verdict wouldn't heighten the risk of wrongful convictions. We understand Mr McMahon's position and the need, as he saw it, to introduce measures that would mitigate the impact of the proposal set out in section 1 of his bill. However, we also noted the views articulated both in evidence on the bill and in the context of the wider debate regarding criminal procedure in Scotland. Throughout the scrutiny of the bill, the committee considered whether a change in jury majority might have a corresponding effect on other areas of the legal system. For example, a number of support organisations were concerned that any increase in the majority required for a conviction would disproportionately affect victims of certain crimes. There was also perception that the abolition of the not-proven verdict might lead to more unsafe conviction or conversely to significantly more or not guilty verdicts. Although those concerns were to a greater or lesser degree a matter of conjecture, they raised wider questions about the behaviour and decision-making process of juries. That is an issue that the committee has been looking at for some time. Without a sound evidence base, it is not possible to know how those proposals relating to jury majorities might play out in practical terms. The majority of the committee concluded that more work needed to be done before changes were made to this area of the law. The parameters of research proposed by the Government are still to be framed, but we would expect that any research on jury behaviour would take into consideration the matters that we have explored during the consideration of Mr McMahon's bill. As we have already heard, the committee was generally supportive of the proposals relating to the abolition of the three-verdict system. Malcolm McMahon's bill has shone that welcome light on the ambiguities of the not-proven verdict and the issues that it continues to throw up for justice in Scotland. As I have said before, not-proven is often deeply unsatisfactory for victims and no better for the accused. Like many members of the committee, I believe that the not-proven verdict is on borrowed time. However, although we understand the reasons for Mr McMahon, including the measures relating to jury majorities, it was the committee's view. Having considered all the evidence put forward, further research on decision-making by juries is needed before proceeding with the other reforms that are set out in his bill. The committee was never unable to support the general principles of the bill. The cabinet announced that the Government would be conducting research into jury behaviour back in September, and the committee hopes that research will proceed as soon as possible. I would not want Mr McMahon to be disheartened. Sometimes you have to keep going at something as you know, and I think that you made huge progress. I do not think that this is done and dusted by any means. It is up to any incoming Government to decide how to take it further. However, you have on balance the sound support of the committee on at least one part of your bill. It is the other part that we had to think needed further research. However, I look forward to hearing other members' contributions in this debate and to receiving the Scottish Government's response to our report. I thank Michael McMahon and the non-Government Billion for their work on the legislation. Like other members, I want to commend Michael McMahon on all his hard work in bringing forward this proposal. What is such an important issue? From my own meetings with Mr McMahon and from listening to his evidence to the Justice Committee, it has been very clear to me how strongly he believes in those changes. His commitment to this area of reform has been unwavering. I also realise that the changes to the timetable for the Government's criminal justice bill has had a significant impact on the consideration of the legislation. That was unavoidable, and, given the recommendations by Lord Bonomy, it has proven to be appropriate that we all await the outcome of that particular piece of work and the Government's own criminal justice bill. The Government had, given Lord Bonomy's review, a non-exhaustive terms of reference, and it specifically included jury majority and size. It was the report by the academic expert group that went further and also considered Scotland's three verdict system and whether the non-proven verdict should be abolished. Lord Bonomy's expert group was of the view that the review had to take into account the three verdict system. In their view, consideration of the size of the jury and the majority required for a conviction is inextricably linked to the number of verdicts available to a jury. The Government has accepted that view and the approach should be to consider any major changes to the jury system in a holistic manner. There were good reasons for the delay in considering the legislation, but I understand that this must have been a frustrating time for Mr McMahon, and I am very grateful for his patience during this period. The recommendations of Lord Bonomy's group is one of the main reasons that the Scottish Government has opposed the bill. I also note from the stage 1 report that the majority of the Justice Committee have been unable to support the overall package of reforms contained in this bill. It is with regret that, as a Government, we have had to take this particular position. Mr McMahon and the Justice Committee, in its consideration of the bill, have raised some legitimate concerns about Scotland having three verdicts. I have also stated previously that I am completely open minded about whether Scotland retains three verdicts or should move to two verdicts. However, as I have just mentioned, the key components of the Scottish jury system, the simple majority required for a conviction, the three verdicts and the size of the jury are interlinked. The Scottish jury system also has unique features that make it difficult to make any clear comparisons with other jurisdictions. While there were other countries that allow a conviction by simple majority, their overall procedures and built-in safeguards differ from that of the Scottish justice system. We also have other, quite specifically unique features in Scotland, not only the three verdict system but also one of the largest jury sizes, that is 15 jurors, compared to most other countries. In taking forward any substantial reform in this area, I consider that the potential impact on other areas of the specifics of the Scottish system has to be a key consideration. In many ways, the consultation responses to this particular bill not only illustrated the necessity to do so but also some of the difficulties with it. Whilst there was clear support for the removal of the not proven verdict, there was no general consensus to do so alongside increasing the jury majority. I am of view that any future reform must have a strong evidence base to make an informed decision on how major reform to one part of the system may have an impact on the other. That is why I agree with Lord Bonamy's recommendation that jury research be carried out. That should enable a future administration and parliament to take a holistic and evidence-based approach to any substantive reform in this area and give us a much better understanding of how Scottish juries operate. The debate is about Michael McMahon's bill, so I do not want to dominate it by talking about jury research in great detail. I would just like to update members that my officials have completed their engagement with interests of stakeholders and organisations, and that process will be completed by March. Those meetings are specifically seeking views on whether that research should be wider than the topic suggested by Lord Bonamy and whether that research should use mock or real jurors. I had hoped that this research could commence before the pre-election period, however I consider it important that we get the remit and the methodology right, so it is for those reasons that I think it is worth taking our time to consider all views before reaching a final decision on the scope of the research. The Government's intention is to undertake this research and has, and I so far, met with general consensus with members in the chamber from all parties. I hope that this work can be taken forward in early course by the Administration elected in May. It is therefore with some regret that I ask members not to support the general principles of the criminal verdict bill and, in consequence, that it should not progress to stage 2. As Michael McMahon said, I had submitted an amendment to his motion and I am disappointed that the Presiding Officer did not select it for debate. Nevertheless, I will speak to its intentions even though I know that there is no possibility of a vote. Michael McMahon introduced his criminal verdict bill to Parliament in November 2013, having consulted on his proposals in 2012. However, as he said, he also tried to introduce a similar bill in the previous session. Around the same time, the Scottish Government consulted on the legal reforms that should be required if the requirement for corroboration were to be abolished. In June 2013, the Scottish Government introduced the criminal justice bill, which proposed the abolition of the requirement for corroboration and provisions for a guilty verdict to require the support of at least two thirds of the duty. It did not, however, propose the removal of the not-proven verdict. As members know, in April 2014, the Government agreed to suspend stage 2 of that bill, pending a review by Lord Bonomy, of additional safeguards that should be introduced if the requirement for corroboration was abolished. Michael McMahon's bill was there for introduced against the background of the first draft of the criminal justice bill. The scrutiny of the bill was postponed in light of the section 2 of the bill, and the proposals contained in the criminal justice bill both proposed increasing the duty majority from 8 to 10. At that stage, the bill could have been incorporated into the criminal justice bill by way of an amendment, and the Justice Committee took evidence from Mr McMahon on that basis. Interestingly, at stage 1 of the criminal justice bill, the Justice Committee did not take a view on the duty majority but called for an independent review of additional safeguards. Subsequent to Lord Bonomy reporting, both the abolition of the requirement for corroboration and the changes to duty majority were removed from the criminal justice bill. The committee therefore undertook formal consideration of the criminal verdict's bill, though I have to say that the member in charge had rather a long wait before this happened, and he actually had to remind us that his bill was still waiting for consideration. I submitted the reason of amendment in my name to highlight the paragraph on page 15 of the stage 1 report, stating that a clear majority of the committee supports the intention of the bill to abolish a not-proven verdict. I did so in the full knowledge that, even if my amendment was passed, the amended motion would be likely to fall. Nevertheless, I wanted the Parliament as a whole to send out the signal that the abolition of the not-proven verdict is overdue, and that the next Scottish Government should legislate to remove the anomalous situation in Scots criminal law, when there are two acquittal verdicts. Of course, there is an argument for a verdict to the old proven and not proven verdicts that existed in Scots law prior to the 1700s. The prosecution in the criminal trial has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused has committed a crime for which they are being tried. If I'm guilty, the accused may appeal and the decision be reversed. Similarly, under double jeopardy and unsuccessful prosecution can now be revisited, so it is a question of proof. However, a verdict to the old verdict could be confusing to all concerns, particularly to the general public, who are now used to not guilty verdicts. Having two acquittal verdicts, in my view, is not in the interests of justice. The majority of respondents to the Justice Committee's call for written evidence were in favour of a two-verdict system that some had reservations about changing the jury majority. A not-proven verdict casts aspersions on both the complainer and the accused. One of the justices of the piece who responded in writing, Lieutenant Colonel Morrison, suggested that there was a possibility that a not-proven verdict is used when JPs consider that a case is proved on the balance of probability rather than on the beyond reasonable doubt. The same may be true of juries, where a crisis who supported the removal of the not-proven verdict pointed out that, according to Scottish Government statistics, the highest use of the not-proven verdict at 15 per cent was for rape and attempted rape cases. A not-proven verdict can be unfair on the accused also, implying that the accused is not, in fact, not guilty, but that the prosecution did not put up a robust enough case to prove his or her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I myself have responded like that. A constituent came to me about an issue arising from a criminal case for which he said that he had been acquitted. Then I found out that he actually received a not-proven verdict. I have to say that my immediate reaction—I did not say it out loud, of course—was that the case against him had just not been proved, not that he was innocent. Despite not being able to bring an amendment to the chamber, which would have allowed members to signal or support for the abolition of the second acquittal verdict, I do believe that this is the wish of Parliament. I therefore heartily congratulate Michael McMahon for his tenacity, as did Christine Grahame in her speech, in bringing this matter before Parliament. I thank the clerks, the NBU, SPICE and the Cabinet Secretary for their input into our stage 1 discussions. If, and is probably the case, Michael's bill does not pass tonight, I urge the next Parliament to return to the subject as soon as possible. I am pleased to participate in this stage 1 debate on the criminal verdict Scotland bill. I know that Michael McMahon has waited some considerable time for this draft legislation to come before the Parliament. In fact, I believe that it was, and I think that he confirmed this, as far back as 2007, that his first member's bill on the same subject fell at dissolution. As other members have stated in this parliamentary session, scrutiny of the current proposals were delayed for a couple of years as the criminal justice Scotland bill, which had provisions which overlapped with the criminal verdict Scotland bill in scope, completed its parliamentary passage. Having had experience of how much focus and commitment is required in terms of introducing a member's bill, I commend and pay tribute to Michael McMahon on his resolve and his continued efforts to generate discussion and debate around the three-verdict system with the introduction of the criminal verdict Scotland bill. Although the bill is short in length, the changes to Scotland's law that it seeks to implement are substantial and should not be underestimated. It has two primary aims. The first is to remove the not-proven verdict as an option in criminal trials, and the second is to change the rules relating to the number of jurors who must support a guilty verdict, as the member quite rightly recognises that this is a connected issue. When the member gave evidence to the Justice Committee, many of the points he presented in favour of abolition had validity. In addition to that, I recognise that some stakeholders consider the three-verdict system has had its stay, and I fully understand and appreciate that within these stakeholder groups are individuals and others who, for various reasons, including deeply emotive and personal ones, argue passionately for the abolition of the not-proven verdict. However, I remain hugely concerned about the piecemeal approach that is taken by decision makers to changing elements of the Scottish criminal justice system, especially following the co-operation debacle where abolition was proposed without considering the implications of such a change in the round. As the Faculty of Advocates argued in its consultation response, the reforms to the three-verdict system should be considered in the context of a review of the criminal justice system as a whole. However, for me, the Law Society of Scotland's comment sums up the situation best, as far back as 1994, when arguing that the three-verdict system should be retained when it described it as part of the organic whole that constituted the method of determination of guilt in Scottish criminal courts. Put simply, it is impossible to amputate one part of the system without considering the impact on the whole. A failure to do so could result in unattended consequences that could potentially make the problem that you were trying to remedy worse. The Scottish Government has stated that it is open to the possibility of the not-proven verdict being removed but that it will take forward Lord Barnaby's recommendation that, during research, be carried out before any future reforms are implemented and the Bonomy review indicated that that could take around two years. I welcome that approach, although at the same time noting with considerable concern that during directions in certain sexual offences cases are being placed on the statutory footing before the research has been completed. In conclusion, as Michael McMahon said in his evidence to the Justice Committee, the not-proven verdict has always been there in the background. It has never gone away, so the opportunity that the bill has presented to scrutinise the issue, especially given recent developments relating to the criminal justice system, has been both worthwhile and appreciated. I thank Michael McMahon for that. However, the Scottish Conservatives are not convinced that there is a compelling or persuasive need for the reform at this time, but we await findings of the jury research. It was for this reason that I did not support general principles of the bill. I can confirm that we will not be supporting the bill at decision time this evening. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate. I call on Cristian Allard up to four minutes, Mr Allard. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It has been a roller coaster since I have joined the Justice Committee in 2013. We have scrutinised a lot of legislation, some we stopped, some we passed and many we amended. I love the lovely place and there is no majority, no party has got a majority in the committee, and that is maybe quite healthy. We particularly need to agree to this again. We do that when we do. We had a few members' bill and before us in the last three years, but I was delighted that we passed Margaret Mitchell's approach to this bill last month. That is important to see in context of today. I thank and commend Michael McMahon for bringing the criminal verdict bill before us. The debate on the not proven verdict had to happen, like everybody said. Scott's law, like any other, needs reviewing and updating from time to time. I note the effort of Annan Murray amendment and the only thing I would have to say is we all agree and I am one of the majority. So maybe that's the reason the amendment was not accepted, is that we all agree that it was in the report. Most of the evidence we have received has been critical of Scotland's freed verdict system. I truly believe that the case has been made. I will not hesitate to acknowledge the not proven verdict. Unfortunately, Michael McMahon is asking us today to agree to the general principles of the bill and those principles are spelt out in the aims of the bill. I read an act of the Scottish Parliament to provide for the removal of the not proven verdict as one of the available verdicts in criminal proceedings. So far, so good presenting officer. Unfortunately, it goes on and for guilty verdicts to require an increased majority of jurists. It was suggested at the time to Mr McMahon to remove the second aim of the bill. I understand his reason for not doing it. I was not really understanding why he didn't talk so much about it in the time he had it this morning, but he will do it this afternoon. He will do it in his conclusion, I'm sure. But I wonder if the aim of the bill, if it had not been so specific, I wonder if the member would have chosen to drop his proposal to change the size of jury majority required for conviction. If he can, maybe on his closing, I've got a few minutes, only a few minutes. We'll never know, however, I would have been happy to consider abolishing the not proven verdict in isolation. We are where we are, and a clear majority of the committee supports the intention of the bill to abolish the not proven verdict, but not the proposal in relation to jury majorities. We received evidence opposing changing jury majority in isolation, and we were told that it should be considered alongside the other reforms proposed by Lord Bonami. We said in our report that it needed further research on decision making by juries. I'm not so sure, however, I could not support the amendments, the content of court act 1981. In my opinion, using mock juries is fine, and I would like to hear the cabinet secretary's view on this, and I don't know he talked about it, and he wants to take evidence on it. The reason I said I wasn't sure about needing further research is because we wouldn't be here today, if not for the abolition of the absolute requirement for coborations that have been supported by members of the same justice committee. I hope Mr McMahon understands that some of us wanted the criminal justice will to progress as introduced. I did and still support the abolition of absolute requirement for coborations. It's got slow. The cabinet secretary reminded us in January that one of the safeguard of this abolition was to change the majority provision for juries from the existing simple majority. I was all for it, but despite the evidence received, we couldn't move forward, and instead we got a post-corrosion safeguards review. I feel for the member this afternoon, after all his efforts, Michael McMahon could see his bill for that stage one, but I gently remind the member presenting officer, but did he take a view on coborations? In 2014, McMahon voted yes to Margaret Mitchell amendment to call for the removal of the provision in the criminal justice bill to abolish the absolute requirement for coborations, and maybe more importantly, on that day, the presenting officer, the member voting no for the criminal justice bill to go forward at stage one. Therefore, I will have no hesitation to fall down the member's bill tonight. Here's what the Highland Violence Against Women Partnership told us. We urge the Scottish Parliament not to take this bill forward without considering other measures such as the removal of coborations, as to so would be damaging to those seeking justice for experiences of violence against women. It isn't finished business, President Officer. I was one of the member of this committee, one of the member of this Parliament, who wanted to further reform the criminal justice system of a disagree. Next Parliament would have to move it forward. I'd like to thank members for the constructive debate this afternoon, and it's actually a pleasure for me to take part in it. I begin, as everybody else has, by paying tribute to Michael McMahon for bringing the issue and the connected issue of jury majorities to the fore. Members' bills require unrelenting commitment and dedication, and the member has certainly demonstrated both over a number of years in his continued effort to reform this particular area of Scots law. I start with an observation that my limited experience in this Parliament is not often that the Scottish Conservatives agree with the Government's approach to reforming the criminal justice system, but my party recognises the need for jury research and welcomes the cabinet secretary's assurance that it is commencing. However, I also share the concerns expressed by my colleague Margaret Mitchell, namely that, while I appreciate that this research will take some time to complete, I'm nevertheless very concerned that the jury directions in some sexual offences are being preemptively put on a statutory footing in the abusive Haver and Sexual Harms Scotland Bill without waiting for the findings of this research to support what the law society has called a major departure from existing practice. So it seems to me that the Scottish Government has rather introduced a pick-and-mix approach to policy implementation in the past, particularly in relation to the general requirement for corroboration, because what we really need is a consistent, holistic approach that looks at Scotland's criminal justice system in the round. I also note with interest that Christine Graham, the SNP convener of the Justice Committee, made a very similar point in relation to the cabinet secretary during the stage 1 evidence of the bill saying, you rightly said that we need to consider how juries think about things, not how they come to a decision and why they arrived at a not proven verdict in certain cases, rather than the guilty or a not guilty verdict. Juries thinking is complex and I'm glad that we're doing this research. Nevertheless, it seems to me that jury directions are something else that should be encompassed in that research. Michael McMahon has argued that not proven should be removed as a verdict in criminal trials for a number of reasons, one in particular being that judiciary cannot give directions or guidance to juries about the difference between not guilty and not proven. Here, SPICE were very helpful and, according to the figures provided by the Scottish Government, of the 970 people acquitted on the basis of a not proven verdict in 2012-2013, 694 were prosecuted under a summary procedure, meaning that the verdict was delivered by sheriff, not a jury. It is this reason that Sheriff McFadgin suggested that, whilst the not proven verdict is often criticised and is somewhat anachronistic, the fact that it is used, albeit sparingly, in summary trials perhaps indicates that it is not wholly pointless. It is clear that, while there is some divergence in this opinion about whether or not the not proven verdict should be abolished, the consensus view is that now is not the time to make such a radical change to the current system of three verdicts in the criminal trials. The Scottish Conservatives therefore believe that there should be a compelling case for change with strong, evidential basis, which has not yet been made. For that reason, as Margaret Mitchell said, we will not be able to support the bill at decision time. One thing that is evident in the debate this afternoon is that changes to elements of the criminal justice procedures are famously difficult to achieve and sometimes take decades of debate and on occasion censures. One would hope that the commitment that the cabinet secretary has already given to maintain an open mind in this matter and that, with regret, he rejects the proposal that Michael McMacken has brought today, is welcome in hoping that, in the new Parliament, that open-minded approach will be maintained by whoever takes responsibility for cabinet secretary of justice in the new Parliament. The majority of the justice committee gladly appreciated the need to reassess the use of not proven and questioned whether or not it provided an effective way forward. It has been explained during the debate today that there are reservations about section 2 that Michael McMacken attached to his bill. I understand the arguments that he considered there, but Victim Support Scotland, in its submission, indicated that the not proven verdict can be confusing and disappointing. There is no doubt that those who would go to court as witnesses are often left in a difficult situation upon hearing a not guilty verdict and leave them in a limbo of neither feeling a closure or some form of a declared outcome from the court. The notion that one is innocent until proven guilty seems a black and white outcome at the conclusion of a process. For many, the inclusion of a not proven step in that process is often confusing. The Faculty of Advocates indicates that, in their view, it is patronising to jurors to assume that they cannot or do not understand what it means. However, as my colleague Elaine Murray alluded to in her speech, there was evidence from a justice of the peace about the view that he took in the use of that verdict, which would indicate a lack of clear thought about how one should or should not decide those issues. It is evident that there is controversy around this whole area of criminal justice system. The Government has proposed changes to corroboration, and there is a great deal of heat still to be dealt with in connection with that debate. The size of juries have been mentioned, and the nature of a majority has been debated and, obviously, causes a great deal of concern. I add it to that, Michael McMachan. I congratulate Mr McMachan on causing this debate this afternoon as the important element of not proven. I am pleased that Lord Bonomy is chairing the group who will examine and bring forward recommendations in the new term of this Parliament. I hope that the Parliament will keep the issue at the front of its agenda and commit to dealing with this as a matter of urgency. It has been a running sore that attaches a stigma to accuse in many occasions and leads victims unhappy in others. I ask the cabinet secretary to leave a note for whoever takes his place in due course or for himself if he is fortunate to go back into that post. However, it will be the intentions of the Labour Party to support Mr McMachan in terms of his proposal and as much to put down a mark that says that we did not all agree today that this bill was without credibility and without some principle. Thank you very much. I am now calling on the cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson, up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This afternoon's debate has provided Parliament with, I believe, a very useful opportunity to consider some of the merits and potential shortcomings of having a three-verdict system in Scotland, two of which have the same outcome in providing an acquittal. I reiterate that I fully respect and understand the very strong and principled position that Michael McMahon has taken forward in pursuing the issue of removing one of our verdicts for acquittal in the Scottish justice system. I fully understand and recognise that there were a range of members in the justice committee who were persuaded of the need to move from a three-verdict system to a two-verdict system. However, it is important that we are careful when we start to make alterations to the verdict process in the Scottish criminal justice system and the interlinked aspects that play a key part in that. In a contribution that was made by Elaine Murray, she highlighted one of the key challenges around understanding how the existing arrangements operate and what influences decisions that are made by her juries. By the very evidence that she cited from a justice of the peace that Graham Pearson just made reference to, different understandings of exactly what exactly a not-proven verdict means and when it should be applied. It is worth keeping in mind the areas that the jury research will give consideration to. For example, it will look at what jurors understand to be the difference between a not guilty and a not proven verdict, why they choose one over the other, why and to what extent do jurors alter their position as regards not proven and not guilty as a result of the jury's deliberations. The extent to which the members of a jury of 15, as compared to a jury of 12, actually participate in the deliberations that take place, the differences in outcomes between a 12-person jury with only two possible verdicts and a 15-person jury with three verdicts and the reasons for those differences that they come to and whether there are benefits of inquiring the jury to attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. All of those, I think, will provide us with a significant level of insight into how juries arrive at their decisions and the process of deliberations that they undertake in order to arrive at those particular outcomes. All of that will serve us to assist us in understanding that jury process much more effectively. As the Lord Bonivier review group recognised, those issues are all interlinked to the three component parts that we have within our jury system, the jury majorities, the jury size and the verdicts that are available to those particular juries. That is why I believe that it is extremely important that we consider the issues that have been highlighted by Lord Bonivier's review group, that we are consulting presently with other stakeholders on whether we should add some further points to this particular area of research. Once we have considered those matters, we are then, on an informed basis, able to consider in greater detail what approach we should take in moving forward in reform in this particular area. In his contribution, Christian Allard raised the particular issue around whether we should have mock jurors for the research or whether we should use real jurors. There are pros and cons, as members will appreciate, in using one approach over the other. The first thing is to say that, as such, we have not had any research into jury behaviour in Scotland ever before, and it has been rarely used internationally to any great extent. One of the most practical aspects that arises from using real jurors is that we would have to amend the contempt of court act in order to facilitate that, which we would not have to do with making use of mock jurors for this research. Additionally, one of the risks in using real jurors is, of course, to give way. Just briefly, because it follows on what was said by the member over there, that the not-proven verdict, if it were to disappear, would pertain when it is not a jury making that decision, so perhaps we should also be looking at where justice of the peace or a sheriff sitting on their own, I do not know how we would go about it, but why, how the not-proven verdict was delivered by them. We must not just think that it is always juries. Of course. There is one of the issues that we can give consideration to in terms of framing this particular piece of research, but I also want to make the point that using real jurors carries a risk of exposing the system or individual cases to opportunistic challenges by misusing the results of the research, which we also have to be careful of. I am also conscious that there are those who would say that if you are going to go into this issue in detail, you should use real jurors dealing with real cases rather than working on the basis of using mock jurors in a different set of scenarios. All of those factors have to be weighed up and given consideration to what we are doing at this present moment. I want to reiterate again my recognition of the tremendous amount of work that Mike McMahon has put into the bill, but I regret that the Government is not able to support it here this evening. I ask that Parliament does not agree that it should move on to stage 2 consideration. In closing this afternoon's debate, I thank the staff of the non-government bills unit, whose assistance has been invaluable to me over the past number of years. I am also grateful to those who made contributions to my consultations and those legal experts and academics who provided me with advice and support in bringing this bill forward. They have left me in no doubt at all that this bill is necessary. Had I been persuaded otherwise, I would not have persisted with it for so long. I would like to thank the Justice Committee for its consider scrutiny of my bill and to those people and organisations who responded to the committee's call for evidence. To quote the Justice Committee's stage 1 report, there is no legal difference between a not guilty and a not proven verdict. That raises questions as to the merits of retaining both verdicts. To put it quite simply, a three-verbic system is illogical and confusing. That is particularly so when the jury is not allowed to receive guidance on the difference between those two acquittal verdicts, as Cameron Buchanan highlighted. The judge is prohibited under court rules from explaining the difference between not proven and the other acquittal not guilty to a jury. As highlighted in the post-corroboration safeguards review report, an extract of the standard text on Scottish criminal procedure states, the jury should not be told the meaning of the not proven verdict. They need not even be told that it is a verdict of acquittal. How on earth can a verdict which cannot and must not be explained to a jury be available to that jury? The Justice Committee in its report acknowledged that we note that this confusion can lead to the effective defamation of the accused where the public believes that the not proven verdict implies a degree of culpability, that the accused in colloquial terms got away with it. The committee acknowledges that a not proven verdict may have social and indeed employment consequences that a not guilty verdict does not. However, it is not only those who are on trial that we need to consider when deliberating on the issue of reducing the three verdicts to two. We know that victims and relatives sometimes also find a not proven verdict unacceptable, as it denies them a sense of closure. Victim supports Scotland in their response to the Justice Committee's call for evidence said, and our experience for many victims and witnesses a not proven verdict can be confusing and disappointing. Finality and certainty are crucial elements of an effective criminal justice system. That includes finality and certainty, not just on the part of the accused persons but also for the victims and the victims' families. A clear and transparent verdict of guilty or innocence from the justice system is often vital for providing victims with a sense of closure. In its response to the Justice Committee's call for evidence, Rape Crisis Scotland said, Rape Crisis Scotland supports the removal of the not proven verdict. The not proven verdict is most commonly used in rape trials. According to the Scottish Government, the proportion of people receiving a not proven verdict was 15 per cent, the highest of any crime type. If the not proven verdict were to be removed, it is essential that guilty verdicts are robust and that such convictions are safe. I recognise that, and the reason why I recognise that is because in my consultation that is what we were told in response to Christian Allar's comments from earlier. In order to address that, we must make sense to increase the majority required to convict and to take both measures forward at the same time. That is the evidence that the consultation suggested was the case. In my first consultation, I was told that had I brought forward a proposal on the not proven verdict alone without considering the jury issue, that would have been justification for voting down by Bill. I could not really have it both ways. I cannot not discuss the juries and then have the issue of the jury's use as a reason not to support the Bill. Christian Allar, I thank you very much to take an intervention. He is not the first one to have quoted Victim Support Scotland. I agree with him on the non-proven verdict, but Victim Support Scotland said that we did not accept that it would be necessary to increase the jury majority if the not proven verdict were to be removed. That is the matter for tonight. That is one piece of evidence, but the majority of responses in the consultation suggested otherwise. At least that was evidence that allowed people to determine whether they wanted to support the bill or not. I think that I have explained to Christian Allar why we had to have two parts of the bill and take both together. What I did find disappointing was his suggestion or his allusion that voting against the bill this afternoon is some sort of payback because I voted against corroboration at a previous bill. That is really disappointing. I think that it disappoints me that that issue was raised again as an issue for voting against the bill. Payback against other members is not a justification for either supporting or not supporting the bill. At present, a jury in Scotland can return a verdict of guilty with at least eight of its members are in favour of that verdict. That level of support is required whether the jury has a full complement of 15 jurors or is reduced in numbers. Where a guilty verdict does not attract the support of at least eight jurors, the accused is acquitted. Under those rules, a person may be convicted on the basis of a simple majority and there is no potential for a hung jury. The only possible outcomes are a finding of guilty or an acquittal. Scotland is the only common law jurisdiction where an accused person can be convicted on a simple majority verdict. Other systems that are based on a simple majority verdict also have additional protections. In Italy, for example, a conviction is allowed on a simple majority but the two judges sit aside six lay jurors. In Belgium, jurors can convict on a simple majority but a unanimous panel of judges can overturn an erroneous verdict. My bill would retain the jury size of 15 but move to a qualified majority of at least two thirds of the jury being required to convict. The number required to convict would be reduced on a sliding basis of exclusals or other absences reduced the size of the jury. The Scottish Government has also consulted on this subject and I remain puzzled as to why it has arrived at a different place today. In 2012, it looked at a number of legal reforms and in 2013 it introduced the criminal justice Scotland bill. While its consideration of enticing the jury majority was linked to the removal of corroboration and mine to the removal of the not proven verdict, the consultations arrived at the same conclusion. The criminal justice bill has passed, saw the provision on jury majorities removed in light of the recommendations made in the bonomy review. However, unlike the Scottish Government, I believe that this Parliament should not have to wait for the outcome of further research before reaching a decision on the abolition of the not proven verdict. As Professor Chambers and Leverick said in their submission to the Justice Committee, it is a matter of principle and a decision should not be evaded by calls for further empirical research. I hope that some decision time members will agree with me that there is no longer a place in the Scottish legal system for the three verdicts. It is time to get rid of the one verdict that has the potential to confuse a jury, stigmatise the acquitted and upset the victims. If the not proven verdict is disclosed all, then a safeguard would be to increase the jury majority size needed to convict and move both measures forward at the same time. I am pleased to move that the Scottish Parliament agrees to the general principles of the criminal verdicts Scotland Bill. Thank you, Mr McMahon. That concludes the debate on the criminal verdicts Scotland Bill. The next item of business is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion. I would ask you, if it is Patrick, to move motion number 15740 on committee membership. Formally moved. Question this motion will be put decision time to which we now come. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion number 15735 in the name of Don Swinney on the local government finance Scotland order 2016 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15735 in the name of Don Swinney is as follows. Yes, 73. No, 35. There were no abstentions. The motion is, therefore, agreed to. The next question is that motion number 15709 in the name of Dolfitts Patrick on the Scottish election state bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed and the motion is agreed to and the Scottish election state's bill is passed. The next question is that motion number 1549 in the name of Michael McMahon on the criminal verdict Scotland bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 1549 in the name of Michael McMahon is as follows. Yes, 28. No, 80. There were no abstentions. The motion is, therefore, not agreed to. The next question is that motion number 15740 in the name of Dolfitts Patrick on committee membership be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is, therefore, agreed to. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.