 Good morning and welcome to the ninth and last meeting of 2016. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting. This is because we provide meeting papers in digital format. The first item on the agenda is to decide whether to consider item 4 in private at this morning's meeting. Item 4 is a consideration of a draft annual report for this parliamentary year. Are members agreed? We move on to our first substantive item. Item 2 is the consideration of the burial and cremation Scotland Bill at stage 2. I welcome the Minister for Public Health, Maureen Watt, back to the committee, supported by Scottish Government officials. Before we move on to consideration of amendments, it would be helpful if I set out the procedure for stage 2 consideration. Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshaled list and groupings of amendments that were published on Monday. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in each group to speak to you and move their amendment to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate by catching my attention in the usual way. If she has not already spoken in the group, I will invite the minister to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding up speech. As with a debate in the chamber, the member who is winding up in a group may take interventions from other members if they wish. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Following debate in each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press their amendment to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the committee's agreement to do so. If any committee member objects, the committee must immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when I call it, they should say not moved. Please remember that any other MSP may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshaled list. Only committee members are allowed to vote at stage 2. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put a question in each section at the appropriate point. Members will be aware that, as agreed by Parliament, consideration of the bill at stage 2 has been split between the health and sport committee and this committee. As such, at its meeting yesterday, the health and sport committee considered sections 36 and sections 46 to 55. Any amendments that are related primarily to those sections and any amendments that are related primarily to the disposal of ashes by cremation authorities included amendments in section 37 and section 75 of the bill. The committee will consider the remainder of the bill today. I hope that that is all pretty clear. I now move on to consideration. I call amendment 2, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments that are shown in the groupings. The minister can ask you to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener, and good morning members. Amendment 2 will ensure that the bill will apply to burial grounds that are no longer actively used for burial. That will mean, for example, that maintenance provisions apply to such burial grounds, as well as the provisions relating to the restoration to use of layers. The bill, as introduced, requires every burial authority to provide an open burial ground. It simply defines a burial authority as a person who owns a burial ground. A local authority could argue that they were not a burial authority because they do not own any burial grounds. It is vital that burial continues to be an available option in each local authority area. Amendment 3 means that every local authority will be a burial authority and will be required to make an available option. Persons who are not a local authority continue, as before, to be a burial authority if they own a burial ground. Amendment 4 removes section 2 1 as a consequence of other amendments. Amendment 5 changes the reference in section 2 2 from burial authority to local authority to clarify that the duty to provide a burial ground is imposed on a local authority. Amendment 6 removes section 5, which had been included in the bill to restate section 20 of the Burial Grounds Scotland Act 1885. The effect of section 5 would have been to require burial authorities to provide a place for the storage of bodies before burial. After introduction, burial authorities informed officials that this has not been the practice for a number of years and that bodies are brought to the burial ground immediately before burial. Section 5 would place an unnecessary requirement on burial authorities to provide facilities that will not be needed. The removal of section 5 means that section 6 1b is no longer required. Amendment 7 removes from the bill section 6 1b, which contains a reference to section 5. Amendment 16-20 relates to section 12. As introduced, section 12 required a local authority in its capacity as a burial authority to sell a right of burial to anyone who was a resident in its local authority area. In consultation with burial authorities, we have concluded that this might hamper a local authority's ability to manage its burial capacity. The effect of the amendments is to set out that a burial authority may sell a burial right on application. A separate amendment, amendment 21, sets out the circumstances in which a burial authority must sell a right of burial. The bill, as introduced, requires a burial authority, which is a local authority, to sell a layer to an applicant who is a resident in that local authority area when they apply whether the layer is being purchased in advance of need or whether it is for immediate use. Some burial authorities have advised that they currently do not sell layers in advance and only sell them at the time of need. Requiring them to sell layers on demand could create a shortage of available layers in burial grounds when there is an immediate need. Amendment 21 introduces a new section setting out when a local authority is required to sell a right of burial in one of its layers. That duty applies in two cases. Firstly, where it is for imminent use and the person who has died was a resident in the local authority area immediately before his or her death. Secondly, where the applicant is resident in the local authority area and wishes to use the layer to bury the remains of a fetus resulting from a pregnancy loss or the remains of a stillborn child. At all other times, burial authorities will have discretion about whether or not to sell a right of burial. Amendment 22 removes the requirement for the Commonwealth Graves Commission to renew its interest in a layer when that interest is about to expire. The right of burial in any layer sold after the bill comes into force must be renewed 25 years after it was sold and thereafter every 10 years. The purpose of this is to ensure a current link between the right holder and the burial authority. The bill allows a person to give up his or her right of burial if they choose to do so. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has an active and on-going interest in layers of war veterans. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has indicated that it will never seek to relinquish its right of burial in a layer. I have listened to representations made by the CWGC on this issue and this amendment will ensure that its right will endure in perpetuity and will not place an unnecessary burden on them. Amendment 24 means that layers sold to the commission after the bill comes into force will not need to be renewed. That will provide useful administrative savings for the commission and burial authorities. Amendment 23 is a minor change to section 132 of the bill to clarify that what may be extended by a right holder is the period for which the right subsists rather than the right itself. Amendment 25 places a duty on burial authorities to give notice to a right holder before the expiry of the right. This notice will inform the right holder that he or she may extend the right and will also indicate what will happen if the right holder chooses not to extend the right or if an application to extend the right is refused. This notice must be given at least three months before the right is due to expire. Amendment 56 removes the definition of right holder from section 24, as this is now defined elsewhere in the bill. Amendment 134 makes a minor adjustment to section 75 and ensures that references in the bill to a right holder are defined as mentioned in subsection 3 of the section inserted by amendment 25. Amendment 139 changes a textual reference to another section of the bill. Amendment 140 ensures that any reference to burial or reburial in the bill also includes burial or reburial on or above for the ground. That has the effect of including methods such as tombs and musiliums in the bill and move amendment 2. Thank you minister. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? No. In which case minister do you wish to wind up? No. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 3, 4 and 5, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated? Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 3 to 5 on block? Thank you. Can I ask members whether anyone objects to a single question being put in amendments 3 to 5? No. In which case can I ask that amendments 3 to 5 are agreed to? Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that sections 3 and 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 6 in the name of the minister, and I have already debated with amendment 2. Minister, can I move the formula please? Thank you. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 7 in the name of the minister, and I have already debated with amendment 2. Minister, can I move the formula please? Thank you. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 8 in the name of the minister, group with amendments as shown in the groupings? Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 8 and speak to all amendments in the group please? Okay. Amendments 8, 10, 32, 44, 70, 74, 110 and 126 are minor drafting amendments to add the word or to various sections of the bill that confer powers to make regulations. This is being done to ensure consistency across the bill. Amendment 127 removes subsection 3C from section 70. The intended effect of this subsection can be achieved by subsection 3B, which enables criminal penalties to be imposed. As such, it is considered that subsection 3C, which enables other penalties or sections to be imposed, is not required. Amendments 142 and 144 are minor amendments to schedule 2 of the bill. They add to the list of enactments that are repealed by the bill in consequence of the repeals of older acts that are being swept away. I move amendment 8. Minister, do you wish to wind up? No. No. The question is then. Amendment 8, to be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister? A group with amendments is shown in the groupings. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 9 and speak to all amendments in the group please? This group of amendments relates to offences. Many of the amendments have been made in response to concerns raised at stage 1 about the creation of offences in secondary legislation. The effect of amendment 9 is that regulations made under section 8 will not be able to provide for offences in relation to burial. Offence provisions at section 9 will provide the same effect. The combined effects of amendments 11 and 12 is that regulations made under section 10 will not be able to provide for offences in relation to a burial register. It is considered that the offence relating to burial registers set out in section 11 is sufficient without the need to create additional offences under section 10. The effect of amendment 29 is to make it an offence for a burial authority without reasonable excuse to fail to prepare or maintain a register of rights of burial as required by section 14. Amendment 40 makes it an offence for a local authority to fail without reasonable excuse to prepare or maintain a register of private burials as required by section 19. The effect of amendment 45 is that any regulations made under section 22 cannot make provision for offences. Amendment 46 inserts a new section after section 22. The effect of this is that it will be an offence for a person to provide information in or in connection with an application made for an exhumation under section 22, which the person knows to be false or misleading in a material way. Amendment 53 inserts a new section after section 23. The effect of this is that it will be an offence for a burial authority to fail to prepare or maintain without reasonable excuse an exhumation register. Amendment 65 inserts a new section after section 34. The effect of this is that it will be an offence for a burial authority to fail to prepare or maintain without reasonable excuse a register of restored layers. The requirement to keep such a register is imposed by the new section inserted by amendment 64. The effect of amendment 71 is that regulations made under section 34 cannot make provision for offences. The effect of amendment 75 and 76 is that regulations made under section 41 cannot make provision for offences. Amendment 82 inserts a new section after section 43. The effect of this is that it is an offence for a crematorium to begin operating without having approval from an inspector or where an inspector has given approval before the date specified by the inspector. Amendment 88 inserts a new section after section 44. The effect of this is that it is an offence for a crematorium authority to fail to give notice about the closure of a crematorium three months before the intended closure, where it is practicable to do so. The duty to give such notice is imposed under amendment 83. This also requires a cremation authority to give notice of closure on the first day practicable where three months notice is not practical. Failure to comply with the duty is also an offence. Amendment 122 inserts a new section after section 66. If we were to introduce a licensing scheme, the effect of this is that a person who knowingly operates as a funeral director without a licence commits an offence. The amendment also makes it an offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly provide information in or in connection with an application for a licence under section 66 that is false or misleading in a material way. I move amendment 9. Thank you. Does anyone wish to enter the debate? Minister, do you wish to wind up? No. In which case can I ask the committee that amendment 9 be agreed to are we all agreed? The question is that section 8 be agreed to are we all agreed? The question is that section 9 be agreed to are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 10, 11 and 12, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 10 to 12 on block, please? Move on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 10 to 12? No. In which case can I ask the committee that amendments 10 to 12 are agreed to are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 13 in the name of the minister? A group with amendments is shown in the groupings. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 13 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Amendments 13 and 14 allow local authorities to charge for access to the burial register and to charge for the provision of extracts from the register. That reflects the fact that many local authorities already charge for the provision of such services. Amendment 15 requires a burial authority to retain the burial register indefinitely. Section 14 sets out the details to be held in a burial register and the duty on a burial authority to maintain the register. Amendments 26 to 28 update the requirements relating to the burial register and are intended to help to avoid the problems that have arisen in the past where details of the right owner have been lost. Amendment 26 is a minor drafting amendment intended to provide consistency of drafting in relation to some of the register duties. Amendment 27 makes clear that a register should contain, in addition to the details of who the right of burial was sold to, the details of the current owner of the right. That will be necessary in situations where the original owner has died or has sold the right to someone else and may not have informed the burial authority of the change of ownership. The amendment at new subsection 2A makes clear that the burial authority is only required to make reasonable efforts to ascertain the contact details of who the new right holders are. Amendment 28 puts beyond doubt that a certified copy of an extract from a burial register can be considered to be sufficient for evidentiary purposes in any court proceedings. Amendment 36 to 38 relates to the requirement on local authorities to prepare and maintain a register of private burials. The overall effect of those amendments is to provide consistency with requirements relating to other registers made under the bill. Amendment 36 changes the way in which the duty of a local authority to keep a register of private burials is imposed. It will no longer be imposed under regulations, but on the face of the bill. That provides consistency with the requirements for other registers. Amendment 37 gives the label private burial register to such registers. Amendment 38, among other things, provides that a copy of an entry in the register is to be regarded as sufficient evidence of the private burial for any court proceedings. The bill will place a duty on burial authorities to create and maintain a register of burials. The bill will also create a legal framework for exhumations, which does not involve the police or Crown Office. In order to ensure that burial records are accurate, it is vital that any exhumations are also recorded. Amendment 52 will require burial authorities to create and maintain a register of exhumation. Amendment 64 replaces section 34 of the bill and relates to the requirement on burial authorities to prepare and maintain a register of layers restored to use. The overall effect of the amendment is to provide consistency with requirements relating to other registers made under the bill, both in the drafting of the bill and its effect. The amendment gives ministers the power to make regulations about the register, including prescribing the information to be recorded and the form in which it is to be recorded. Registers are also to be accessible by the public. Burial authorities may set and charge a fee for doing this. Burial authorities must also provide copies of entries in the register and may also charge for this. Any copy of an entry in the register is to be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court proceedings. The amendment requires the register to be kept indefinitely. That is consistent with all other registers made under the bill. Amendments 77 and 78 allow a cremation authority to charge for access to the cremation register and for the provision of copies of the register in the cremation register. Amendment 79 inserts a provision that requires the cremation register to be kept indefinitely. It is intended that all registers under the bill should be kept indefinitely. Amendment 128 requires that any information or register required to be kept or in the case of registers prepared and maintained under the bill must be kept in electronic form. Amendments 136 and 138 make changes to the bill's interpretation section. Those are largely consequential on other amendments made to the bill, specifically the sections relating to registers and records. Amendment 141 removes the reference to electronic record keeping in section 75 and is a consequence of other amendments. I will ensure that there is an appropriate implementation period so that anyone required to keep information under the bill can ensure that they are able to meet those requirements. I move amendment 13. Does anyone else wish to enter into the debate? Do you forgo your right to sum up, minister? The question is then, amendment 13 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 14 in the name of the minister? I already debated with amendment 13. Minister, can I ask you to move formally? Form and move to. Thank you. The question is, amendment 14 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 15 in the name of the minister? I already debated with amendment 13. Minister, to move formally please? Moved. Thank you. The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is, that section 10 be agreed to, are we all agreed? And the question is, that section 11 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 16 to 20 on block please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendment 16 to 20? No. In which case? The question is, that amendment 16 to 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is, that section 12 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 21, 22 and 23, all in the name of the minister? And all previously debated? Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 21 to 23 on block please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 21 to 23? In which case? The question is, that amendments 21 to 23 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is, that section 13 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Agree. Thank you. Can I call amendments 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, all in the name of the minister? And all previously debated? Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 24 to 28 on block please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 24 to 28? No. In which case? The question is, that amendments 24 to 28 are agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is, that section 14 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Agree. Thank you. Can I call amendments 29 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 9. Minister, to move formally please. Moved. Thank you. The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Agree. The question is, that section 15 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Agree. Thank you. Can I call amendment 30 in the name of the minister? Agree with amendments 91, 123, 124 and 125. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 30 and speak to all amendments in the group please? Thank you, convener. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that codes of practice issued under the bill should be approved by the Scottish Parliament before coming into force. This group of amendments gives us effect to that recommendation. Amendment 30 relates to codes of practice for burial authorities. Amendment 91 relates to codes of practice for cremation authorities. Amendment 123 relates to codes of practice for funeral directors. In each case ministers must consult with relevant sectors and must lay drafts of the codes of practice before the Scottish Parliament. Such codes of practice must be approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament before coming into force. Amendments 124 and 125 remove sections 67 and 68 respectively. Those are no longer necessary because of the new sections inserted about the codes of practice. I move amendment 30. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate in amendment 30? Do you forgo your right to wind up minister, in which case the question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 31, in the name of the minister, group with amendments 41, 42, 89, 145 and 90. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 31 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? This group of amendments relates to the charging of fees relating to burial information by local authorities, including placing duties on local authorities to publish such fees. Amendment 42 requires local authorities to publish fees in relation to burial. Amendment 90 requires local authorities to publish fees in relation to cremation. In both instances local authorities must publish such fees in paper form and on the local authorities website and may publish the fees anywhere else they consider appropriate. Amendment 31 allows a local authority to charge in respect of applications for private burials. Amendment 145 confers power on local authority cremation authorities to additionally charge fees for services related to cremation. Amendment 89 is a consequential amendment. Amendment 41 inserts into section 20 a reference to a new section inserted by amendment 21, which was debated with group 1. It is consequential upon amendment 21 to ensure that fees for sale of right of burial may be charged following sale of right of burial under the new section. I move amendment 31. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? Do you forgo your right to sum up? The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 32 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 8. Minister to move formulae, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. Can I call amendment 33 in the name of the minister? Group with amendments 34, 35, 39, 129 and 133. Minister can ask you to move amendment 33 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, convener. Amendments 33 to 35 relate to the private burial of the remains of a pregnancy loss. The effect of the amendments is to exclude such a burial from the requirement to be authorised by a local authority and from having to comply with regulations on private burial. We do not believe that it is necessary for this kind of burial to be subject to this process or the regulations. Amendment 39 removes section 18 from the bill, providing for applications for and recording the location of private burials in legislation is new. When the bill was being prepared, all aspects of private burial were placed together in one part of the bill. However, following further consideration and after discussion at the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, it is clear that the same outcome can be achieved by removing section 18 and relying on powers under section 70. That will also reduce the number of delegated powers being created in the bill, which I know that committees were concerned about. Amendment 29 adjusts section 73 to, which requires ministers to consult local authorities and others before making regulations under section 161 and 171. The regulation making power in section 171 is being removed by amendment 36 and section 172 is being expanded by amendment 38 to provide greater specifications on regulations about private burial registers. Amendment 129 therefore replaces the reference in section 73.2 to section 171, with a reference to section 172. Amendment 133 updates section 74, which sets out the parliamentary procedure that will apply to regulations made under the bill. The amendment ensures that section 74 accurately reflects some sections that provide regulation-making powers to ensure that the correct parliamentary procedure applies. Amendment 33 Does anyone wish to enter the debate? Do you wish to sum up, minister? Can I ask the committee that amendment 33 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 34 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 33? The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 35 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 33? The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 16 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 36, 37 and 38 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 33? Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 36 to 38 on block? Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 36 to 38? The question is that amendments 36 to 38 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 39 in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 33? Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 39 formally, please? The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 40, 41 and 42 all in the name of the minister who is already debated with amendment 33? Minister, can you move amendments 40 to 42 on block, please? Does anyone object to a single question being put? No. In which case? The question is that amendments 40 to 42 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 20 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 43 in the name of the minister, group with amendments 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51? Minister, can you move amendment 43 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. Applications for routine exhumation are being removed from the court process by the bill, although appeals about decisions will still be heard by the sheriff. It is important that the application and decision making procedure is seen to be impartial. It is therefore appropriate to remove the ability for local authorities to make decisions on applications for exhumation from the list of detailed matters which regulations made under section 22 may contain. Amendment 43 achieves that. Decisions made to either grant or refuse an application for exhumation, made in terms of section 23, may be appealed to the sheriff. The bill, as introduced, provides for four possible options for the sheriff considering the appeal. However, on reflection, it is appropriate that the sheriff is not restricted to only one of the options, as there may be occasions where the decision about the appeal should be able to be varied. Amendments 47 to 50 will increase the flexibility of options available to the sheriff under section 23. The amendments will enable the sheriff to vary any conditions attached to the original decision, as well as impose additional conditions if doing so is considered appropriate. The bill, as introduced, stated that the decision of the sheriff is final. That was done to help to minimise the bureaucracy and time taken for any court process with a view to reducing stress for the family at a difficult time. However, on reflection, there is no strong reason to exclude a further right of appeal from the sheriff to the sheriff appeal court. Amendment 51 provides for this in accordance with section 110 of the Courts Reforms Scotland Act 2014. Amendment 43. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? Do you forgo your right to sum up, minister? The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 44 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 8. Minister to move formally, please. Moved. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Good. Thank you. Can I call amendment 45 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 9. Minister to move formally, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Great. Thank you. The question is that section 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Great. Thank you. Can I call amendments 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, all in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 46 to 51. On block, please. Moved on block. Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? No. In which case? The question is that amendments 46 to 51 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Great. Thank you. The question is that section 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 52 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 13. Minister to move formally, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 53 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 9. Minister to move formally, please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Great. Thank you. Can I call amendment 54 in the name of the minister? Grouped with amendments 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63. Minister to move amendment 54 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Communion, this group of amendments makes various changes and clarifications to the process for restoring layers to use. Amendment 54 sets out the initial test that burial authorities must apply in deciding whether a layer may be suitable for restoration to use. This requires the burial authority to determine if the layer is in a poor state of repair or that no one appears to have an interest in the layer. This is only one of three initial considerations set out at section 24 and each must be met. This should help to identify relevant layers, but the safeguards attached to this process will still ensure that layers are not restored to use without a thorough process to give people the opportunity to object to the proposal. Amendments 55, 59 and 62 ensure that any structures or tombs above ground may be included in the restoration to use process. Amendments 57 and 58 clarify how a spouse partner or civil partner should be regarded in relation to the right to object to a layer being restored to use, including where that person was separated from the deceased by, for example, divorce. Amendments 60, 61 and 63 make minor drafting adjustments to provide additional clarity, so I move amendment 54. Thank you minister. Does anyone wish to enter the debate? No. Do you want to sum up minister? No. The question is then that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 55 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 54. Is amendment 55 worse than before? Most is toろ. I ask to the minister. Is amendment 55 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 56 in the name of the minister, they have already debated with amendment 2. Kn compressed consent request is amendment 56 to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 24 be agreed to. The question is that sections 25 and 26 to be agreed to. Arweithio'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r ddifuig o'r d tohum corngen? Neil GEPRESSORI Gotcha Under Sir David68 Can you call amendments 59, 68 and 61, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated? Minister, can you move amendments 59 to 61? Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? In which case? The question is that amendments 59 to 61 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 29 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 62 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 54. Minister to move formally please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 63 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 54. Minister to move formally please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 30 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 31 to 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 64 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 13. Minister to move formally please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 65 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 9. Minister to move formally please. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 35 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 66 in the name of the minister? Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister to move amendment 66 and speak to all amendments in the group please. Amendments 66 to 73 and 88 to 87 make various changes to the responsibilities of cremation authorities. Amendment 66 enables a local authority to provide a crematorium and also to enter into arrangements with another person to provide a crematorium on its behalf. Amendment 68 is consequential to this amendment. By virtue of amendment 67, a cremation authority is a person who is responsible for the management of a crematorium rather than the person who owns the crematorium. Amendments 69 and 73 are consequential to amendment 67. Those amendments provide two separate definitions of a crematorium that apply for different purposes. Amendment 66 defines a crematorium as a building that is fitted with machinery for cremation and the grounds pertaining to that building, excluding any burial ground that may be located in those grounds. That definition applies to the general responsibilities of a cremation authority. A second definition is provided by amendment 72 and defines a crematorium in relation to the lawful carrying out of a cremation as a building that is fitted with machinery for cremation. The effect of that definition, which excludes a reference to the grounds of the crematorium, is to ensure that lawful cremations take place inside a crematorium building. Amendments 81 to 87 make changes to the notification processes that apply to the opening and closing of a crematorium, which require notice to be given to an inspector of cremation at particular times. Amendments 81 require a person proposing to establish a crematorium to give written notice of the proposed date on which the person will begin to determine applications for cremation. The notice must be given to an inspector of cremation at least three months before the proposed date. The person must not determine applications until a day specified by an inspector of cremation. Amendment 83 provides where a crematorium is to close. The cremation authority must give an inspector of cremation notice of the closure. The notice must be given at least three months before the date on which the crematorium is to close if that is practicable. If that is not practicable, as much notice of the closure as is practicable is to be provided. That reflects that flexibility is required and that a closure may happen unexpectedly. Amendments 84 to 87 allow the Scottish ministers to make further provision in regulations about the closure of crematoriums. The intention of that is to specify what should be done with cremation registers and other information where a crematorium is to close. Requirements about other matters could also be imposed. Amendment 131 updates section 74 to provide that regulations under section 371 will be subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure. Amendment 135 updates section 75 and is consequential to other amendments in the bill. Thank you very much minister. Does anyone wish to come in? No. Do you forgo your right to wind up? The question is then that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 67, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 66. The question is then that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 68, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 66. Minister, to move for it, please. The question is then that amendment 68 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is then that section 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 69, 70 and 71, all in the name of the minister, in all previously debated? Minister, could you move amendment 69 to 71 on block, please? Move down block. Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? In which case, the question is then that amendment 69 to 71 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is then that section 38 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is then that section 39 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 72, in the name of the minister, is already debated with amendment 66. Minister, to move formally, please. The question is then that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is then that section 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79, all in the name of the minister, in all previously debated? Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 73 to 79 on block, please? Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? No. In which case, the question is then that amendment 73 to 79 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is then that section 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is then that section 42 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 1, in the name of John Walson, in a group in its own? Mr Walson, to move and speak to amendment 1, please. Thank you, convener. Amendment 1 arises from the discussions that took place when the committee took evidence from a number of witnesses in examination of the 1902 burials and cremations act. Clearly, in relation to the proposed bill, the Government hadn't taken the opportunity to either update or amend the legislation, as we would have expected it to do, in relation to a comprehensive piece of legislation coming before Parliament. The issue is about the removal or otherwise, or enforcement, of the 200 yard rule that currently exists in the 1902 act. A number of witnesses indicated that they would like to see this being reinforced within any legislation that is being carried forward. My amendment is in line with the recommendations that were made by the committee at the stage 1 report. The recommendations that came forward were the overwhelming majority of the evidence that we received as for the 200 yard rule to be retained and strengthened. We also noted the substantial confusion around how the rule works in conjunction with the planning system. We find it undesirable that the bill does nothing to tackle this level of confusion. The recommendation in paragraph 89 says that we therefore recommend that the Scottish Government takes cognisance of the issues raised and discussion with planning colleagues brings forward amendment at stage 2, which addresses those concerns. Clearly, the Government hadn't brought forward an amendment at stage 2 and hence the reason why the amendment stands on its own. In light of the discussions that we have had with local authorities, we heard from a number of local authorities who asked for this 200 yard rule to be clarified and maintained. We also heard from the Federation of Burials and Commissions authorities that they would like to see this being as part of the legislation and enforced. There has been, as I said, a number of authorities who indicated during oral evidence and written evidence that indicated that they would like to see this in the bill and would like to see the clarification on how it can be enforced. One authority that indicated in terms of written evidence was Falkirk Council, and it gave an indication that it had allowed the housing development to take place within 110 yards of the crematorial grounds. That local authority indicated that we disagree with removing the existing provision that restricts the proximity of new crematorium to housing. In our view, there are risks involved in reducing or removing the 200-yard limit. In the case of Falkirk Council's crematorium, an extensive area of new housing has been developed within 110 yards of the crematorium buildings. That has led to a number of unexpected issues, such as the increased use of the crematorium grounds by the new residents and their dogs. Even when dogs are kept on a lead, their barking has caused disturbance to crematorium services. We believe that future new crematorium should have a substantial buffer of grounds that is secluded and kept separate from everyday activities. That degree of separation should not be determined by the planning process alone, because the policies, provisions and local development plan can be overturned on appeal by developers. That is crucial in relation to the debate. It would be extremely useful to get that contained within the legislation that goes forward so that planning authorities and others, particularly developers, are aware that that is not in the legislation and that there is a buffer zone set out in the legislation and that they cannot encroach on. I did speak to the author of the Falkirk Council's submission and what he indicated is that the substantial work that the council has had to undertake to put in screening and ensure that other issues are dealt with, particularly the issue regarding residents using the crematorium grounds for walking their dogs. I move amendment 1. Before I call the minister, I wonder if the minister could give us an indication of whether there has been discussion with planning colleagues, because obviously there are two sets of legislation here that may conflict. From previous experience, I have always felt that it is best to deal with those issues in a one-hour rather than doing things separately, so if you could maybe give us an indication of that in your speech, I would be very grateful. I consider this amendment to be unnecessary. Decisions about the location of crematoriums are rightly a matter for the planning system, as are decisions about development adjacent to crematoriums. A statutory minimum distance serves no particular purpose. It is an arbitrary and rigid restriction that will undermine the functioning of the planning system and place unnecessary restrictions on the provision of both crematoriums and housing. The proposed siting and location of a new crematorium is a matter properly dealt with by the planning system. All planning applications are determined on their individual merit, in accordance with the local development plan and all material considerations. What may be regarded as a material consideration is a matter for the planning authority concerned, but may include matters such as privacy and decency, preservation of sanity, tranquility, traffic and increased foodfall—all matters relevant to crematoriums. Location and the individual characteristics of the site and proposal are likely to be key considerations in decision making. None of that will be taken into account by statutory minimum distance, which will simply be a rigid and arbitrary distance with no particular justification or purpose. Some people have expressed concerns about emissions from crematoriums. Such emissions are monitored and controlled by SIPA, and breaches of regulations can result in crematoriums having their operating level reduced or their operating permits revoked. I do not believe that a statutory minimum distance is necessary in response to admissions. The amendment has a number of flaws. Although it seeks to control the location of crematoriums and housing in relation to each other, it may snow mention of any other type of development. As such, anything else could be built within the proposed 200-metre distance. We would look to the planning system to consider whether such development would be appropriate so that decisions can be taken locally based on the circumstances of the case. It is right that we trust the planning system in this regard, and we should trust it to make evidence-based decisions about the location of crematoriums. I believe that the proposed distance is overly restrictive, creating a greater distance than is set out in the Cremation Act 1902, and removing any option for a householder to consent to the construction of a crematorium as the 1902 act allows. For comparison, the proposed 200-metre distance is roughly equivalent to 20 city buses or more than 12 times the length of the room. I am particularly concerned about the potential impact of the amendment on housing supply and delivery. Although the Cremation Act 1902 seeks to control the location of crematoriums in relation to housing, it says nothing about the construction of housing near an existing crematorium. The amendment would prevent the construction of housing within 200 metres of a crematorium. As drafted, the amendment would apply not only to crematoriums constructed after the bill comes into force, but to all current crematoriums, even though many of them already have housing built close by. The amendment might have a negative impact on housing supply. There is currently considerable pressure on housing supply and the provision of sufficient land to meet housing needs. The amendment would further restrict the availability of land for housing, preventing large amounts of land being used for new housing or replacement housing for no purpose that cannot already be achieved by the planning system in SEPA. I am also concerned about the potential effect of the amendment that has not been considered with planning authorities. I believe that more work needs to be done to assess how that will affect planning authorities if the amendment is supported. The amendment says nothing about enforcement or penalties. As drafted, the amendment relates to the construction of a crematorium or housing. As such, planning permission could still be granted legitimately. It would be the act of constructing a crematorium within 200 metres of a house or a house within 200 metres of a crematorium that would constitute a breach. While the inspector of cremation could be expected to refuse to authorise the operation of a crematorium that was in breach of this distance, there is no clear obstacle to housing being built in breach or penalty for doing so. As such, it is difficult to see how this minimum distance would be enforceable. I have been clear that I believe that decisions about where crematoriums are built should be made by the planning system with SEPA responsible for monitoring emissions. As such, I believe that statutory minimum distances are necessary. I am also of the view that there are a number of problematic flaws with this amendment. Nonetheless, I recognise that Mr Wilson's amendment seeks to address very real concerns that have been raised by members of the public. Rather than include a minimum distance in the bill, I will commit the Scottish Government developing specific guidance for planning authorities to assist in considering planning applications for crematoriums. That could address the kind of issues that planning authorities must take into account when identifying sites and considering planning applications for crematorium. Such guidance could, for example, be introduced through the next revision of Scottish planning policy that sets out national planning policy. That promotes consistency while allowing sufficient flexibility to reflect local circumstances. I believe that that would be the most effective way to ensure that planning authorities consistently consider relevant issues in the context of specific locations when assessing development applications for crematoriums. That is an approach that has been taken to other types of development. For example, the Scottish planning policy advises planning authorities to consider buffer zones between dwelling and some waste management facilities. Similarly, community separation is one of the factors to be considered when planning for the location of onshore wind farms. Such issues are dealt with well by the planning system currently. I believe that that is an appropriate way to address the issues raised in relation to crematoriums. I want decisions about where crematoriums are cited to be handled sensitively and consistently by the planning system. I believe that the approach that I have outlined will achieve that. I have taken the opportunity in the bill to address that. I have, as you asked in your question, consulted with planning colleagues. That is why I have suggested that it can be put in future Scottish planning policy. The majority of local authorities, while being in favour of a minimum distance, also thought that the decisions about it should remain with the planning authorities. That should be a planning decision. Someone mentioned risk management, which is also considered when authorities consider a planning application. Planning application is the best way to address that with specific planning guidance. I think that that is all. I would ask Mr Wilson to withdraw amendment 1. John Wilson, can I ask you to wind up and press your withdrawal, please? I am pressing my amendment out to remind the minister and the members the comments made by Falkirk Council that I accept that the minister is genuinely trying to find a way to deal with that issue. Unfortunately, at the present time, the planning process does not give me comfort that it would actually sufficiently protect the crematoria and the grounds of crematoria, because the Falkirk submission may be quite clear. That degree of separation should not be determined by the planning process alone, because policies and provisions in local development plan can be overturned on appeal by developers. The difficulty here is that, yes, we have planning guidance, yes, we have planning policy, but at any point in the process, a developer can come along and ask a local authority to amend the local plan to make provision for additional housing. The developer can then appeal that in the first instance to the directorate of planning and environmental appeals and get a ministerial decision. I know myself and the region that I represent where a number of those appeals have been made and have been granted. While I respect the rights of the minister to present the case and say that we need to deal with this in planning matters, clearly for the last 114 years there has been a disjuncture between the legislation that was introduced of the 200-yard rule and what we see at the present moment, where developers on appeal can be granted permission despite the local plan or local planning process that dictates that they want to maintain the separation between crematoria and other buildings. The issue for me, convener, is that I must press this amendment and I hope that the committee's support amendment. Thank you. In which case, the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 1, please show. And those against amendment 1, please show. I have to wait till I get the piece of paper folks. The question on amendment 1 is that amendment 1 in favour, yes, 4 against no, against 3, so amendment 1 is agreed to. Can I call amendment 80, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 66? The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 81, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 66? Thank you. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 43 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 82 to 87 on block, please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? In which case the question is that amendments 82 to 87 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Thank you. The question is that section 44 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 88, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 9? Minister, to move formally. Formally moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 88 to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 89, 145 and 90, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 89, 145 and 90 on block, please? Moved on block. Does anyone object to a single question being put? In which case the question is that amendment 89, 145 and 90 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 45 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 91, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 30? Minister, to move formally, please? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 92, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97? Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 92 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. As introduced, sections 57.2 of the bill contained a power for a local authority to make arrangements for the burial or cremation of persons who were receiving assistance from the authority before their death. This group of amendments changes that power to a duty so that local authorities must ensure that arrangements are made for the burial or cremation of a person who has died where it appears no other arrangements are being made. Amendment 97 removes section 57, the substance of which is inserted by section 56, by amendments 92 and 93. Amendment 95 makes a minor drafting adjustment. Amendment 94 will require a local authority to have regard to the religion or beliefs of the person who has died as far as they are known to the local authority when considering the appropriate method of disposal. The amendment addresses comments raised at stage 1 about the issue. Amendment 96 inserts some definitions into section 56. Religion and belief have the same meaning as given by the Equality Act 2010. Looked after child has the same meaning as given by the Children's Scotland Act 1995. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 93, 94, 95 and 96, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated. The minister can ask you to move amendments 93 to 96 on block. Does anyone object to a single question being put? No. In which case, the question is that amendments 93 to 96 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 56 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 97 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 92. Minister to move formally, please. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 58 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 98 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 99 to 109, 111 to 117, 130, 132 and 137. Minister to move amendment 98 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Amendment 98 changes the job title inspector of crematoriums at section 59 to inspector of cremation. While the policy intention has always been that the inspector should be able to inspect any part of the crematorium of the cremation process, including records relating to decisions about the burial and cremation of the remains of pregnancy losses, this amendment removes any uncertainty. It also brings the job title into line with the broader remit reflected in the roles of inspector of burial and inspector of funeral directors. Amendment 99 leaves out section 60. The amendment in conjunction with amendments made to section 61, amendments 100 to 109, provides greater clarity as to the provisions that can be made in regulations about the powers of inspectors. Amendments 100 to 109 make changes to section 61 to provide additional detail about what regulations made under this section may provide for in relation to the carrying out of inspections by inspectors of burials, inspectors of cremation and inspectors of funeral directors. Amendments 101 to 115 ensure that inspectors are able to inspect any documents, records or registers held by health authorities about decisions in regard to the disposal of the remains of a pregnancy loss. Amendment 111 adds a health authority to the list of those whose premises an inspector may enter in the course of carrying out his or her duties. Amendment 114 adds a further purpose for which an inspector may exercise that power of entry and the other powers conferred by section 62.1 in relation to a health authority. It must only be for the purpose of determining whether the health authority is compliant with duties in relation to such records or registers imposed on it by the bill. Amendments 112 and 113 change references to documents or records to add registers. This ensures that all relevant information can be inspected regardless of the form in which it is held. Amendment 115 defines a health authority as having in effect the same meaning as that provided in section 56 of the bill, a health board or an independent healthcare service. Amendment 116 removes a reference to section 60 from section 63 in consequence of amendment 99. Amendment 117 gives inspectors powers to make recommendations in relation to record keeping in addition to the matters listed in the bill at introduction. The amendment enables inspectors to make recommendations to any of the bodies listed in section 62 about how they might improve the keeping of relevant documents, records and registers. Amendment 130 changes the reference to sections that provide regulation making powers to apply consultation requirements to the exercise of those powers. That is necessary in light of other amendments to the bill. Amendment 132 deletes the reference to section 60 in consequence of amendment 99. Amendment 137 provides a definition of inspector of cremation to mean an inspector of cremation appointed under section 59.1. I move amendment 98. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? Do you forgo your right to wind up, minister? In which case the question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 59 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 99 in the name of the minister? All in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I do not know why I have got to read all of those out, but I have to. Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 100 to 110 on block, please? Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? In which case the question is that amendments 100 to 110 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. The question is that section 61 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 111, 112, 113, 114 and 115 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 111 to 115 on block, please? I move on block, convener. Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? In which case the question is that amendments 111 to 115 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. The question is that section 62 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 116 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 98. Minister, to move formulae, please? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 63 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 117 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 98. Minister, to move formulae, please? Form moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 64 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 118 in the name of the minister? Group with amendments 119, 120 and 121. Minister, can I ask you to move amendment 118 and speak to all amendments in the group, please? Thank you, convener. This group of amendments refines the proposals introduced in section 65 in relation to the licensing of funeral directors. Amendments 118 and 119 will mean that each funeral director's business will require to be licensed should ministers choose to introduce licensing. This is a change from the bill as introduced, which would have required a separate licence for each premises operated by a funeral director. The provisions introduced were seeking to allow a single licence fee to be established, with a different size of businesses reflected in the number of licences required. For example, a business that operated a single funeral parlor would require one licence, while a business that operated five funeral parlers would require five. Those amendments will now require a single licence for each business. If a licensing scheme is introduced, a sliding scale of fees can be developed to reflect businesses of different sizes. Amendment 120 amends the conditions that may be attached to a licence. As introduced, the bill allows the licensing authority to attach such conditions as it saw fit. The amendment restricts conditions to those that are specified in regulations by ministers. That will improve consistency, meaning that only specified conditions can be attached to a licence. Amendment 121 removes references to funeral director's premises. Such references are no longer needed because the intention is to licence businesses rather than premises. Amendment 118, convener. Thank you. Does anyone wish to enter the debate? John Wilson, please. Thank you, convener. Just for clarification, minister, in relation to the one licence for an operator of several funeral premises, what would be the situation if your inspector was to identify that one of those premises was not operating in a manner that was conducive to delivering the service that was expected? Would that licence be revoked for all the premises, or how would we revoke the operation of the business if we just issued one multiple licence for several premises? Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? Minister, could you wind up then, please, and answer Mr Wilson's question to you, please? Because the licence is for the business, it wouldn't probably revoke the licence, but it would be up to the inspector of the crematorium to make recommendations to the minister as to what should happen. The inspector could make conditions in relation to that particular part of that particular premises where there is concern about what is happening at that particular premises, but it wouldn't necessarily affect the other parts of the business. If that one premise was reflecting something that was happening across the businesses, then, obviously, the whole business could be shut down. The question is then, amendment 118, to be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 119? 119, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 65, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 120? Minister, to move forward. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 100, amendment 121, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 118, minister to move formally please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 66 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 122 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 9, minister to move formally please? The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 123 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 30? The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 124 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 30? Minister to move formally please. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 125 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 30? Minister to move formally please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendment 146 in the name of Leslie Brennan? Excuse me, and a group in its own. Leslie Brennan to move and speak to amendment 146 please. Thank you, convener. During stage 1 of the debate, I strongly urge the Scottish Government to go further than their current commitments on the issue of funeral poverty, as grieving families on low incomes need action now. I welcome the Scottish Government's announcement that it's to host the first national conference to tackle funeral poverty. With respect to funeral costs, the Government's amendments could have gone further, whilst it accepted the timing issues with the Scotland Bill. Consequently, I have decided to put forward this amendment to start the process of fully addressing all funeral costs, given my experience of people coming to seek help when they are at their critical point of need. I hope that the committee will support the amendment, given the welfare state's cradle to grave philosophy and in light of the rising funeral costs and an ageing population. I will make use of the academic work by doctors Christine Valentine and Kate Woodthrop from the Centre of Death and Society at the University of Bath, and in particular the paper that they published in the social policy and administration in 2014. The paper states that it is accepted that funeral costs may impose considerable financial burden on those who are left behind, and the burden not only reflects that funeral costs are subject to market forces, but also that bereavement in itself may cause financial hardship. The process of applying for the social fund funeral payment is uncertain and complicated, and due to confusion around eligibility, the way in which family relationships are assessed and how decisions regarding responsibility for funeral costs are made. As a result, claimants are often left feeling frustrated, with increased sense of shame at being unable to afford a funeral. The research suggests that 55 per cent of claimants who receive a funeral payment award experience a substantial shortfall between the contribution awarded and the amount required to meet the funeral cost. Scottish Government data notes that the amount that was typically awarded was approximately £1,300 in 2014-15, and the average cost of a funeral in for the same year is £3,500. The situation is compounded by death being perceived as a private and highly individualised event, accompanied by the lack of widespread culture of preparing for death. Those findings have important implications for existing and potential future demand for public health funerals. Those are basic funerals that local authorities have a statutory obligation to provide, and in circumstances in which an individual dies without anyone being able to or willing to organise and pay for their funeral. That is obviously on to the national assistance fund. In light of the on-going assistance with funeral payments, there is concern that local authorities will be required to provide more public health funerals as the number of deaths per year begins to increase. There is a need to be resolved, and I hope that the next Parliament addresses the issues regarding funeral payment schemes. However, in the meantime, the bill offers an opportunity to start to address it now with the duty that I am proposing in the amendment to provide guidance on costs associated with funerals and, in particular, to include information relating to the desirability of such costs being affordable. Before issuing such guidance, the Scottish Government must consult with the Burial Authorities, Cremation Authorities, funeral directors and any other persons that they consider appropriate. I hope that the committee sees that this is a reasonable amendment, as it is very similar in structure to section 20 of the Procurement Reform Scotland Act 2014. In conclusion, I hope that the committee can support this amendment and, by doing so, the committee will take the first step on the pathway of eradicating funeral poverty. Thank you and I apologise for the rather strange coughing introduction there, Ms Brennan. Does anyone else wish to enter the debate? No. I wonder if, in terms of your summing up minister, if you could tell us what the Government's intention is in this regard. Obviously, as it stands at the moment, we do not have the powers to deal with certain aspects of that. The cabinet secretary, Alex Neil, appeared before the welfare reform committee recently and said that the Government would look at that as those powers were devolved. Do we actually have the ability to do that at this moment in time, and is the Government's intention, if it is re-elected, to look at that in some depth? Minister, please. Thank you, convener. Funeral costs are an issue that has been debated repeatedly throughout the bill's passage so far. The bill's central purpose is to improve legislation governing burial and cremation, and I remain of the view that this bill is not the right vehicle to tackle this issue. Nonetheless, I recognise that funeral costs are an issue of increasing concern. There are some provisions contained in the bill that I think will have an effect on the transparency of funeral costs. For example, I have lodged amendments that will require local authorities to publish their full list of costs associated with burial and cremation. While many local authorities already do that, some do not, and I think that this will be a valuable step towards creating greater transparency of costs. I think that the amendments that were covered by group 12, which we dealt with earlier, press on local authorities' duties to bury or cremate where no one else is able to do so, covers some aspects that Leslie Brennan raised. However, we are unable to force private burial and cremation authorities or funeral directors to publish their costs, because doing so would likely stray into reserved matters. For example, matters related to consumer protection are reserved and cannot be included in the bill. For the same reason, the bill cannot more directly address funeral costs. However, I believe that there are other ways in which we can seek to influence funeral costs. The Scottish Government has worked closely with funeral directors, burial authorities and cremation authorities in developing the bill and will continue to do so when implementing it. As the new legislation comes into force, I will expect those sectors to continue to work with us to consider how best to address issues surrounding the variation in funeral costs, the transparency of funeral costs and the provision of low-cost funerals. The bill allows various inspectors to be appointed, as well as the introduction of codes of practice and guidance. Those will, I think, help to encourage consistent best practice, including in relation to funeral costs. The Scottish Government is undertaking other work to address funeral costs and particularly funeral poverty. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners writes commissioned work on funeral poverty specifically and that work reported on 3 February. In response to the report's publication, the cabinet secretary has indicated that he will undertake a range of work to address funeral poverty, including speeding up the time taken to make decisions about funeral payments once responsibility for that is devolved to Scotland. The cabinet secretary also intends to work with stakeholders to develop other ways to support people to plan ahead for the cost of a funeral. In addition, the cabinet secretary has also recently published advice to the general public about what to do when faced with having to organise a funeral. That includes advice on costs, including ways to reduce costs while still providing a dignified and respectful funeral. That is important work that should have a significant impact on funeral poverty in the long term. Leslie Brennan's amendment seeks to allow ministers to publish guidance on funerals costs. I support the principle behind Leslie Brennan's amendment, but I believe that the work that has already been undertaken by the Scottish Government will achieve the same end. I do not believe that amendment is the right way to achieve those outcomes. I therefore invite Leslie Brennan to withdraw amendment 146. Ms Brennan, I owe you an apology because during my cough and fat, I did not really notice that you had not actually moved. Can I ask you to move and then I will ask you to wind up and press her withdrawal? Do you move your amendment? I do. Can I ask you now to wind up and press her withdrawal, please? I just want to say that it is disappointing that the minister is not willing to support this amendment. When I went through with the legal team about it, we were very aware of the remit of this Parliament and the constraints upon it, given the timing. However, when you look at the consultation responses, there were a large number of respondents who really want action now in this bill, addressing funeral poverty. I think that this amendment is a step in that direction. It is about, although I accept that the Scottish Government is taking other steps, but it is about putting it in the legislation, looking at consulting with not just the local authorities. The local authority cost of a funeral is only about a third of the total cost. I feel that we need to consult with funeral directors and other persons appropriate. When I mentioned about the University of Bath, I would suggest that the minister get in contact with that centre. It has a lot of data on the full cost of funerals. I will press ahead with the amendment, because it is not outwith the remit of the Parliament. It is about stepping in the right direction and putting something on the face of the bill. The question is, then, that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? In which case we go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 146, please show, and those against amendment 146, please show. I wait for the bit of paper. Even though I can, the scores and the doors would have been said in the generation game. Those in favour of amendment 146, please show, and those against amendment 146, please show. The question is, that section 69 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 126 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 8. The question is, that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Can I call amendment 127 in the name of the minister? Already debated with amendment 8. Minister to move formally, please. The question is, that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is, that section 70 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The question is that section 71 be agreed to and are we all agreed? Amendment 128 in the name of the minister has already debated with amendment 13. The question is that section 72 be agreed to and are we all agreed. Amendment 129 in the name of the minister has already debated with amendment 33. Iain The question is that amendment 130 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 73 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 131, 132 and 133, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 131 to 133 on block, please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? No. The question is that amendment 131 to 133 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 74 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Can I call amendments 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 and 141, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 134 to 141 on block, please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? No. In which case, the question is that amendments 134 to 141 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that section 75 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 76 and 77 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that schedule 1 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 78 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Can I call amendments 142, 143 and 144, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Minister, can I ask you to move amendments 142 to 144 on block, please? Moved on block. Thank you. Does anyone object to a single question being put? The question is that amendments 142 to 144 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question is that schedule 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that section 79 to 81 be agreed to, are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank you all very much for your forbearance, particularly during the course of coughing. Thank you minister. I suspend for a couple of minutes to allow the witnesses to leave.